CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 8, 1997
Bill C-396. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9417
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9417
Bill C-397. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9417
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9418
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9418
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9418
Bill C-27. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotion No. 1 9418
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 9419
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.48 a.m.) 9419
The House resumed at 10.58 a.m. 9419
Bill C-17. Report stage 9419
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9427
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9434
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9437
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9444
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9448
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9448
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9449
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9450
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9452
Motion for concurrence 9453
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 117; Nays, 78 9453
Motion for concurrence 9454
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 117; Nays, 77 9455
Bill C-27. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotion No. 1 9456
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 77;Nays 117 9456
Motion for concurrence 9457
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 193; Nays, 0 9457
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of report stage andof motion 9458
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9469
Consideration resumed of motion and the amendmentand the amendment to the amendment.
9469
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9469
9417
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 8, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages
Act, I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report of the
Commissioner of Official Languages covering the calendar year
1996.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this report is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh
report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated February 19, 1997, your
committee has adopted Bill C-79, an act to permit certain
modifications to the application of the Indian Act to bands that
desire them and has agreed to report it as amended.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank and commend all
members from all sides for the work they have done on that
committee.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to table the ninth report of the finance committee of the
House of Commons.
This represents major amendments worked out in consultation
with the industry to Bill C-82, dealing with Canada's financial
institutions. This is the culmination of a process put in place well
over a year ago by the Minister of State for International Financial
Institutions, one in which submissions were asked for from
interested parties which resulted in a white paper. This white paper
was the subject of extensive public discussions and consultations
last fall and the amendments resulting from that process and the
changes are included in this report.
This has been an excellent process. We recommend it to other
ministers and we congratulate the minister of state for this process
and the results of it. I would also like to thank all members of the
committee from all parties who have worked so diligently on this
matter.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, an act to restrict the use of
the Internet to distribute pornographic material involving children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a private
member's bill, the purpose of which is to deal with the problem of
child pornography on the Internet. We have good legislation in
Canada which prohibits the production, distribution, sale and
possession of child pornography, but with modern technology we
have to address these concerns in a new way.
(1010 )
The bill would do two things. It would licence the Internet
service providers and ensure that they co-operated to minimize the
use of the Internet for the publication and proliferation of child
pornography. It would also restrict those who have committed
serious child sex offences from access to the Internet.
This is a serious problem in Canada and across the world which
needs to be addressed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed).
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Immigration
Act (reimbursement).
9418
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private
member's bill entitled an act to amend the Immigration Act
regarding reimbursement.
The bill provides that a person is entitled to reimbursement of
the right of landing fee if the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration is satisfied that the person resided elsewhere in
Canada than in a specified census metropolitan area between the
day the person was granted landing and the day the person received
a certificate of citizenship.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents in
Calgary North. The petitioners ask that anyone convicted for a
second time of a sexual offence against children be prevented from
being released back into society.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour under Standing Order 36 to
present three petitions.
The first petition has several hundred signatures reciting the
concerns of Canadians with human rights in China, and with the
proposed Candu sale to China.
The petitioners request that Parliament cancel the planned sale
of Candu reactors to China and immediately withdraw from all
arrangements concerning financial and technical assistance to
China for nuclear reactor technology.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have a second petition which decries the lack of
a federal strategy for highways. Canada is the only country in the
world without a national strategy for highways.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to conduct a
full public inquiry into the relationship between lending
institutions and the judiciary and to enact legislation restricting the
appointment of judges with ties to credit granting institutions.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of
the Scarborough area who call on the Government of Canada to
suspend its negotiations with the province of Ontario in connection
with the proposed transfer of administration of social housing
responsibilities and administration of funding to the provincial
level until their has been adequate consultation with the
stakeholders in the co-operative housing community in Ontario.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, 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.
_____________________________________________
9418
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1015)
[English]
The House resumed from April 7 consideration of Bill C-27, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (child prostitution, child sex
tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation), as
reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of MotionNo. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion,
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
9419
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(1045 )
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division stands deferred until the end of Government Orders today.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, there are some ongoing
discussions among the parties as to the future business the House
will take up for the remainder of the day. I would ask if we could
suspend the House for five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the wish
of the House to suspend the sitting?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.48 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 10.58 a.m.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I ask that the member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, be permitted to propose
two amendments to Bill C-17 at the commencement of report
stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to
amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-17 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 48 the following:
1995, c. 22, s.6
``107.1 Paragraph 742.1(b) of the act is replaced by the following:
(b) is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the
safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and
principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2,''
That Bill C-17 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 66 the following:
1996, c.34
An act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and
another act
139.1 Section 8 of an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act is replaced by the following:
8. Paragraph 745.63(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 2 of this
act, applies in respect of hearings held after the coming into force of this section with
respect to applications for judicial review in respect of crimes committed before or
after the coming into force of this section.
(1100)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The two
amendments moved by the hon. parliamentary secretary are
deemed moved.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just wanted to
be clear. Are we taking these two amendments separately? We will
debate this one and then you will read the second one when we are
finished this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is right.
We are debating the first amendment.
(1105 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we will
be supporting this amendment as it appears to be an addition to Bill
C-41 and could not be brought in at this time without the
unanimous consent of members of this House.
This amendment goes back to the conditional sentencing
contained within Bill C-41. The particulars of that bill encourage
the courts to use conditional sentencing. Since this bill was
proclaimed there have been at least two occasions where convicted
rapists have been allowed to walk free while their female victims
are cowering in their homes because they are afraid to walk on the
streets alone. It is absolutely unacceptable that this danger was
brought forward at the time this bill was being examined at
committee stage.
The government insisted on ramming this thing through and
allowing violent offenders access to conditional sentencing. The
government would not limit the provisions or the application by the
courts of conditional sentencing and it still is not narrowing it. It is
still not reducing the application of this portion of Bill C-41, the
conditional sentencing portion.
What this amendment does is it simply reiterates what the courts
already do. Do any of the judges release anyone on conditional
sentence if they feel that the public is in danger? Of course not.
What does this amendment do? It does not alter the discretion of
the court to use conditional sentencing. It simply states that it must
be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not
endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent
9420
with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out
in section 718 and 718.2.
What can the people of Canada, who are concerned about violent
crime, draw from this? The justice minister has once again bungled
in creating this bill which allows violent offenders and rapists to
walk the street as they do today without seeing one day of a
sentence in jail. This is wrong and it is the wrong signal for this
government, which brags about its care and concern for the rights
of the victims, to be sending.
We have at least two rape victims cowering in their homes while
their assailants walk the streets free on conditional sentencing. This
amendment will do nothing to support that. It suggests to the
judges that they do what they already do. Is any judge going to
release someone on conditional sentence if the circumstances
indicate that the individual may be a danger?
What does this amendment say to the judges? It says ``You must
be satisfied. You have not been satisfied in the past so you now
must be satisfied. We do not trust you so we are putting this in the
code which states that you must be satisfied that serving a sentence
in the community will not endanger anyone. However, if it is your
opinion that a rapist should walk free you can certainly go ahead
and do it because we are not going to restrict the application of this
law. No, we are simply going to cover our rear end because we are
facing an election''. The government wants to say that it has done
something through this amendment to create a safer society. This is
nonsense.
We in the Reform Party asked the justice committee if it would
not consider restricting the application not only of conditional
sentencing but alternative measures.
(1110)
Violent offenders also have access to the alternative measures
portion of Bill C-41. We introduced an amendment that would
exempt violent offenders from access to alternative measures and it
was denied. It was turned down. It was killed by the Liberal
members who hold a majority on the justice committee.
Now we see where cases are being appealed in Alberta, B.C. and
Ontario over conditional sentencing. This is what has moved the
justice minister to take unprecedented action to ask unanimous
consent of this House to bring in an amendment to Bill C-17 which
has nothing whatever to do with Bill C-17 but which has a lot to do
with the bungling that occurred back in Bill C-41. Very clearly this
amendment is not going to restrict the discretion of the courts to
free violent offenders on conditional sentencing, and that is what
this is all about.
The justice minister is placing at risk innocent people by not
restricting the courts from the use of conditional sentencing
because they can continue to allow violent offenders to walk free,
as has been the case with the two rapists I referred to earlier, while
their victims cower in fear in their homes.
This is a do nothing amendment. When the justice minister had
the opportunity to correct the error in Bill C-41 in the area of
conditional sentencing simply by restricting it to non-violent
offences he failed to do that. He refuses to do that just like he
refuses to do anything to deny first degree murder as a shot at early
parole after serving just 15 years in spite of the fact that hundreds
and thousands of Canadians have lobbied this government through
petitions and letters to our members of Parliament to eliminate
section 745.
When it came time for the justice minister to make a decision he
decided in favour of the criminal and against the victims of crime
and the safety of society. He wants the criminals, the first degree
murderers and others, to have a shot early parole just like he wants
the violent offenders, the rapists of this country, to have a shot at
conditional sentencing.
Why does the justice minister not consider the safety of society
and restrict the application of conditional sentencing to non-violent
offences? He would have the support certainly of the members of
the Reform Party caucus and all members of this House because
that would be reasonable. It is not reasonable to allow a rapist out
free on conditional sentencing. It is not fair and it is not reasonable.
The deficiency of judgment expressed by the justice minister
over the last three and half years runs like a current throughout
many of his decisions and initiatives since he has taken up the
justice portfolio. This is only one more example of the deficiency
of judgment of the justice minister. He is refusing to respond to the
cries of people across this land and the common sense of the
majority of Canadians. He is refusing to respond to that.
He is going to continue to allow the courts wide application of
conditional sentencing that has led to his concern to bring this
about in the first place. What does it do? He is going to simply be
able to stand up and say ``We have done our best. We have issued a
caution in the Criminal Code through this amendment to the courts
that you must not use conditional sentence if you fear that
conditional sentence will create a danger to society''. Of course
every judge in the country makes those considerations at the time
of sentencing.
(1115 )
Yes, Reform members will go along with this but it will have
absolutely no impact whatsoever. The justice minister had a chance
to reduce the application of this portion of Bill C-41 and failed to
do it. He will answer on the hustings in the next election for this
degree of incompetence.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this amendment to Bill C-17. I do not know
what I can say that my hon. friend has not already said in a very
forceful way. I would argue that if anyone speaks out for Canadians
who are concerned about crime in this country it is the hon.
9421
member for Crowfoot and his colleagues on the Reform Party's
criminal justice team.
One concern I have when I look at how the justice system is
administered is that the government seems to fail to learn from its
mistakes. My friend has pointed out two instances that we know of
where judges have decided that rapists should walk away from a
conviction, spending no time in jail while their innocent victims sit
in their homes fearful that this crime will be perpetrated again, that
the offenders will rape again.
Who among us in this place has not at one time or another
considered what it would be like to have that happen to someone in
our families. People do think about it in horror. Thankfully, most of
us come to our senses and realize that it did not happen to us. But
for a second we understand what those people go through. In a very
small way we come to understand.
That is why as legislators we should always be attentive to what
these people go through and it should be the basis on which we
make some of the laws that the justice minister is ultimately
responsible for bringing about.
In this situation, has the justice minister really tried to put
himself in the shoes of victims? I do not think so. Somehow he has
decided against what he probably feels in his own stomach. Who
for one second could side with the criminal in a situation where two
men have raped women and walked away without even spending a
day in jail?
I would suggest it is implied that when the justice minister
brings forward legislation, the legislation is the most important
piece of legislation to the minister. Considering all the things he
could do, he has decided that this one piece of legislation is the
most important to him based on whatever input he receives and
what he considers to be important.
However, for some reason the minister has decided that the most
important piece of legislation he can bring down right now is a
caution to judges to consider all the various things they already do
consider when they sentence violent criminals.
The answer is not to caution judges again to pay attention to the
details. That already happens in Bill C-41. Rather obviously some
judges cannot be trusted to use their God given common sense to
not release violent criminals back into society without spending a
single day in jail.
My hon. friends from Crowfoot, Wild Rose, Calgary Northeast
and Fraser Valley West, members of the Reform Party criminal
justice team, have suggested over and over again to the justice
minister and to the people who are willing to listen that the answer
is to not allow violent offenders to walk out. There should be no
latitude for judges on issues such as this.
What is the government supposed to do? The first thing the
federal government should do is uphold the law of the country. It
should protect the public from violent criminals. The federal
government with its budget of $120 billion odd, not including all
the interest paid on the debt, does numerous things. Probably the
first thing that a government should do is ensure there are proper
laws and that the public is protected. That should be the greatest
priority of a government.
(1120)
I would argue that this government has failed. There are so many
examples of how the government has absolutely ignored what is
common sense that it is simply beyond belief that it can be allowed
to enjoy any support from the public.
How is it that convicted mass murderers can come before the
public again to torment the families of the victims, such as in the
Clifford Olson case? How can they do that? The government can sit
idly by doing virtually nothing except, as we get close to an
election, respond in a kind of fearful way because it realizes that
maybe the public is upset and it is going to pay a price at the polls.
That is not acting from conviction. That is opportunism. That is
simply not a good enough motive. I just cannot say enough in
opposition to what the government has done.
As my hon. friend pointed out, Reform members will support the
government. We will do anything we think in some tiny way may
send a message that we will not tolerate the ridiculous problem
with crime. I say ridiculous because it is counter intuitive. It is
contrary to common sense how we treat criminals considering
especially how poorly so often we treat victims.
We will support the government amendment but we do it with
the caveat that from here on in the government must pay attention
to what is going on out there. It is simply not good enough at the
last moment to try to come up with some window dressing to try to
fool the public so that they will believe that the Liberal government
is actually concerned about crime.
When we look at the role of the federal government with respect
to these sorts of issues, one of the things that strikes me is that for
the last 30 years there has not been a party that has been dedicated
to the idea that criminal justice should be a key issue in an election
campaign. Previous to that just about every government took a
common sense approach to criminal justice. People understood
intuitively, they had common sense, that criminals must be treated
in a way they deserve to be treated. They should have consequences
for their actions.
However, in the last 30 years that has been thrown out the
window. For some reason people got it into their heads that the
criminals were the victims. All of a sudden they started to get all of
these rights. We saw perhaps the climax of that notion in the form
of the government's approach to conditional sentencing where it
allows judges the latitude to release people who are violent
9422
offenders, people who have gone out and raped people. That
happened under this government.
That speaks more eloquently to the government's priorities with
respect to criminal justice than anything I can say in this place. I
ask people to examine the record of the government, not just in the
last couple of days when it is trying to jam things through, but on
the issues that really count. When people needed it I can guarantee
that the government did not stand up for them. It was deaf to the
cries of the victims and the people who demanded that there be real
justice in the justice system.
It is with some reluctance that we support anything that the
government does with respect to criminal justice, knowing its sorry
record with respect to hearing what victims have to say and with
respect to respecting the wishes of the great majority of
law-abiding citizens.
(1125 )
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I too would like to make some comments about these last minute
and hurried additions or so-called amendments to Bill C-17. These
are really the justice minister's belated attempt to close some of the
gaping holes left when he introduced Bill C-41.
Some very clear and strong objections and concerns were voiced
by other members of the House, including those of my party, about
the eventual effect of Bill C-41 on the area of conditional release
and alternative sentencing.
The justice minister has finally figured out that he has not served
the Canadian public well with some of the measures he has brought
in. Now on the eve of an election, realizing that public concern is
growing about these issues, he is trying to stop some of the
problems with this legislation.
In this amendment the justice minister is directing judges to
satisfy themselves that alternative sentencing and serving
sentences in the community would ``not endanger the safety of the
community''. I am sure many Canadians are asking themselves
why on earth the justice minister would even have to tell judges
this. Surely the whole point of having a justice system is to protect
the safety of families and communities. If that is not the purpose,
why on earth do we have a justice system?
The priorities and the direction of the justice system are so out of
line, so out of tune with its fundamental purpose, that the justice
minister has to introduce an amendment telling judges to consider
whether sentences that are being imposed under discretion might
be endangering the safety of the community. This was brought in
against the better judgment of a lot of people by this justice
minister. These are the new alternatives which the justice minister
touted so loudly just a few months ago. My colleagues who spoke
before pointed out very clearly and specifically where these
measures have endangered the safety of the community.
More than that, in our society when people are wronged, when
their rights are violated, when their safety is imperilled and they go
to the authorities, to our justice system, to the defenders of public
safety, they should expect that the problem will be looked after, at
least to a reasonable degree.
But here we have violent criminals who not only have violated
the safety of other people but are causing people to live in fear.
People are living with a lack of a feeling of security, looking over
their shoulders wondering if it is the guy who beat them up or if the
person who violated their rights is on the street beside them
because there have been no substantial consequences. Why?
Because the justice minister has decided that even though people
violate the rights of others, even though people have taken away
the freedoms and liberties of ordinary, innocent law-abiding
citizens, these criminals can still be put back out in the community
to do good works, which is a bit of a stretch when we consider these
people have shown themselves to be quite willing to break laws in
the first place.
We are glad that to a small degree the gaping holes in the
fundamental structure of our society which is supposed to protect
us, supposed to give us a feeling of safety and security and ease in
our daily lives has been recognized and some attempts have been
made to address it. That is a better alternative to saying, ``well
judges, you should really look at whether the community safety is
being protected by what you are doing''. It would be better to say,
as we have repeatedly urged the justice minister: ``If you violently
violate the rights of other people, if you are a violent criminal, if
you have committed a violent act against another innocent
law-abiding citizen, you will not be sent back out on to the the
streets under alternative sentencing or community based
sentencing. That is not appropriate for these violent offences''.
(1130 )
I have no idea why the justice minister did not get it right for a
change. Instead he is telling judges to look at this matter. When we
continue to have violent criminals on the streets causing citizens to
live in fear and imperilling their security and safety, the justice
minister can say that he told the courts to think about public safety
and they did not listen so it is their fault.
That is just not good enough for a minister who is supposed to be
helping our citizens to feel safe and secure in their homes and
communities. He is there to make sure that when there is a violent
offence or assault against one of our citizens it is dealt with in a
serious manner and with some serious consequences.
9423
Although we are not in the mood to oppose even the faintest
moves on the part of the justice minister to try to correct some
of the soft spots in the legislation, I must say there are many better
ways to do it. I urge the justice minister not to take baby steps
but to take a serious look at our justice system and at the fact that
we need safety and protection for our society. He should get it
right and move in a substantive way on these measures instead
of taking these timid steps.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the
amendments being proposed to Bill C-17 this morning.
I was sitting in the justice committee when we dealt with Bill
C-41 dealing with changes to the sentencing act. Not only Reform
members of that committee but also some Liberal members pointed
out that the changes to the sentencing act could cause problems.
Some of the problems would be in the area of specific crimes or
offences and alternative sentencing. Alternative sentences or the
use of other means other than incarceration were not specifically
for non-violent crimes. It was left open for the courts to consider its
use for all crimes. Not only Reform members but also some Liberal
members were very concerned about leaving this section wide open
for the courts to use.
Over the last number of months we saw in a riding next to mine
where a violent rapist was given an alternative sentence without
any days of incarceration. He was let back into the community to
carry out his sentence in his own home. If I remember the
comment, it was that being confined to his own home was like
being jailed. If that is the case, if there is no difference between
being confined to home or locked away in a prison, there is
something wrong with our prison system.
That problem was indicated at committee stage before the
legislation returned to the House at report stage. Why did the
government not consider those amendments at that time? Why was
it that the justice minister and his department went ahead with the
bill in its written form rather than seriously consider amendments
proposed at the committee stage that would have dealt with the
issue before the bill was read for a third time and passed?
The justice minister and his department were remiss. They were
close minded in their consideration of committee
recommendations that would have made it a better piece of
legislation. The justice minister and his department were very set
on seeing the bill go through as it was written.
(1135)
I find it ironic that probably a year later the justice minister
realizes he had made a mistake and should have listened to the
committee input. Now he is rectifying that by amendment. As a
matter of fact he is looking at it as an amendment to an omnibus
bill that was written before. He did not even pick it up when the
omnibus bill was written.
We are dealing with an amendment that is only been dealt with
by unanimous consent of all parties in the House. We recognize the
importance of the courts knowing that limitations should be set. I
am very disappointed that limitations are not being set and that the
justice minister is cautioning the courts. I cannot say how many
times the House has had to deal with legislation because the
instruction through our laws has not been clear enough for the
Federal Court to make a clear and concise decision.
Once again an amendment to a bill is being proposed. We are
supporting it, knowing that it is not the right way to deal with the
issue. All we are doing is cautioning judges. We are not giving
them specific and exact law under which they can make their
decisions. We will still have problems with the alternative
sentencing aspect of the criminal justice system. It frustrates me to
no end when we have input from very capable members of the
House of Commons who can foresee these types of instances
coming up and make recommendations to solidify it or to tighten
up the law so that it is very clear to all who deal with it. Yet that is
disregarded.
I support the amendment but I caution the government and the
Minister of Justice that it will not solve the problem. He has
stopped short of identifying definite areas where alternative
sentencing should be used. There is no way that Canadians will
support the use of alternative sentencing for dangerous offenders.
There is no way Canadians will support this kind of alternative
sentencing for people who have caused physical harm to another
human being such as the sexual assault offence in my neighbouring
constituency. The people of Canada will just not accept the fact that
a person can physically and viciously assault another individual
and be confined to home. It makes a mockery of the justice system.
In my riding Clifford Olson is coming back this summer for his
hearing. That was another issue the committee dealt with in Bill
C-41 to prevent it from happening and to make sure there would
not be an opportunity for such an individual to obtain a section 745
review. Did the minister listen at that time? Absolutely not. It was
not just opposition members bringing in amendments. It was
government members sitting on that committee who felt it needed
to be dealt with.
Once again we have an issue before the people of Canada
because of the inability of the justice minister to do what is right
for the country. I look forward to the day when he wakes up one
morning, realizes something more needs to be done on that issue
and presents another amendment. Hopefully it can be in the
omnibus bill before we adjourn the House.
We support the omnibus bill very reluctantly because it will not
solve the problems. It just puts them off for another day. Rather
than stand in the way of any movement in the right direction, we
9424
find ourselves forced to support some very weak attempts at
correcting some problems in the justice system.
I would like to feel that the justice minister is beginning to
realize that Canadians across the country are looking to him and to
the government to do something to protect them, to change the
laws, and to put emphasis on penalizing the offenders and
recognizing the rights of the victims.
(1140)
Canadians would like to think the justice minister and the
government are concerned about their safety and the safety of their
children. We really do not get that feeling. We find a hesitation on
the part of the justice minister to react. He reacts only under
pressure instead of dealing with the issues when they first come to
committee and are first drafted in legislation.
The justice minister should and could be doing something to
ensure that Canadians are safe in their homes and on their streets.
We in the Reform Party find he has fallen far short of ensuring
Canadians of that protection. He has fallen short in giving specific
guidelines to our courts in areas such as alternative measures and
impact statements from victims.
Why is it after the fact that he realizes victims should be
guaranteed the right to make an impact statement and to be heard
so that courts and juries can understand the impact of the offence
committed against them. Why is that kind of concern after the fact?
Why does that kind of concern seem to be a second thought?
Canadians expect a lot more from the justice minister and from
their government.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by saying that I am very
happy to see the government bringing back Bill C-17 so that it can
be duly passed, in light of all that is going on in Quebec with the
biker war.
On a number of occasions now, the Minister of Justice has told
us that with Bill C-17 a series of things would be changed, which is
supposed to make the work of the police easier. However, Bill C-17
went to first reading on March 8, 1996. For a bill that is as good as
this one, it took the government a little while to table it so that we
could give our views on it.
I will be able to come back to this at third reading and go into
further detail. Right now, I understand that the debate is on the
amendment presented by the government. I must say from the
outset that we are in favour of this amendment in principle. If you
followed the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois in the House as well
as in committee at all, you will know that we have always favoured
rehabilitating people in conflict with the law and returning them to
society. In my view, the government's amendment is along these
lines. You will therefore understand that we support it in principle.
I do not know if people realize it, but something rather
extraordinary also took place this morning with respect to Bill
C-17, in that the House gave unanimous consent to present
amendments at this stage.
When we are dealing with an issue of importance to society,
whether we are talking about Quebec or about Canada, all parties
are able to set aside politics and move ahead with an extremely
important bill; we did so this morning with two government
amendments. We unanimously consented to the introduction of
these amendments by the government.
My comment to the government across the way is that, if it had
shown a little more political will, it could have tabled other
amendments in line with what the Government of Quebec was
asking for regarding an anti-biker gang bill. If the members
opposite had had the political will to resolve what is a horrendous
problem for Quebec, we could have proceeded in the same way,
that is with amendments at this stage, and again we would all have
given our unanimous consent, because this terrible problem must
be resolved once and for all.
But instead the government again decided to turn a deaf ear, as it
did with Bill C-17, since this bill was tabled on March 8, 1996 and
it is now April 8, 1997. The government could have moved this bill
along, since it tells us that police forces are depending on it to
resolve certain problems.
(1145)
On the substance, then, I have nothing to say. This is an
amendment in keeping with the major orientations of the Bloc
Quebecois, but I would like to send a message to the Minister of
Justice and perhaps also the law clerks on the way these
amendments are presented to us. We had a major job deciphering
what was presented to us. We had amendments in English, and
amendments in French that were not necessarily exact translations.
The Criminal Code has to be consulted in order to see that, in fact,
there are subparagraphs (a) and (b) in English, while in French
there is a single paragraph.
I believe that the Minister of Justice and the hundred or so law
clerks working with him ought to have thought of making changes
at this stage so that a lawyer arguing a case in court could make
himself understood, regardless of whether he is speaking in English
or in French. I do not know whether subparagraphs, like those in
the English version, make it easier to understand; if so, perhaps the
French version should have the same structure.
I was just saying to the law clerks seated at the table-and this is
not aimed at them, since I understand that this is a Department of
Justice directive-that, if a lawyer is pleading a case in French
9425
against an anglophone colleague who cites subparagraph 742.1(b)
to the judge, he will think the French version is not up to date
because there is no subparagraph to section 742.1. I think there is a
problem here. Is it merely a language-related problem? Is it really
just to respect the French and English ways of drafting texts?
Perhaps, but still lawyers must not be prevented from
understanding each other in a court of law.
I believe that the French and English texts ought to be designated
and structured in the same way. If there are subparagraphs in one
text, there must also be subparagraphs in the other, whether in
English or in French. So the problem was at the translation level,
since the section is a very technical one. I still feel it is important at
some point to ensure that the texts match, so that there may be true
understanding.
But, for the people of Quebec who are following the
debates-when someone states that he is for, or against, a given
clause, for example-I think that they should know why their Bloc
Quebecois MPs are in favour of this amendment, and I shall finish
on this point. This is an amendment to Bill C-17, which modifies a
series of sections in the Criminal Code dealing with suspended
sentencing, or more specifically the amendment which we are
addressing.
As I have just pointed out, although there are subparagraphs to
section 742.1 in the English version, there are none in French.
Section 742.1 would read as follows:
742.1 If a person convicted of an offence, other than an offence for which a
minimum prison term exists, is sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment, the
court may, if it ``is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not
endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental
purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2'', order the
offender to serve his sentence in the community so as to supervise the offender's
behaviour, subject to the conditions imposed pursuant to section 742.3.
The Bloc Quebecois has no hesitation in supporting an
amendment that stresses the reintegration and rehabilitation of a
person who has been charged with an offence. This is about
reintegrating someone as quickly as possible in the community so
that he becomes a law abiding citizen. This may be someone who
has been in trouble with the law and was subsequently given
counselling and treated for certain problems or a person who has
changed his ways and can be quickly reintegrated in the community
if he does not endanger public safety.
(1150)
I was listening to what reform members had to say this morning.
It may be something they experience in Western Canada, and their
speeches probably reflect the positions of their constituents, but I
thing that in Quebec, we are not that pessimistic about reintegrating
these people in the community.
There is a difference between what is reported by members from
Western Canada and our experience in Quebec. I agree we have
certain fundamental principles, we have laws that regulate parole
and the whole system, but I think we should pay special attention to
this whole area of reintegration, and above all, we should not
prevent anyone from being reintegrated into society. As I see it, the
positive aspect of this amendment is that it supports reintegration
while including some very important safety measures.
That is why I am pleased to support this amendment to Bill C-17,
an amendment the official opposition in the House of Commons
has been waiting for for a long time, and this morning it is pleased
to support this amendment, so that Bill C-17 can be passed as soon
as possible.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I feel pleased and I feel sad about feeling compelled to
rise in the debate on this issue. The good part of it is that I think this
is moving in the right direction. The sad part of it is that it puts
absolutely no restrictions on the environment or on the conditions
under which a person can be released into society.
I would like to focus this in terms of several questions. First, the
amendment says that the judge be satisfied that serving the
sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the
community. The first question very obviously is what would
constitute evidence or support for a judge to suggest he is satisfied
that releasing this particular offender into the community will not
put into jeopardy or endanger the safety of that community? Could
it be that we send the offender out for an experimental period and
then if he is okay for five days, six days, seven days it is all right?
The previous speaker has indicated that we want to rehabilitate
our criminals. Of course we want to do that. Of course we want
people to obey the law. Of course we want them to behave in a
reasonable way. But that is not what this is all about.
This suggests that the judge use some common sense. Has it
really come to the point where our justice system, our legal system
is in such a depraved condition that we have to legislate to use
common sense? It should be obvious that we use our common
sense.
That is essentially what this amendment does. I am not at all
satisfied that this will deal with the problem of criminal offenders
in our society.
There was an amendment that was proposed by members of the
Reform Party. It had several Liberal backbenchers as well
supporting it. It was that the use of alternate measures be limited to
non-violent offenders.
This amendment does not do anything of that sort. It allows any
person to be considered for alternate measures. To give an example
of how these alternate measures have been used, let me quote from
9426
a news article: ``A Gatineau man was recently convicted for
repeatedly forcing his young step sons to perform sexual acts on
their hypnotized mother. The crimes ended by the early 1970s, and
in the years that followed he was by all accounts a solid citizen.
The judge let him go without serving a day in prison. Two decades
of good behaviour obviously should count for something''.
(1155 )
What does this tell people who offend the law? It means go
ahead, commit the crime and behave yourself after that and there
are no consequences. If we did that to the law of gravity and said
that we did not think that the law of gravity operates and then
walked along the top of a building, the consequence would not be
delayed for 20 years, it would be immediate. That is exactly what
should happen in our justice system.
Too many people are beginning to recognize that our legal
system is nothing but a system of technicalities to get people away
from the consequences that would normally be expected for
breaking the law. That would be a common sense application of the
law. Deal with the consequences and we must accept the
consequences if we break the law.
Instead of that we have legal technicalities that allow people to
avoid the consequences of breaking the law. What we need to do in
this society is create a legal system that is a justice system.
Where is the intent of Parliament? Is it really true that all the
members of this House want from the justice people in this country
is to use their common sense? Is that all the judges need to do? Or
are they to use their imagination by telling someone that for this
crime there is this consequence but for that crime there is another
consequence? The sentencing does not really matter because it is
all up to the judge. It is a free for all depending on what the
situation is.
That is what has brought disrespect for the justice system. That
is what has brought disrespect for lawyers. It has allowed them to
use technicalities when they know full well that somebody has
broken the law and is guilty of a heinous crime but on a technicality
walks away free. That is a miscarriage of justice and is not in the
interest of society.
It goes on. Where is the confidence that needs to be generated in
our justice system if there are no consequences of breaking the
law? Our young people need to develop strong personalities and
strong characters from good examples. They do not need a father
who takes his step son and forces him to commit sexual acts on his
hypnotized mother. That is the opposite of the kind of example we
want.
What we need are strong families, families that have integrated
into the lives of the children the values that clearly demonstrate
what is right and what is wrong. It has come to the point where it is
almost as if there is no difference between what is right and what is
wrong. When will we be able to inculcate into the lives of our
children, the thinking of our children and the consciences of our
children that says this is right and this is wrong? We support that
which is right and we have consequences for that which is wrong
and they are not good.
I want to go one step further. It has to do with the victims who
are involved here. We have had much said about the rights of
victims. We have had much said about the rights of offenders.
However, when the two rights come in conflict, the rights of the
victim on the one hand and the rights of the offender on the other,
the rights of the victim ought to take precedence over the rights of
the offender.
Let us now put into perspective the situation of allowing into a
community someone who has committed a violent offence. The
consequence should be incarceration or some serious punishment
for someone who has committed a violent crime. However, when
someone is released into the community to serve the sentence what
have we done to the victims? We have created an environment of
fear for them. Instead of the offender being in prison, the victims
find themselves in fear of going out on to the streets. They are
afraid to leave their homes. Who is suffering the consequence of
this crime? It is not the person who offended but the person who is
the victim and continues to be victimized, not just the one against
whom the crime was perpetrated but also all others in the
neighbourhood who cower in fear and are afraid to go out on to the
streets.
I asked a number of people at a recent meeting if they felt safer
today than they did three and a half years ago. They answered no. I
asked them why. They said it was because our legal system is not a
justice system but a technical system. Parliament has not given
clear direction to our judges as to how punishment should be
administered. We do not like to hear stories like this where a father
can do this kind of thing.
(1200 )
Let me give another example. In British Columbia a man was
convicted for abducting and sodomizing a single mother. The
actions were described to the court by a psychologist as aggressive,
angry, controlling and sadistic. The judge, however, was impressed
that the man's behaviour while on bail was exemplary and
psychological assessments indicated that he was unlikely to
reoffend. Although a convicted rapist he will never see the inside of
a prison.
That is what our justice system has come to. What does this
amendment do to solve that kind of situation? Nothing. It moves in
the direction but it does not indicate to a judge that we want persons
who commit heinous and violent crimes to be subjected to serious
consequences somewhat equal to the crimes committed.
9427
Our first and foremost consideration is to preserve the health,
welfare, lives and property of law-abiding citizens and not to
prefer the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim.
We will support the amendment. However, when will the
minister and the justice system reach the point of recognizing the
worth and freedom of individuals and rather than imprisoning the
victims imprisoning the people who committed the offence in the
first place.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to represent our constituents in the
House of Commons, but it is a bit sad to have to talk on this issue.
If the government and the justice minister had listened to
Reformers when Bill C-41 was before the justice committee and
before the House, we would not be having this debate today and
could move on to other legislation.
Certainly the rumours are rampant about an impending election.
The government says that it is concerned about legislation. There is
a lot on the legislative agenda it wants to see get through. Then why
did the government not listen when we dealt with these bills in the
35th Parliament?
If this place operated the way it was intended to operate by the
Fathers of Confederation we would not be having this debate today.
The government would have listened to the opposition members
and brought forward amendments at that time rather than wait until
the 11th hour to do some last minute damage control. That is what
this amendment is.
While my colleagues have indicated that Reform is prepared to
support the amendments, it is sad we are discussing them today
because they should have been done quite some time ago.
One amendment we are debating at the moment in part reads:
``107.1 Paragraph 742.1(b) of the act is replaced by the following:
(b) is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the
safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and
principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2,''
We certainly support it but we do not believe that it goes nearly
far enough. Our concern has been consistent since we started
debate on Bill C-41. I am appalled that it is being brought forward
at this time as an amendment to Bill C-17 when it is just to cover
their backsides. That is all it is for the hon. justice minister.
My hon. colleagues have done an excellent job this morning of
relaying the concerns they have heard expressed by their
constituents. As I travel across the country and throughout my
riding of Prince George-Peace River there is no single larger
emotional issue for the people of Canada than the justice issue, or
what I have taken to call the lack of justice in our legal system.
There is no justice system. The people at the grassroots know and
realize this. It is about time the Liberal government woke up to that
fact.
(1205)
As a Reform member of Parliament I am getting sick and tired of
having to stand day after day, week after week, month after month,
to try to make an impression. We have been beating our heads
against the wall.
As I travel around my riding I hear frustrated citizens crying out
for justice. I tell them that my colleagues and I are doing
everything possible procedurally, everything possible we can to
raise awareness of the issue with the government and it falls on
deaf ears. Consistently for 3.5 years it has fallen on deaf ears.
I tell the people of my riding who are frustrated to take the time,
if they have the inclination, to look at what is happening in
Parliament. It is their Parliament. It belongs to the people of
Canada despite what the Liberal government would have people
believe.
Have we come a long way by allowing rapists, people who
sexually violate the most defenceless members of our society, to go
free? In 1867 when the country was founded the death penalty,
capital punishment, applied to cases of murder, treason and rape. It
was not until 1954 that the death penalty was abolished in cases of
rape. Back in those days someone who brutally attacked a woman
and raped her had to consciously consider that being caught meant
being put to death, meant being hung.
What is the situation today? Thanks to this justice minister and
the government rapists are now walking free.
Mr. Schmidt: They don't even go to jail.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Sadly that is the case.
Would people believe that Reform is suddenly jumping on this
bandwagon? As I have indicated, we have been very consistent
with our position on the issue. We fought it at committee. We
fought it in the House of Commons. We used every procedure to
bring the issue to light. We proposed an amendment to the
government that would have ensured alternative measures and
conditional sentencing were not used in case of violent offences.
We were assured during debate that would not happen. However we
were concerned about it and consistently raised the issue.
Bill C-41 which contains those clauses came into effect on
September 3 of last year. On November 4, after learning of some
very disturbing cases and rulings by judges which utilized
conditional sentencing, I came to the House of Commons and
asked a question of the justice minister. I read from Hansard or
November 4, 1996:
9428
A man in B.C. was just convicted of sexual assault. What was his punishment? He is
on conditional release, scot free.
I had referred to a couple of other cases but I continued:
These lenient decisions in three different provinces have set dangerous
precedents. Section 742 states that a conditional sentence is not an option when there
is a danger to the community. Are women not a part of the community?
That is the question I posed. I continued:
Will the minister responsible for the legislation clarify this for women and, more
important, for judges? He talks about a tool of the courts. He talks about appropriate
cases. Will he clarify whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for rape?
In his response the hon. justice minister went on at some length
about past studies having shown that once Canadians were apprised
of all the circumstances involved in a case they believed that
sentences by and large were too harsh. He ended his dissertation by
saying:
The reality is that when the court looks at the offender and the offence and takes
all the circumstances into account the court does a pretty fair job of determining
appropriate punishment.
(1210)
When referring to me he said:
Obviously the business of this member is not to worry about the facts or the
reality but to use fearmongering to make his squalid point.
The parliamentary secretary heckles and says that is right. In
other words we are just making a squalid point. The parliamentary
secretary, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, has
the audacity to sit over there and heckle. Will he stand and join in
this debate? Will he defend this position to the women of Canada?
Not a chance. He knows it is indefensible and that women are
living in fear. Women are being raped and judges are letting the
offenders off scot free.
Mr. Kirkby: What about gun control?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary will find out about gun control in his riding
in the next election. He supported ludicrous gun control legislation
that has done nothing and will do nothing to combat the criminal
misuse of firearms. He will find out about that issue.
I will wrap up by reiterating what some of my hon. colleagues
who preceded me have said. With reference to conditional
sentencing, the Young Offenders Act and many other things that are
wrong with the justice system, the people of Canada, particularly
women and children, are crying out for change and for reform.
They are crying out that offenders, criminals and degenerates
should be held accountable and properly punished for their
misdeeds and their crimes. That is not happening under this
government and I fear it will never happen until we have a Reform
government on that side of the House.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the debate this
morning is essentially about violent crime, rapes and sex crimes
against children, and the government's inaction on these issues.
Our obligation is to put in place laws that protect society.
Unfortunately the current justice minister is having difficulty doing
it. The government has failed but now with an election in the air it
is at least trying to right a couple of wrongs.
This morning the government proposed two amendments to Bill
C-17. Essentially the amendments correct deficiencies in Bill C-41.
The first amendment proposed concerns conditional sentencing. It
cautions judges to use conditional sentences only if public safety is
not threatened. As pointed out earlier it seems we are legislating
common sense. It is remarkable that such a motion would be put
forward yet that is the case.
The second amendment concerns the provision of automatic
victim impact statements, something that was denied earlier by the
government.
The difficulty is the justice system has been too lenient on
people who perpetrate violent crimes. Bill C-41 sprang to life in
September 1986. The courts were encouraged to be relatively
lenient on first time offenders and to attempt to keep them out of
jail. I find this particularly amusing and curious, given the pace
with which the government has put people guilty of fisheries
offences in jail. It has put farmers guilty of shipping some grain
south of the border and attempting to fight for their rights in jail
and has kept them there. The government has in place some
legislation that is attempting to keep people out of jail because the
facilities are too crowded.
Originality it was intended that an offence would carry a penalty
of less than two years if the offender was not a danger to the
community. We seem to have forgotten that in our sentencing
policies the notion of a deterrence to repeat a crime or to commit
crimes should be part of the notion of sentencing. In other words,
we are not simply sentencing someone for the commission of the
crime but what we are trying to do is deter others from engaging in
these sorts of activities.
(1215)
When Bill C-41 was brought before the House it introduced a
scheme of alternate measures to deal with this issue. Some of the
alternatives to incarceration which were put in place included such
things as performing a number of hours of community service or
even receiving counselling. Somehow that would be sufficient to
encourage people not to commit the crime.
The issue which should be addressed this morning is where we
ended up with Bill C-41. I would like to read into the record some
instances in which Bill C-41 has been used to keep people out of
jail.
9429
The first instance I would like to refer to took place in British
Columbia. My colleague from the Okanagan referred to it. In that
instance a man was convicted for abducting and sodomizing a
single mother. The judge, however, was impressed with the man's
behaviour while on bail. He suggested that it was exemplary and
that psychological assessments indicated that the man was
unlikely to reoffend.
Psychological assessments are just that. The assessments are a
good guess. The fact is that the crime was heinous and deserving of
a prison term. With this sort of crime, consideration should not
have been given to letting the man walk the streets freely without
serving some time and receiving psychological training.
In another instance, two Ontario off-duty police officers were
convicted of forcing their way into a woman's home, threatening
her with death and robbing her of a small amount of cash. Why men
convicted of a cruel and violent crime will never spend a day in jail
is beyond me, but it is easy when the justice minister creates that
possibility. These two supposed defenders of society walked away
without spending a day in jail.
This instance was referred to earlier as well. A Gatineau man
was recently convicted for repeatedly forcing his young step sons
to perform sexual acts on their hypnotized mother. Along with that,
this gentleman also forced the boys to masturbate one another
while he watched, and to masturbate him and perform oral sex on
him, and yet somehow the judge thought that the man should not
spend any time in jail. One of the victim's, a step son, said this:
``He just keeps on trucking. He walks away, goes home and enjoys
Christmas. It is unreal. But that is the justice system. We have done
a lot of crying, gone through a lot of agony, all for nothing''. All for
nothing because our justice minister saw fit to put the plight of the
criminal ahead of the victims.
The justice minister was warned about this. The hon. member for
Crowfoot warned the justice minister that violent criminals might
avoid proper punishment if he proceeded with Bill C-41. He
ignored my colleague.
Two members of the justice committee at that time also warned
the justice minister that these sorts of things could happen, and yet
again he ignored two members of his own party. In fact, one
member was eventually shown the door for trying to hold the
government accountable on another matter.
Justice requires that violent offenders be punished. It also
demands that victims and their concerns be addressed. We are
going through this business on section 745 of the Criminal Code
where the beast of B.C., as Clifford Olson likes to call himself, is
going to have his opportunity to grill the families of his victims
again, 15 years after those crimes were committed.
(1220)
It is time that we in this House and members opposite in
particular and the justice minister take pains to recognize that some
of these violent criminals will never be rehabilitated and that the
best we can do is protect society from them. It has been proven
time and time again that people who offend children cannot be
rehabilitated. Yet we put these people into jail with short sentences.
They come back out on probation and so on and reoffend.
Those people cannot be rehabilitated. Our duty is to ensure that
society is protected and we should be taking immediate action to
see that it happens.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to rise today to say a few words with respect to the
amendment that has been put forward.
The amendment that has been put forward is merely in my view
making explicit what was implicit before. The section as it was
contained with respect to conditional sentencing stated that
conditional sentencing was only allowed where the sentence
imposed was less than two years. For those crimes that are more
than two years in duration conditional sentencing would not be
allowed for such crimes.
In addition it said that conditional sentencing could only be put
forward when the judge was satisfied that serving the sentence in
the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
In addition to this the conditions of the principles of sentencing
contained in section 718 and 718.2 would also apply to this. What
the amendment is doing is making that explicit so that when cases
are brought before the judiciary it is right there, that the principles
of sentencing apply.
It would be very instructive to read the principles of sentencing
that would apply to the application of the conditional sentence.
Section 718 states:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime
prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful
and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following
objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community;
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the
harm done to victims and communities.
9430
These are the principles that apply to a conditional sentence.
While it was implicit before it is explicit now that these principles
apply to conditional sentencing. Conditional sentences ought only
to be put forward in appropriate cases.
The provincial governments and the federal government worked
together to develop a bill that would better ensure the safety of
citizens in our society. They wished to ensure that people who
posed a risk to the community would not be allowed to be released
from prison to offend again.
(1225 )
Those who did not pose a risk to society would be free to serve
their sentence in the community subject to appropriate conditions.
If those conditions were breached they would then serve the rest of
their sentence in a correctional facility.
I think it is very important to recognize that this is a clarification
of the code to ensure that conditional sentences are only applied in
those circumstances where there is no danger to society and where
the principles of sentencing, of deterrents of denunciation of the
crime are appropriately applied.
The reason for this is due to the experience of many in the justice
system prior to these amendments. There were many cases where
people who had committed crimes did go to jail. However, because
of the overcrowding of the facilities and because many people who
were there were not a risk to society, the people who were a risk to
society would be released into the community after serving a very
short time in prison.
Therefore the federal and provincial governments working
together developed this solution which will better ensure that those
who are a risk to society will be kept in prison longer and for an
appropriate length of time. Those who do not pose a risk to society
will be able to serve their sentence within the community.
It is as a result of these amendments that as we move into the
future this clarification that we have brought forward today will
ensure that conditional sentencing is only applied in appropriate
cases.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
next motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
again assure the members of this House and the people of Canada
that this is not an amendment to Bill C-17. This amendment has
nothing to do with Bill C-17. This amendment has to do with the
bungling of the justice minister with regard to the former bill that
he brought in, Bill C-45, that tinkered with the rights of first degree
murderers for an early shot at parole after serving just 15 years of a
so called life sentence. That is what this bill is.
What does this bill do? We have to do back to Bill C-45. I must
also mention that this amendment could only have come in at this
stage with the unanimous consent of the House. Because this bill
has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill C-17 it was inappropriate to
bring it in. The only way it could be brought in was through
unanimous consent.
We go back to Bill C-45. What was the problem with Bill C-45?
The wording of Bill C-45 was supposed to provide victims who
were appearing at section 745 hearings the automatic right to
provide impact statements. The legal interpretation of that part of
Bill C-45 showed there were no automatic rights, that the victims
of crime, the families of the victims of the likes of Clifford Olson
do not have standing. It is only at the discretion of the court that
that are allowed to give an impact statement. This is simply not
good enough. The justice minister knows this, so what is he doing?
He is running now to change what he bungled in the first place.
(1230)
This is just another example of a deficiency in judgment on the
part of the justice minister. It flows like a current through a host of
legislative and other decisions he has made over the last three and a
half years. We are now examining an amendment, piggy-backed on
to Bill C-17 that ought to have been dealt with back when we dealt
with section 745 under Bill C-45.
My party stands for the complete removal of section 745 from
the Criminal Code. We do not want the families of victims to ever
have to appear to give an impact statement and be subject to
cross-examination by the likes of Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo or
the host of killers lining up and applying under section 745, which
is a gift to them from the Liberal government and from the present
justice minister.
That is what we are dealing with here. This is an amendment to
Bill C-45. It has nothing to do with Bill C-17. Hopefully this time it
will provide the automatic right to victims of crime to make an
impact statement, regardless of what a judge may think. They will
not be subjected to the discretion of the judge. They will have
standing before parole hearings.
There is a down side to this. Although we did not support Bill
C-45 because we wanted the faint hope clause that would allow
first degree murders an opportunity for parole only after serving 15
9431
years of a life sentence completely eliminated, removed from the
Criminal Code.
We are prepared to support this amendment because it will give
victims the right to stand before a judge and jury and tell them of
the pain, agony and the hell they have gone through as a result of
the taking of a life of a family member and to have that evidence
impact on the jury. This must be seen in light of the passage of Bill
C-45 and the refusal of the justice minister to remove the faint hope
clause. This right must be granted to the families of the victims of
the likes of Clifford Olson and others.
We are prepared to support it. However, again it demonstrates
the bungling and the lack of the consideration for the victims of
crime and the families of those victims by the justice minister. It is
an almost desperate attempt by the justice minister to cover himself
and argue on the whole area of the faint hope clause and his
decision to retain it. He is writing letters to editors of newspapers
across Canada suggesting that the Reform Party is exploiting the
feelings and emotions of the families of the victims of Clifford
Olson. This is disgraceful, shameful and simply untrue.
The victims of crime, including Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt, have made
that very clear in written responses to the newspapers that we are
the party which is standing for them. We are the party that is
defending their rights and trying to give them an opportunity to
develop a degree of peace of mind and not have to harrow up the
horrible feelings they experienced when they first learned that their
young son or daughter had been kidnapped, raped and murdered by
the likes of Clifford Olson. They have to go through that again and
again because the justice minister has allowed the faint hope clause
to remain. If Clifford Olson fails in his bid he can appeal it or he
can apply again and again. Bill C-45 would have denied victims the
right to make an impact statement at those hearings.
(1235)
Bill C-41 granted victims the right to make impact statements.
Along came Bill C-45 and the bungling of the justice minister. If he
were a drummer he would call his drums the bungle drums because
of the capacity he has for bungling every time he turns about. He
brought in Bill C-45 which eliminated the right of victims to make
impact statements that were provided for in Bill C-41. Is that not
wonderful? We have a justice minister who can stop on a dime and
turn on a nickel here in the House of Commons. He can mock and
scorn the Reformers who ask reasonable questions about his
legislation and yet he cannot get it straight.
He cannot get it straight in Bill C-45. He cannot get it straight in
Bill C-41. He cannot get it straight in the Airbus fiasco. He cannot
get it straight in the Pearson airport fiasco. He cannot get it straight
in a host of legislative initiatives that show in spite of all his
so-called skills and ability he is lacking in sound judgment and
common sense. That is what we are dealing with now through this
amendment.
He has bungled one more time and so he brings in an amendment
which has nothing to do with Bill C-17. It covers the bungling that
has occurred in Bill C-45 that takes away the right of the victims to
make impact statements which were granted under Bill C-41. This
bill is something that we have to examine and support because until
there is a Reform government in this country the faint hope clause
will remain.
As Scott Newark said in B.C. to the families of the victims of
Clifford Olson: ``The only way you are going to change that law is
by changing the government''. The people of this country are going
to have an opportunity to do that within the next few months if all
the rumours we are hearing are accurate. People will have the
opportunity to vote for a party that will place the rights of victims
ahead of the rights of the likes of Clifford Olson, the Bernardos and
so on.
The people will return a verdict concerning the bungling of this
justice minister and this government. They have asked repeatedly
through letters and petitions for initiatives to be taken. They have
been denied repeatedly by this justice minister who pretends that he
understands and agonizes along with their pain and their suffering
but his actions never demonstrate what he says. He never
demonstrates his concern for the victims of crime.
Yes, we will support this until we form the government. We will
abide by the wishes of the majority and not by the will of a handful
of people around the justice minister and Prime Minister.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are debating the second of two amendments introduced a short
while ago. Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill. An omnibus bill deals with
a number of acts and makes small changes, adjustments and
amendments in a whole range of areas. It is kind of a tidying up
bill. I guess with an election coming there is a lot to tidy up in the
area of the justice system and all the justice bills that have been
brought in.
This second of the two amendments, fixes an oversight-to put it
kindly and a large omission in the minds of some of us-in Bill
C-45. That bill has been fairly well known among Canadians as the
one which allowed Clifford Olson, who killed at least 11 innocent
Canadian children after brutally and sadistically assaulting them, to
apply to get out of jail early. It is very interesting that we would be
debating an amendment to the act that allows him to do that or,
more accurately, does not prevent him from doing that although it
would prevent future multiple killers from applying for early
release, but not Clifford Olson.
9432
(1240)
Today I was reading in a calendar of upcoming events that on
Monday, April 7 in Vancouver the B.C. supreme court judge
decided whether to lift a ban on Clifford Olson's judicial review
preliminary hearing. These applications by convicted killers do not
just take the form of one simple step. They cause some pretty hard
working people to pay a lot of money in order for these things to
happen.
On Wednesday, April 9 in Saskatoon, Clifford Olson will appear
in court to appeal a federal ruling restricting his access to the
media.
In one week we have two major judicial considerations on behalf
of a convicted, sadistic, brutal child killer and in the House of
Commons we finally have a justice minister who says: ``Gee, I
wonder whether the families and the parents of these victims
should maybe have the right to speak out at his hearing to get out of
jail early and actually tell the court how they think and feel about
the violations to the rights, safety and security of their families''.
We are very pleased that finally, after all the words that we put
into Hansard and after all the words we have spoken in committee
urging the justice minister to start shifting the balance from the side
of killers and criminals on to the side of decent, upright,
law-abiding innocent citizens, there is a little move in that
direction.
The Reform Party some months ago introduced in the House a
motion that there be a victims' bill of rights test. There are eight
provisions which we believe should be in such a victims' bill of
rights. It would provide specific legal rights within the justice
system to victims. That is a novel thought. The victim might
actually have some standing in our legal system.
One of the provisions we have suggested would be the right of
victims to choose between giving oral and/or written victim impact
statements at parole hearings, hearings before sentencing and at
judicial reviews.
There are other legal rights which we think should be given to
victims, to the innocent people in our society whose freedoms and
liberties have been violated by law-breakers. We think they should
be given the right at every stage of the process to be informed,
including being made aware of available victim services.
There are plenty of services for criminals. In fact, as we have
pointed out in the House time and again, many criminals in this
country live in more comfortable, more spacious and more secure
circumstances than many of our senior citizens who have worked a
lifetime, paid their taxes, kept the law and been exemplary citizens.
We think the victims should have the right to be informed of the
offender's status throughout the process, including but not
restricted to plans to release the offender from custody.
We think that victims should also have the right to know why
charges are not laid, if that is the decision of the crown or the
police, the right to be protected from intimidation, harassment or
interference.
We think that victims should have the right to have their part of
the process heard, to stand before a judge and let him or her on
behalf of society know how criminal activity has affected them.
That should be automatic.
(1245 )
An amendment was introduced in this House this morning, April
8, 1997. Three and a half years after this government took office,
mere days before this government goes back to the people and asks
them to vote for it, it is saying maybe we should give victims in this
country and their families the right to actually tell the courts to tell
the judicial system how lawbreakers have affected them.
Here we have another situation of fixing a problem that was
brought up before, a well known, much talked about problem. Just
before an election suddenly there is a feeling that we had better
throw this into the mix too so that the justice minister and his
colleagues can say ``boy, we are really standing up for law-abiding
Canadians''. Never mind that they have totally ignored, jeered and
showered contempt on strong and sensible statements and urgings
from other members of the House that they get with the program
much sooner.
Whereas these are amendments that should have been made
some time ago and we have to support them, we just have to say to
the justice minister that the time to fix these problems is when they
are first pointed out instead of scrambling to do something at as
late a date as possible in order to look as if they care about the
concerns of Canadians which have been well known and well
talked about for months and months.
This amendment to Bill C-17 would allow victims and their
families to let the courts know in these proceedings and in
particular in proceedings where killers are applying to be let out of
jail early. That is something that should be done. All Canadians
support that. We urge the justice minister to get this right the first
time, to start listening to what needs to be done, to protect
Canadians and to make sure their rights are put first and foremost
in this justice system.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this second amendment to Bill C-17, which has been granted to us
to look at, study and think about, has not just suddenly appeared out
of the clear blue sky. Somehow it seems as if this is a brand new
idea that has just hit us.
This idea has been around for a long time. The victims who have
had crimes perpetrated against them are people like you and me. In
9433
our discussion of this amendment we should ask ourselves who the
victims are. It is usually assumed that the person against whom a
crime is perpetrated is the victim. We have extended it now to
include the family. We should also include friends and neighbours.
If we really want to come to grips with this issue we have to
recognize that with any violent crime we are all victims. Directly or
indirectly it affects every single one of us.
I will refer to two incidents that happened in my riding. In the
first case a man came home and stabbed his wife repeatedly until
she died. That victim could not speak and tell of the impact that
had. That person was dead. There was no right for that victim
anymore. That right had been taken away by the person who
stabbed her. But she had a sister and her sister was very much
involved in that family because there were children she wanted to
train in the way they should walk and so on. Here was her
brother-in-law who had been allowed to stab his wife, and the
consequence was a minimal jail sentence.
(1250 )
Who was the victim in this case? The wife was stabbed and
killed but the sister in training her family was deeply involved in
this case as well.
I want to relate to another case that happened in our community,
the case of Mindy Tran. Mindy Tran was a little girl who was
abducted from her home and killed. Probably the most terrifying
event for me was to listen to a parent describe what happened on
the way to school as they were driving down the street to take their
child to kindergarten class. This kindergarten child who was sitting
in the car was watching another child who was walking down the
street alone. She said: ``Mommy, look, that girl is walking alone.
She should not be doing that. That is what happened to Mindy Tran.
She was alone and she was killed. Shouldn't we stop and pick her
up?''
Who is the victim here? That child's life is forever affected by
somebody else, a person she did not know but knew about because
she had been killed. What about the mother of this child who had to
listen to her daughter say ``shouldn't we pick up that child?''. This
child who was in this car had more empathy for justice and
protection of society than the judge who dealt with the case of a
man like Mr. Stone who stabbed and killed his wife.
These are serious offences. These are serious implications for
the victims against whom crime has been perpetrated.
Let me go one step further. Much has been made in the last
couple of months of the Clifford Olson case, on the Bernardo and
Homolka case. Should these people even have access to the press?
In many ways one would say of course they should have access to
the press, but these people have taken away the right of certain
people to ever express themselves again. Many of the people who
were associated with the victims whose life has been taken will not
speak in public. Why? They will not speak because they do not
want to relive the terror and the emotion that they experienced the
first time around. They are people who care.
We as parliamentarians are in the position of being the guardians
of the safety of the life and the protection of the property of
law-abiding citizens. When we have minimal sentences offered and
when we even suggest that there should be victim impact
statements, as was the case earlier, and as a very strong
demonstration of how inept and how incompetent in many areas
this government is, now as a sort of last minute the government
says that should be in there. It is obvious that it should be in there.
When will our judgment system become one that will take into
account not only the violence and the heinousness of the crime but
will also recognize that there are real people with real lives, with
real emotions who have been affected and their lives forever
changed because of this crime that has been perpetrated in their
neighbourhoods, in their families or against their wives or their
husbands?
We have never dealt with a more serious issue than the matter of
justice in our society. When will we recognize that to do things like
this, to commit the kinds of crimes that Clifford Olson committed,
the kinds of crimes that Bernardo committed, the kinds of crimes
by the person who killed Mindy Tran, or those of Mr. Stone who
stabbed his wife, when will we recognize that the time has come
that the consequences for these kinds of acts are more than a slap
on the wrist, are more than temporary incarceration and actually do
not create the kind of protection for the victims who remain?
Even though we do not live in that community we can identify,
we can understand the fear, we can understand the terror, the pain,
the emotion and the anger that wells up in people when these kinds
of things happen.
(1255 )
Should that not have an impact? Should that not be a message to
the rest of us to say that the time has come to introduce programs
where we do have consequences for these kinds of acts? Far more
important is the generation of a set of values that tells people that
kind of behaviour is wrong, it ought to be stopped and there are
serious consequences.
We need to reintroduce a clear definition of what is right and
what is wrong in our society. Our children should know what is
right and what is wrong. This Parliament should make it clear to
judges what we believe is right and what is wrong. It is right to
recognize that the rights of victims are more important than the
rights of criminals.
9434
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to debate this second 11th hour amendment
put forward by the justice minister to Bill C-17.
As members will remember, the first amendment we debated
dealt with conditional sentencing, something which certainly
Reformers and a growing number of Canadians perceive to be the
misuse of that section. We were concerned right from the beginning
that it not be used in the cases of violent crimes. Obviously our
worst fears unfortunately have been borne out in the use of that
section.
Now we move on to this second damage control amendment. As
my colleagues have stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with
Bill C-17. It is instead a cover your backside amendment for the
justice minister heading into the next election campaign dealing
with section 745 which, I think all Canadians will remember, was
dealt with under Bill C-45 not Bill C-17.
In all honesty, that is where this should have been dealt with,
similar to the last amendment which should have been dealt with at
the time of debate and consultation on Bill C-41, the sentencing
act. This should also have been dealt with under Bill C-45.
However, this government refused to listen, as it has time and
time again, to the pleas not only of Reform members of Parliament
but countless Canadians from coast to coast.
It is well documented now. I would think at some point the
message is going to start to get through to the government and the
justice minister that Canadians are demanding the repeal of section
745. They do not want it tinkered with. They do not want to play
with it and say that if a person only commits one murder than
maybe they can have access to that provision of the Criminal Code,
have a hearing to see if they can be released early. They want it
repealed.
I pointed out during the debate on Bill C-45 that I found it more
than a little ironic that this justice minister used as one of his
excuses for bringing forward his senseless gun control legislation
for gun registration that it was partially in reply to a resolution by
the police association. However, when it comes to dealing with
section 745, which the police association has passed a resolution to
get rid of, the justice minister strangely does not listen. Obviously
he selectively uses certain support. He selectively uses what he
wants to further his own agenda rather than to respond legitimately
to the concerns of Canadians and different organizations across the
nation.
Some of my colleagues have already laid out how Reform
dramatically differs from the Liberal government in how we would
address the issue of victims rights because that is what this
amendment is about. It is an 11th hour amendment to bring in a
provision which would allow automatic victim impact statements
at these hearings. That is something that we and other victims'
groups and associations have spoken out on during debate on Bill
C-45. Now, at the last moment, only with the proviso that the
justice minister get unanimous consent of the House, does he bring
forward these last minute amendments so that he can try and
indicate to the Canadian public that he is a little bit concerned
about the plight of victims of crime.
(1300)
During the debate about Clifford Olson utilizing the provision of
section 745 to have yet another day in court, as we feared the judge
was bound to fly him to Vancouver and give him another day in
court. It will on August 18 this summer when he will argue why he
should be let out of prison. How ridiculous. There is not one
Canadian who has not heard of the heinous crimes of Clifford
Olson. There is not a Canadian who is not appalled that we are
going through this charade when we know he is not going to get
out.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code allows this charade to takes
place. I will be interested in September to find out what this is
going to cost the taxpayers, never mind the pain of the people who
will be revictimized again at the hearing. Imagine the dollars and
cents it is going to cost the taxpayers to go through an exercise that
all of us hope and pray is an exercise in futility for Clifford Olson.
Why is the process even there that would allow him to do this?
He will be flown to Vancouver at the expense of taxpayers. I
suspect some of his prison colleagues will fly there to testify that
he is not such a bad guy after all. In reality, if there was true justice
in the country Clifford Olson would no longer be breathing. The
people across the nation know that. It is outrageous that the
government would allow such a thing to take place.
I well remember during the debate on the issue, the justice
minister said shame on Reformers for bringing the issue to the
forefront and giving Clifford Olson a stage to perform on. We
brought this issue forward on behalf of the victims and their
families.
I have a newspaper clipping of an opinion piece by Claire Hoy,
quoting the justice minister who said: ``If it was not for Reform the
whole affair would be proceeding in obscurity''. He went on to say:
``The pain felt by the families of the victims would be of a different
order than that which they face today if it were not for those in the
Reform Party who are providing Clifford Olson with exactly what
he wants''. That is the response of the justice minister, not to
Reformers but to the thousands of victims who are crying out for
justice, for all those who see section 745 as the outrage it has
become.
As has been indicated by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot,
Reform will be supporting this amendment. As we have many
times over the last three and a half years on criminal justice bills
and legislation, we will hold our noses and vote for something we
9435
know in our hearts is a half measure at best, but better that than
nothing at all.
(1305 )
Why? The question has to be asked. Why can the government
not respond adequately to the concerns of Canadians?
I spoke about this during my last intervention. As I travel
through my riding I hear things which I know other MPs,
regardless of their political affiliation, are hearing. They have to
be. If they are responding to the concerns of their constituents they
have to be sitting down in their offices, at town hall meetings, and
speaking with the victims of crime. People are living in fear every
day in their homes.
Increasingly people are locking themselves in their homes
because the system refuses to lock up the criminals. It is time for
change. I hear it constantly as I travel across the nation. It is time to
put victims first.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the second amendment on Bill
C-17 which was given unanimous approval in the House today.
This is the second amendment which the justice minister has
thrown in at the last minute to rectify oversights or mistakes he has
made in previous legislation.
It does not give me any joy to be responding to a government
which has time and again ignored the input of the opposition,
ignored the input of Canadians at large, who have spoken to
legislation which the government has brought forward for
consideration. They have pointed out flaws in legislation which is
before the House.
Time and again consideration should have been given to
recommendations at committee stage. Letters have been received
from experts of certain aspects of the law who have recommended
changes. Time and again the justice minister and the government
have ignored that input.
A private member's bill dealing with section 745 succeeded in
passing second reading in the House. Seventy-nine Liberals voted
in favour of that private member's bill so that it could go to
committee for consideration. That private member's bill dealt with
section 745 of the Criminal Code, which is known as the faint hope
clause. That section allows a person convicted of first degree
murder who is given a life sentence without eligibility for parole
for 25 years an opportunity 15 years down the road to seek a change
in their eligibility for parole.
That private member's bill had the support of colleagues in the
Liberal Party. It successfully passed second reading. However, over
the past year the bill has been gutted, mainly by Liberal members
of the justice committee. It has not been reported back to the
House to be dealt with at report stage and third reading.
Perhaps if the government was more willing to allow honest and
open debate, honest and open criticism and honest and open
recommendations for improvement, it would not find itself in the
situation it has found itself in today, having to work in amendments
after the fact to an omnibus bill to correct mistakes which it should
have known it was making in previous legislation.
It certainly does not give me any satisfaction to be a part of a
system where there is not honest and open debate. Legislation is
rammed through the House, rammed down the throats of Canadians
and they are left to deal with the consequences.
What would have happened if the justice minister did not realize
that these mistakes needed to be corrected? What kind of situation
would we find ourselves in next year or the year after?
It says very little about the justice minister and his government
when they need to come in after the fact and make amendments to a
bill which is totally unrelated to a bill which has been passed. Bill
C-45 was passed last year. It is not something that was done four or
five years ago. It was something that the minister put through the
House four or five months ago. Now we are correcting a mistake
that he made to totally deny the rights of victims to give their
position in court, to give their side of the story, to indicate the harm
and the impact that these horrendous crimes had on their families
and on themselves.
(1310)
I agree with my hon. colleagues for Calgary Northwest and
Okanagan Centre. The victims in these violent offences are not just
the families, they are not just the children, the husband or the wife,
it is the whole community.
I am facing that in my community of Surrey. In case people do
not realize it, Clifford Olson is making a mockery of the justice
system this summer. As hon. members have pointed out, Clifford
Olson is coming in August to Surrey to have his hearing. Surrey
does not want him. The city of Surrey has asked that Clifford Olson
not be allowed in the city.
My office has received more phone calls and more letters on the
issue of Clifford Olson coming back to Surrey than any other issue
since I came to the House of Commons three and a half years ago.
The people in my community are outraged that the justice system
would allow a man who tortured and murdered at least 11 children,
4 of those children from the city of Surrey, to have access to the
court system.
It would be interesting to know how much time and money this
hearing is going to take up. People are waiting in line to have cases
9436
heard in court because of the lack of space, because of the lack of
facilities, because of the lack of prosecutors and others to handle
their cases. People are waiting for months or years to have a court
case heard and we are tying up our justice system by allowing this
monster to use up valuable court time and valuable tax dollars to
apply for a section 745. To my mind and to the minds of the people
in the city of Surrey that is a grave injustice.
It completely undermines the whole concept of who and what is
the justice system supposed to be representing. Is it the convicted
criminals? Is it the convicted killers? Is it the victims? Why are we
now, months later, recognizing that the victims must have the right
to present their case to the jurors who are going to make a decision
on what effect or impact this individual has had on their lives?
The real travesty of justice is that Clifford Olson will be his own
lawyer. He has the right to cross-examine the victims' families.
How just and how humane is it to have this person who killed one
of their children or one of their loved ones cross-examine them? It
is insane. That is how Canadians see our justice system.
To be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is how Canadians
are starting to see their government. They are starting to question
the sanity of a government that allows this kind of thing to occur
not once, not twice, but on a regular basis. What they see is a
justice system that is constantly letting them down, constantly
putting their concerns, their protection behind that of a convicted
offender.
It distresses me to no end to know that I am standing here
speaking and supporting this very weak attempt of the justice
minister to undo his past mistakes. I do not take any great
satisfaction in saying that I am going to support this. I am
supporting it because I am backed up against a wall. I know this is
as good as we are going to get from the government.
(1315 )
Given the opportunity in the very near future I would like to
think Canadians will take time to measure just what the
government has provided for them and what the government has
done to them over the last 3.5 years. I would also like to think that
before Canadians go to the polls this spring or next fall they will
take a good look at what they will get in the future if they return the
government to power. They will get more of the same: giving more
attention to the offender, ignoring the rights of victims, ignoring
the rights of society and putting Canadians last rather than first.
Canadians should seriously look at the issues and at who is
fighting for them. They should look beyond the reports and
accusations of the justice minister that it is the fault of the
opposition party that did this or did not do that. I hope voters will
look at the issues and at what the government is ignoring. If
Canadians look very closely they will be looking to the Reform
Party, a party concerned about justice and safety of all Canadians,
to give them the governance they deserve.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address Bill C-17 and the amendment.
Through its actions over the past couple of years the government
has demonstrated where its priorities are with respect to criminal
justice. In every instance, with the possible exception of what it is
trying to do today on the eve of an election, it has demonstrated its
sympathies lie as much or more with criminals than they do with
the public.
I will read a letter from a constituent of mine, Mike Duffy who
lives in Bow Island, Alberta. It was sent to the solicitor general and
reads as follows:
Dear sir,
RE: Section 745 Criminal Code
On June 30th, 1982 a car occupied by four natives, broke down on Highway 11,
south of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. After initial efforts to flag down assistance had
failed, two of these individuals decided to hide in the tall weeds at the road edge. One
of these two told the others that he was going to ``Shank the next honky that stops''.
Joseph Duffy, my father, was en route from Edmonton to his home in Regina. He
was the next person. He stopped and offered assistance.
For his efforts he was attacked and taken at knife point, in his own car, to a
farmer's field. He was slashed with the knife and forced from his car. The four then
chased him with the car and ran him over; and over.
Joe Duffy was murdered because of the colour of his skin; and his willingness to
offer help to a stranger.
On July 7th, 1982, Robert George Ironchild, the leader of this group was arrested.
On January 25th, 1983 he was convicted of first degree murder. He received a
sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.
The convicted murderer Ironchild subsequently changed his name to Rob
Wapuchakoos, at public expense. Soon he can apply for a review of his parole
eligibility at public expense.
I have recently learned that your department sends an information package to
prisoners serving life sentences.
My understanding is that this package instructs convicted murderers how to
submit an application for a section 745 review; how to behave to obtain a favourable
review; and how to apply for Legal Aid and expenses for witnesses. This is very
disturbing.
However, since we live in a society where everyone is equal before the law, your
office must also have an information package for the survivors, the family of the
murder victim.
On behalf of the entire family of Joe Duffy, I request the package so we can
prepare for any review; to ensure that the convicted murderer serves his entire
sentence; and to acquire Legal Aid and expenses.
We also require copies of all documentation-I ask that you give immediate
attention to my requests. Working together we can keep this convicted murderer in
prison and prevent another homicide. We owe this to the memory of my father.
Yours truly,
Mike Duffy
9437
(1320)
The point that Mr. Duffy is making is one that we should all heed
in this place. We are legislators and we have a duty to hear what
these victims are saying. They are saying: ``Don't give rights to the
criminals; give rights to the victims''.
The amendment seeks to address an old wrong. Apparently for
some reason, even though our members pointed it out, the
government somehow forgot to put in a victim impact statement at
the time of the trial so victims could explain to the judge and to the
jury the horrifying impact of having a loved one murdered.
Somehow the government got a little mixed up and decided to give
the rights to the criminals, which is why we are facing the spectacle
today of animals like Clifford Olson winning the right to apply
under section 745 to be released from prison early and, as my
colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley pointed out,
ultimately to cross-examine the families of his victims.
God in heaven, that is contrary to what anybody would believe is
sensible. I cannot believe we are standing here discussing it today. I
cannot believe the justice minister does not fly in here and say they
are changing the law today, that they will fix this.
The government has a responsibility to protect our citizens.
There is one thing it should be doing with the huge budget granted
by the taxpayers every year, the $120 billion. It should take a
portion of it and do what it can to protect citizens and victims, not
criminals, not people like Ironchild, Clifford Olson and Paul
Bernardo. It is unbelievable that we are having this discussion in
the House today.
Like my friend from South Langley and my friend from
Crowfoot say, if there is any justice in the world I hope people will
look closely at the Liberal record on criminal justice issues. If they
do, real justice will be meted out at the time of the next election.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-17.
I will continue some of the comments my colleagues made about
how unfortunate we are to have a Liberal government that pays lip
service to the real problems of victims.
I want to relate to an instance that happened in Langley,
Aldergrove and Abbotsford, British Columbia. It was shortly after
the government brought in Bill C-41 which contained conditional
sentences.
We debated conditional sentencing in the House. We indicated
that there were some danger signs. We wondered who it would
apply to. The government brought in conditional sentencing and
disregarded all our comments in the House.
Shortly after Bill C-41 was proclaimed and conditional
sentences became a reality, Darren Ursel in my riding met a young
lady, a single mother of two, a non-drinker, in a restaurant and
convinced her to go for a Coke. When he got her in his car at the
back of the restaurant, outside in the parking lot, he quickly locked
the door, pushed her back in the seat and ripped her clothes off. He
could not get an erection so he reached for his racketball racket and
used the handle on her front and back. When he was in court he
convinced Judge Harry Boyle he was tender at times. The judge
suggested that because it was Darren's first conviction it should be
part of the sentence. He also said that Darren Ursel indicated he
was sorry for what he did. Judge Harry Boyle went to the justice
minister's Bill C-41 and applied conditional sentencing which
meant that Darren was allowed to leave the courtroom on the
condition that he did not do it again.
(1325)
In our country today, like we use to have in the fifties, women
are now able to be raped and sodomized. The perpetrator is able to
walk out the door after the court case. I stand here and say ``I told
you so'' as can many members who sitting in the Reform Party. I
remember my hon. colleague from Crowfoot and many of our
critics speaking on that matter because they understood the
consequences of it.
I was at the appeal hearing. Gertie Pool, a grandmother, obtained
13,000 signatures to debench the judge. It was the Liberal
government's fault in the first place. I heard the defence lawyers
suggest there were too many people in our prisons and we needed
conditional sentences. Therefore Darren Ursel walked away with
raping and sodomizing this young lady. That is sick thinking.
In this exercise the Liberal government has moved women back
into the closet where they were in the 1950s and 1960s after being
raped, because they knew it was useless to go into a courtroom and
obtain justice. That is perhaps the saddest point of all.
I tell the people of Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec and
western Canada who are listening that this kind of scenario is
coming to them. The Liberal government has said that it is okay to
rape and sodomize women and that the offender can walk. That is
what occurred in my riding and it is damned disgusting, I must say.
There is but one choice to get ridiculous laws like this one off the
books, that is to get these people from the House for good. The
Reform Party and many victims of violence have been asking for a
long time just exactly what are our rights. What exactly are our
rights? Every day they approach us and the government, but when
they approach the government it unfortunately falls on deaf ears.
9438
Let me give a few good quotes from the legal industry about
victims. A defence lawyer said: ``Victims want someone else to
fix their petty problems''.
(1330 )
This kind of attitude that has pervaded the Liberal government
for years, making up of much of the legal industry, is wrong.
Judicial decisions on the bench in some cases are getting worse.
Harry Boyle's decision is an example of that. What is this
government going to do about it?
``I do not know what you people are so upset about; 11 children
could have just as easily been killed in a bus accident. If they are
dead, they are dead''. That is a quote made by a prosecutor to
parents of children murdered by Clifford Olson.
If that attitude pervades this legal industry and exists in the
courts of this land, we as responsible legislators must legislate it
out because it is wrong.
``There is no such thing as a victim, it is just a state of mind''. A
defence lawyer calls that a state of mind. I have worked with many
victims since I was elected and I do not think it is a state of mind.
But there is a growing passion among these folks to not have other
people in the country victimized as they have been. They are not
asking for a lot in this country, I do not think. They want the
unrestricted right to provide a victim impact statement at a parole
board hearing, whether it is oral or written, at a sentencing case or
at a judicial review. That is not too much to ask for.
However, the government took the automatic right of victims to
submit statements at judicial reviews away from them. Why? Is it
just stupidity or is that these members got caught doing it and now
we are screaming?
I wish I had more time. I am sure these Liberal members would
love to hear more about this so that maybe we could teach them a
bit about what is going on in the country. Maybe they could listen
and learn.
However, the fact is that this legal system which now pervades
what used to be a justice system has got us in trouble. And for the
Minister of Justice to stand in the House yesterday and tell me that
he has done a lot for victims because he has made amendments to
the Criminal Code tells me he does not have one iota of understand
of what I am talking about. But he will after this next election, he
can be darned sure of that.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking
about Liberal inaction in justice matters and there is no promise of
things improving in the near future. Victims know it and my
colleagues know it. My colleagues from Fraser Valley West,
Crowfoot and Wild Rose have been working on this issue for a long
time and have made a real impact on our awareness of it not only in
the House but from coast to coast.
Chuck Cadman's son was brutally killed recently just because
someone did not like the hat he was wearing. HopefullyMr. Cadman will be elected to the House in the next election,
letting people know what it is like from firsthand experience to be a
victim of crime.
(1335 )
The fact is the debate this morning was not necessary. My
colleagues proposed amendments in committee and if they had
been accepted at that time by the Liberals there would have been no
reason for this debate.
An amendment was proposed to limit the use of alternative
measures for non-violent, non-serious offences. That amendment
was defeated in committee by the Liberals. An amendment was
proposed which would have allowed verbal impact statements.
That amendment as well was defeated.
It is unfortunate when we are debating these kinds of issues that
somehow we cannot rise above politics and really look at what it is
we are addressing. It is the people we are serving whom we should
be concerned about, not which party put forward an amendment.
I would like to tell the House about a few more things which we
have proposed to try to make our streets safer.
We have been talking about bringing a balance to the justice
system so that the rights of the criminal and the rights of victims
and law-abiding citizens are brought back to a favourable balance.
Victims of crime should be put first. We would provide people with
legal rights within the justice system which would allow for that.
We believe there should be the right to be informed at every
stage of the process, including being made aware of available
victims services.
These things were proposed by my colleague from Fraser Valley
West in his victims bill of rights. That piece of legislation, which
passed second reading, is now languishing in committee because
the Liberal government does not want to deal with the very positive
proposals which he put forward.
The member for Fraser Valley West also suggested that there
should be the right to be informed of the offender's status
throughout the process, including but not restricted to plans to
release the offender from custody.
This problem occurred in my constituency. A young man of 17
was killed by a hit and run driver. His parents had nothing but grief
in trying to track the whole mess through the court system. In the
end they were appalled at the light sentence which the victim
received. Even though there was an indication that this gentleman
had been drinking and driving, the issue was never resolved to their
satisfaction. The written details of the whole process were kept
from them.
We are proposing the right to choose between giving oral and/or
written victim impact statements at parole hearings, before sen-
9439
tencing and at judicial reviews. That is important. It is difficult for
many people to write about their feelings. In some of these matters
the most effective way to deal with them is to listen to what the
people have to say to really have a sense of their despair and hurt. It
only seems right that if the accused has their day in court that the
victim also have their day in court so they can let the court decide
an appropriate punishment based on their grief.
We suggest as well the right to know why charges are not laid, if
that is the decision of the crown or police. Again it may seem a
simple matter, but victims of crime should have the right to know
why the crown decided, in its wisdom, not to proceed with charges.
That is a right that should not only prevail for indictable offences
but for any offence.
(1340)
I can speak from experience as I have been ticketed by the
fisheries department. Then the government refused to proceed with
charges simply because it knew full well it would not be successful.
That kind of behaviour brings the justice and legal system into
disrepute when it cannot be honest and open and make us all aware
of what just what the circumstances are and why they did not
proceed with certain charges.
We all have a right to be protected from intimidation, harassment
or interference. These kinds of things are obvious and yet again this
government obviously does not place much stock in righting those
wrongs because it has allowed this bill, put forward by the member
for Fraser Valley West, to sit in committee, languish there and
hurry through the process or at least acting on it in a reasonable
manner to ensure it would provide the protection people need.
We should also talk about the right to be protected in situations
of family violence. It seems a common sense hope that in situations
where there is violence people would have some protection, that
they would not have to put up with ongoing violence. Yet again,
this is something the government cannot seem to get a grip on.
Another is the right to know if a person convicted of a sexual
offence has a sexually transmittable disease. Why would we want
to keep that kind of information secret? Why should someone have
the right to keep that private if they have been bothering or if they
have violently offended somebody else? It is beyond all reason to
know that.
The right to be informed in a timely fashion of the details of the
crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to
defence is an issue that comes forward many times in the court
system, whether it is a drinking driver in a hit and run accident or
whatever. The victims should have knowledge of the government's
intentions if it is going to allow someone off the hook for a crime
committed.
Perhaps the most disturbing notion before us when we talk about
crime is the increase in violent crime by young offenders. It is
something that is doubly disturbing because it means that we
somehow as a society have failed, that somehow families have
failed when our young people are moved to criminal acts. It is an
issue that requires some action here and it is not just an action
where we are looking at punishing those people, and certainly
punishment is appropriate. If you are capable of a violent crime,
you should obviously do the time for it.
What can we do to prevent these kinds of things from
happening? That has to be a big concern and yet I have seen
nothing, no action on this by this government at all.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was a little unprepared to speak to this amendment but I
think I can say that we do support this amendment.
It really bothers me when I see a government, three and a half
years in power, finally just before the eve of an election it is going
down on its knees before the electorate and saying it made a
mistake. We have seen three and a half years of mistakes, not just
one mistake.
We see today that the grain is not moving in western Canada. We
see today that everything the Liberals have touched has turned into
a disaster.
(1345 )
This election is going to make the biggest changes in history. We
will finally see that the old line parties are going to pay for their
arrogance and their mistakes. When it takes three and a half years
to acknowledge that they made a mistake on behalf of the victims
and they are still protecting the criminals, something is wrong in
the House. It is disastrous and they know it. That is why the
Liberals are finally going down on their knees and getting a little
bit of dirt on those knees to show the public that they do have
remorse.
Mr. Fewchuk: What about the wheat board?
Mr. Hoeppner: The wheat board is something a little different
because that is where we throw the honest people in jail and the
criminals are turned loose. That is the difference between that and
this amendment.
When we as a party said that section 745 should be repealed, as
did every police association in Manitoba, what did the Liberals do?
They joked around and said they were the government with 177
people on their side and they did what they wanted to do. They said
they did not have to listen to anybody.
We are at the eve of an election and somebody is starting to get
shaky knees. Not only do they have shaky knees, they are willing to
bend them enough to get them a little dirty. Well, it is high time.
The Canadian people are going to make the choice in this next
election and are going to send a message like we have never heard
in our life before.
9440
When victims do not have a right to make an impact statement
about the criminals who have violated their rights something is
very wrong.
Mr. Harvard: You were in favour of the amendment, Jake.
Mr. Hoeppner: This happens after three and a half years of
arrogance, stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to the electors.
This should have happened three and half years ago, not today. This
was three and a half years of wasted time, three and a half years of a
government that never listened to the Canadian people.
What are we going to do come the next election? I know what we
are going to do. We are going to put them beside the Conservatives
with the two seats. We will add one more so they can have three.
That will be some party.
It is amazing when I hear former radio announcers starting to
respond to some of the accusations. They should have talked three
and a half years ago and kept some of those promises that they
made.
I wish they had a Liberal candidate in Portage-Lisgar but they
cannot find one. Mr. Speaker, if you are looking for a job I will
second your nomination if you want to come to Portage-Lisgar.
Mr. Kirkby: It looks like the Tories are going to beat you guys.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We should take a poll in your
riding. You're a loser.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order, please. I realize
there has been an outbreak of election fever, but perhaps hon.
members could restrain themselves so the Chair can hear the
speaker. The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette has the floor and
I would like to hear his remarks.
Mr. Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is really nice to hear
some comments in this House even if they are from the wrong side
of the House.
When we go to the election the next time the proof will be in the
pudding. When I look at the recent polls I know why they are
getting a little excited. People are finally starting to realize that all
the promises that were made in 1993 have been violated. All the
things that people were looking to this government to make happen
have never happened. What is the government going to do? You
have a good idea, Mr. Speaker. I kind of feel sorry already for some
of these Liberal MPs who will not be back because I have enjoyed
their presence in the House. It also gets kind of interesting when we
get into debate-
Mr. Harvard: Are you going to support the report?
Mr. Hoeppner: When it comes to non-farmers telling me what
people want concerning the wheat board it just shows me the
arrogance of the Liberal MPs. They stood on a platform and said
they would support the wheat board and bring in Bill C-72 which
makes the wheat board looks like there is a criminal element
running it by making legal things that have been happening for
years. They are now trying to cover it up, just like the Somalia
inquiry, the Krever commission and whatever else we have. The
pudding will show what the colour of it is, and it is going to be
disastrous as far as my hon. friends from the Liberal Party are
concerned.
(1350)
An hon. member: I think your melon crop is in.
Mr. Hoeppner: I always like to hear some real good solid
comments that can be recorded in Hansard because they will come
in very handy when we get on the platform to debate these issues.
A stepfather in Manitoba took a baseball bat and violated the
rights of his five-year old stepdaughter to the point that she died,
and still it is only called manslaughter. When I see that I am
disgusted and ashamed that this is the type of justice system we
have. That is something that really shows what the past
governments have been doing. They have been watching out for the
rights of the criminals but they have never paid any attention to the
rights of the victims. It is unbelievable but those are the facts. That
has happened once too often and in the next election we will change
the system and we will change the government.
I do not know what else I can say to the government and these
hon. friends across the way. I would love to have them back but not
the way they have been acting for the past three and a half years.
Their constituents will make that decision and not me. When we
look at the polls today we know exactly what they are saying.
I will still throw the challenge out to you, Mr. Speaker. If you
want to come and be a Liberal candidate in Portage-Lisgar I
would welcome that because that would show some quality for the
Liberals in my riding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I thank the hon. member
for his kind offer and comments but I think I will be otherwise
engaged.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to debate the amendments that were introduced by
the government this morning. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I do not
have a prepared speech because these amendments were brought to
me this morning when I thought we would be debating Bill C-17.
Now we find that Bill C-17 has been expanded, a very unusual
situation. Why? Because the government cannot get its act
together.
The government brought in a bill, I believe it was Bill C-41, to
give victims certain rights. Then in Bill C-45 the drafting was right
out to lunch, it compromised these rights and where are we now?
The government is asking for leave to amend Bill C-17 by adding
9441
on these extra changes. We are debating them today to try to get
the government's rear end covered for the next election.
This shows the incompetence the country is getting from the
government. It has only been three and a half years. We thought we
would have a five-year mandate with the huge majority it has but
after three and a half years the Liberals are getting a little shaky.
They are going down in the polls and they are thinking, ``boy we'd
better get out there and grab our support before it disappears on
us''.
Now we find the Liberals are trying to make some last minute
corrections to try to save face so they can go tell Canadians they are
trying to protect victims when they have through their legislation
been protecting criminals for three and a half years.
For three and a half years we have been criticizing the Minister
of Justice. Every time he has brought in a bill he has been soft on
criminals and ignored victims. What has he done for victims? He
has done very very little and what little he did he compromised
with Bill C-45. Now he is trying to make some small amends.
This Minister of Justice is a joke. This Minister of Justice has
certainly not served the justice system well. He has not served
Canadians well. He has not served victims well. He thinks he can
sit here and introduce legislation that suits his whims and the
whims of the Liberal Party. They will find out in a few short weeks
what Canadians think of their ideas on criminal justice.
We may be saying goodbye to quite a few Liberals in the next
election. Canadians are fed up to the teeth of this daily ritual of how
the Liberals think they are standing up to protect Canadians while
at the same time they allow criminals to walk all over them.
(1355 )
We have argued from the day we arrived here that section 745
must go. It is not a big section of the act. It would not take a great
deal of effort, just a stroke of the pen by the Minister of Justice,
fully supported by everybody in the House I would hope, and
section 745 would be gone. Then we would never hear about people
like Clifford Olson for a very long time because he would not be in
the news, he would be in jail.
Today we have heard about the various things that they have in
jail for people like Mr. Olson and others like him, where life does
not seem to be that unpleasant.
We know that our society needs to be protected. We know that
the government has little or no desire to protect Canadians. We
know that it would rather play around with the law. We heard the
minister say: ``I cannot protect the people of Quebec. I do not know
how to write a law that will address these gangs in Quebec who are
killing and maiming innocent people''. Just think of that young boy
who was killed by a bomb in Montreal. The Minister of Justice
said: ``I do not think I can write a law that deals with gangsters such
as these''.
I heard today that he is going to bring one in. It must be a sudden
conversion. Perhaps an election is in the wind. This type of
posturing is not what we want. We are looking for government. We
are looking for people who care about the victims.
When I heard that Clifford Olson described to the parents of one
of his victims the last moments and how that child died, I cannot
think of the horror and tragedy they were forced to relive. Can you
imagine, Mr. Speaker? I hope the Minister of Justice will think
about it. He has not said publicly what he thinks, but I know that I
cannot imagine the horror of being in that situation. If my child had
been murdered and I had to listen to the murderer tell me about my
child's last moment on this earth, I would be devastated. I am sure
that the parents of these victims are absolutely, totally devastated.
That is why my colleague from Surrey said we support the
amendments. It is a small measure, not because we like it, but it is a
minuscule thing.
We have begged the government for three and a half years to
eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code, to protect society from
these people, to prevent the parents from having to relive the horror
once more.
It goes on. When Olson is denied his parole, we know he is going
to be back again on another day. The victims will have to go
through it maybe one, two, three or four times. Who can tell?
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Justice will take our
comments and the comments of all Canadians under advisement,
listen to what we say and make the appropriate amendments.
The Speaker: As it is 2 p.m., we will proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
9441
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the students of Huron Park Secondary School in
Woodstock for working to broaden their horizons.
Students from the grade 9 and 10 enrichment program invited
representatives of nine embassies and consulates to present
information about their countries as part of the school's
international day.
These international visitors toured farms and industries in
Oxford county before attending a banquet and student variety
program in the evening.
The next day over 600 students had the opportunity to hear these
visitors from Italy, France, Brazil, Japan, Germany, South Africa,
Sweden, Slovakia and Australia. They learned about these other
9442
cultures and gained an appreciation of the role Canada plays in the
international community.
To the students of Huron Park Secondary School I would like to
say how proud I am of them for investing so much time and spirit in
this initiative.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hearings into the Sable Island gas project began in Halifax
yesterday with accusations of political interference by the Prime
Minister and his government.
The Prime Minister's very public repeated statements of support
for routing Sable Island gas through Quebec brings into question
the panel's ability to determine the future of the project free of
serious political influence. The panel must be allowed to determine
the future of the project based on the long term interests of Atlantic
Canadians, instead of on the political interests of central Canada.
This blatant interference could jeopardize the entire project and
Nova Scotia would be cheated out of $3.5 billion worth of royalty
wealth and thousands of well paid jobs.
The Reform Party will continue to speak out against any and all
moves by the government to rob Atlantic Canadians of the
opportunities for prosperity because of the Liberal shortsighted
political agenda.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the railways on the prairies are preparing to sell off or
abandon a number of branchlines. There is already some talk of
establishing short line railroads to replace the lost services.
I appreciate the concern being shown to maintain service on
these lines. The railways and the local elevator system provide
critical economic benefits to a lot of communities and the thought
of hundreds of more trucks on rural highways is horrifying.
However, this could not be coming at a more inopportune time.
Farmers are facing increased costs every way they look. Many are
anxious to find ways to finance new value added facilities. At this
time farmers should not have to be concerned about financing or
running short line systems all over the prairies.
Therefore we should not forget that recent Liberal policy gave
the railways the right to abandon our lines without concern for the
public interest. If the Liberals were serious about safe and
productive grain movement, they would insist on existing railways
maintaining responsibility for rural grain lines.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit we saw the first of a
new college hockey tradition. The World University Hockey
Championship pitted U.S. born players against Canadian college
players. The final result: Team Canada defeated Team U.S.A.
Media on both sides of the border proclaimed that it was a better
game than the NHL contest the night before. Canadians who could
not attend the game were thrilled by the television coverage of
TSN.
We as Canadians congratulate the NCAA in the U.S. and the
CIAU in Canada, the governing bodies of university sport in North
America; the Toronto based CAP and Gown Productions; the many
corporate sponsors; as well as mayors Mike Hurst of Windsor and
Dennis Archer of Detroit.
It is hoped that next year it becomes a two-game event with a
contest in Toronto as well as Detroit and that in two years time
university and colleges from Europe and Asia will make it a truly
world class promotion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Sunday, Radio-Canada rounded off the Course Destination Monde
with prizes for the best productions. The Bloc Quebecois would
like to congratulate the eight young people on their perseverance
and skill.
Since its inception, the Course Destination Monde has been an
interesting forum for bringing major international development
issues to the attention of television viewers. The survival of the
program is all the more relevant in the context of the abolition of
CIDA's public awareness programs.
In particular, I would like to offer my congratulations on the
quality of the reporting on international development. Anne-Marie
Cadieux, Alexis Turgeon, Pascal Brouard and Antoine Laprise
shared the CIDA, IDRC, Développement international Desjardins,
International Centre for Human Rights, Union des producteurs
agricoles du Québec, ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et
de l'Alimentation du Québec and Inter Pares prizes.
Congratulations to all the winners.
9443
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of National Wildlife
Week in Canada. From April 6 to 12 Canadians will make a
commitment to safeguard wildlife and celebrate its tremendous
significance through various events and activities.
The 1997 theme for National Wildlife Week is ecological
sustainability and the Canadian Wildlife Federation chose ``Wild
Things Need a Place to Grow'' as this year's slogan for all
promotional materials.
This reminds us that we must sustain healthy places for wildlife
to live and grow if we want our animal life to remain in existence
for years to come.
As in past years, National Wildlife Week co-ordinators from
each province and territory helped spread the conservation message
throughout communities.
(1405 )
For example, what began in Ontario with a few individuals
discussing wildlife issues around a table has now grown so that
museums, tourist areas, conservation centres, schools, youth
groups and municipalities across the province will be spreading the
message of the need for sustainability of all our wildlife.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Harris government has announced its intention to
close the Montfort hospital in Vanier, the only hospital to provide
specialized medical care entirely in French. This hospital is the
institution chosen by people who need treatment in French in areas
such as psychiatry, orthopaedics, surgery and so on.
There are many communities in my riding that are completely or
partially francophone. Many doctors in northern Ontario regularly
refer their patients to the Montfort simply because it is the only
hospital that can provide service totally in French, that is, in their
language. Patients can communicate and be cared for, understand
and be understood on the subject of the treatment they have come
for.
I could say more about the loss of efficiency, but it has already
been said. Needless to say, I strongly protest this closure, which is
particularly unfair to francophones throughout Ontario.
We must realize-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon.
member for Lisgar-Marquette.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Waterhen Reserve in Manitoba is dangerously
divided. Tensions have been running high between two factions on
this reserve for several years.
One faction broke from the chief after claiming it found
misappropriation of federal funds in an independent audit of the
band's records. It has held several blockades to draw attention to its
complaints.
As a result, violence and distress have gripped this community.
The latest blockade has resulted in criminal charges being laid.
About 300 people had to move from the reserve and leave their
homes and livelihood. The Liberal minister of aboriginal affairs
promised to do something years ago but has done nothing.
We send troops overseas to protect the rights of people to return
to their homes. Yet the government does nothing to protect the
rights of 300 Manitobans who are afraid to return to their homes
and their livelihoods.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to offer my congratulations to members of the Canadian
Women's hockey team who continued their perfect record by
winning their fourth consecutive world championship.
This team demonstrated true character, determination and great
skill. They were undefeated in the tournament and won the gold
medal game against the United States by a score of four to three in
overtime on Sunday night.
The World Championships held in Kitchener demonstrated again
Canada's outstanding ability to organize such an event and the
tremendous emotion and support Canadians have for our hockey
teams.
I am sure all members will join with me in congratulating this
fine Canadian women's hockey team for this year's victory. We
look forward to seeing them next year at the Winter Olympic
Games in Nagano, Japan.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
March, Quebec alone created 27,000 jobs, more than Ontario,
British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick combined. What
is more, since the beginning of 1997, Quebec has created 18 times
more jobs than all of the other provinces in Canada combined.
9444
Just recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the Prime Minister were strutting about in Montreal,
proclaiming to all and sundry that the sovereignist project was
harmful to the Quebec economy.
Yet, the Quebec economy is progressing, despite the ambushes
laid for it by federalism and the numerous inequities of which it is a
victim: reduced government spending on research and
development, harmonization of the GST, I could go on and on.
Imagine, for just one moment, what Quebec would be capable of
if it were sovereign.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka small
business owners and tourism operators had a chance to meet
directly with the Canadian Tourism Commission.
The Liberal government established the CTC in 1995 as a
public-private sector partnership to help keep tourism business and
tourism jobs in Canada. That is exactly what is happening.
About 90 people took part in the various local workshops we
held. On the first day we conducted a panel discussion on access to
capital for tourism industry businesses.
(1410)
On the second day we explored the U.S. and Canadian leisure
markets and talked about how the CTC could help rural Canada's
smaller operators better access these markets through partnerships.
It was a productive two days. My constituents and I appreciate
both our government's commitment to tourism in Canada and the
willingness of the CTC to help smaller tourism operators like the
ones in my riding.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
with a heavy heart on this cold April day. Last night the riding of
Crowfoot lost two citizens, one so very young, and two more lay in
the hospital.
Mr. Brian Austrum, administrator for the country of Camrose, a
candidate for the federal Tory nomination and a valuable member
of our constituency, was involved in a fatal car accident. The
accident claimed the life of his wife Beverly and the life of his
15-year old daughter Melissa. The condition of Mr. Austrum and
his 17-year old son Calvin is unknown at this time.
I know all members of the House will join me and my family in
extending our most heartfelt condolences to Mr. Austrum, his son
Calvin and daughter Elizabeth in their time of enormous grief and
sorrow. Our hopes and prayers are with them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the home
page of the new Internet web site of the Bloc Quebecois bears the
unfortunate imprint of the double standard of this party and its
leader.
French-speaking surfers are welcome to the site, which offers all
kinds of information about the party, its members of Parliament
and their ridings.
However, if you happen to be English-speaking, be prepared for
a rude awakening. First of all, the word welcome applies only to
``Dear friends from Quebec''. Anglos from the other provinces will
please refrain. Second, the tone is brittle and brutal, to say the least.
The emphasis is on the mission of the Bloc Quebecois and its
ultimate objective, the separation of Quebec.
The new leader of the Bloc has been quick to instil in his party
his new philosophy of provocation. Considering the initial results,
we will soon think back with regret to what the Bloc Quebecois
used to be before his leadership.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on March 28, I witnessed a unique event: a new record for
skin diving under ice, set by French diver Éric Charrier.
Mr. Charrier, who is 33 and hails from Porto-Veccha in Corsica,
went down to 70 metres in the icy waters of Lake Témiscouata, in
one minute and 59 seconds.
This exclusive event has attracted the attention of the
international media. This dangerous sport also contributes to the
advancement of scientific knowledge in the aerospace sector. As
they collect data on Éric Charrier's heart rate, experts may develop
new methods for training astronauts.
Mr. Charrier gave us a chance to share a fascinating experience
and discover a sport that is strange and mysterious to us North
Americans.
My congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Charrier, a man for
whom water has no secrets.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after Bas Iris announced several weeks ago that it was
creating
9445
about 3,000 new jobs, it seems Household Canada is also getting
involved in creating jobs in Montreal's east end.
The company has just announced that it will hire 592 new
employees for its call centre. With these new jobs, the Household
call centre will be the largest centre in Quebec, with more than
1,000 employees.
We would like to point out that the bilingual capabilities of the
workforce were also a factor in attracting this investment to
Montreal. The federal and provincial governments will invest,
respectively, $2.8 million and $2 million in this project.
We are delighted with this excellent news for our economy,
which again confirms Montreal's leading position in the financial
services sector.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, small town Canada is on the move. Soon after we took
office we took steps to make Canada's rural communities grow and
prosper. This has greatly benefited my constituents of
Dauphin-Swan River.
We established the rural secretariat. We started the family farm
loan plan. We launched the national biomass ethanol program. We
have extended the Canada infrastructure works program by one
year, recognizing that good infrastructure is vital to rural life and
will benefit every region in Canada.
(1415)
We gave the Farm Credit Corporation a $50 million boost in the
1997 budget. We increased our community access program by $10
million. We are ongoing supporters of the 4-H program and we
started the Canadian rural information service.
Our Liberal government is listening to the concerns of small
town Canada and coming up with solutions that work.
_____________________________________________
9445
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the matter of the linguistic school boards, the
Government of Quebec and the Liberal Party of Quebec, both
democratically elected by the people of Quebec, jointly call on
Ottawa to amend section 93 of the Constitution. Standing in the
way of Quebec's clear wish, however, is the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who has set himself up as the judge of
consensus in Quebec and is refusing to make the amendment.
How could the minister say that he would refuse to act on
Quebec's demand if, according to him, the anglophone community
does not support the Quebec government and the official
opposition, which jointly call for an amendment to section 93?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has said the same thing since the
outset in this. First, a bilateral amendment is possible between the
National Assembly and the Parliament of Canada.
Second, a consensus is required and must, obviously, include the
linguistic minority in the province. Third, a debate must be held in
the National Assembly before it is held in Parliament.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister made the following statement to the daily Le
Soleil on April 5, and I quote: ``This is not my project; it is not my
jurisdiction. I have no authority in educational matters''.
Today, if the debate were held in Parliament, in the National
Assembly, is the minister saying that, if the parties, the Liberal
Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Action Démocratique, sought an
amendment to section 93 he would comply with the request of the
National Assembly of Quebec and all the parties represented there?
Is that what he is telling us today?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on those specific points, I am saying the same thing as
my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, the Quebec minister of
intergovernmental affairs. He said, on February 13: ``I think we
consider that the consensus includes the English community. I
think it is obvious that the English community must be a part of a
consensus on a change of this nature''.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Quebec National Assembly, comprising the Liberal
Party of Quebec, the Action Démocratique and the Parti Quebecois,
considers a consensus has been reached in Quebec, will the
minister block it? Will he deny the request?
I remind the minister that in 1993 the McKenna government
managed to have the Constitution amended in New Brunswick
without the approval of the province's official opposition. Today, in
the case of Quebec, with the official opposition and the party in
power in agreement, is there a double standard? Without a
consensus in the New Brunswick legislature, we acted here on the
request of the Government of New Brunswick. When there would
appear to be a consensus in the National Assembly, is the minister
going to take it upon himself to decide whether it is sufficient? Is
that what he is telling us today?
9446
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec premier, Mr. Bouchard, felt on February
21 that the official opposition would oppose his plan and asked
us to act even if the official opposition did not agree, because,
as he put it, when they vote like that, it does not preclude a
consensus.
So all that is missing now is the consensus. I presume my
counterpart, Mr. Brassard, is working closely with the anglophone
community to find out exactly the source of the problem and reason
for the community's reticence in approving the project. This is his
job, and we are following with considerable interest. As soon as
there is a consensus, we will be delighted to move on this, in the
House of Commons.
(1420)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 27, 1997, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said on
RDI that there had to be reasonable support by religious and
anglophone groups for amending section 93, before there could be
said to be a consensus in Quebec. But some groups opposing this
amendment are calling for a constitutional guarantee of the
language rights of anglophones in Quebec, a guarantee that does
not exist at all for francophones outside Quebec.
Will the minister admit that, by refusing to go ahead with the
amendment requested, he is in actual fact supporting the groups
calling for additional constitutional protection for Quebec's
anglophones, while francophones are ignored?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned a constitutional guarantee. I asked
for guarantees that, in a democratic society, can take other forms.
They can be guarantees of a legal or regulatory nature, or moral
commitments.
As things stand now, the Government of Quebec has included a
number of ``whereas'' clauses. Some could be amended, some
could be added. There are lots of things that could be done without
necessarily altering the Constitution. This is just as true in this
situation as in many others, by the way.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister not, by his actions, giving a veto to any group, however
small, that challenges the Marois reform?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have said this, but we
are not giving a veto to any group.
I have already asked the hon. member this question: Do she and
her party consider Quebec's anglophone community part of
Quebec?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dion: If so, what is required is a consensus that includes
Quebec's anglophone community. What we are asking for is a
consensus, reasonable support. We are not asking for unanimity.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
would almost think there was an election on the horizon or
something like that. I know it is ironic, but the justice minister,
after having been terribly soft on crime for three and a half years,
all of a sudden is trying to pass himself off as the champion of
victims rights across the country. The people will not be fooled.
If the Liberals are really serious about putting victims first, will
the justice minister commit here, now, today to passing Reform's
victims bill of rights before the next election? Do not just think
about it, do it.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is one reason why the justice
committee is devoting time today, tomorrow and later this week to
the proposed victims bill of rights. That is because I asked it to. The
last time the matter was debated in the House of Commons I
undertook to direct the matter to the justice committee so it could
look at the proposals in detail. I wrote to the committee and it has
kindly taken up my request and is looking at the matter.
There is always more to do to make the justice system better and
that includes the rights of victims. I do not think that the Reform
Party or anyone else should overlook what has been achieved by
this government on behalf of victims. Over the last three and a half
years we have introduced more meaningful changes to the Criminal
Code for the benefit of victims than any government in memory.
The Reform Party ought not to think that it has any monopoly on
concern. As a caucus and as a government we have shown that we
care deeply about victims and their role in the criminal justice
system. We have acted.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is one
thing to talk for a year and then to do something on the eve of a
federal election. Surely the victims and the people across the
country can understand how phoney this facade is. It is ridiculous.
Victims across the country are not laughing about this and I do
not think they feel any comfort today. People like Debbie Mahaffy,
Sharon Rosenfeldt, Pricilla de Villiers, Theresa McCuaig are not
feeling any comfort about a justice minister who will stand up and
talk about what a great job his government has done. He said there
is one reason for the justice committee to get together today and it
9447
is because he asked it to. I would like to know what his motive is. It
is simply because of the letters that spell the word election.
What will it be, will the minister entrench victims rights in law
or is this simply pre-election posturing, as we have seen so many
times? Do it. Do it. Do it.
(1425 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was in June of 1994, just a few
months after the last election, that this government introduced Bill
C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act to, among other things,
improve the situation for victims, to provide for the first time that
victims could provide impact statements in youth court.
That was just a few months after the last election. The Reform
Party voted against those measures.
It was just a few months later, in 1994, that we tabled Bill C-41
to provide for the rights of victims and restitution, to provide
increased sentences for those who harm them. The Reform Party
voted against it.
In relation to gun control on behalf of victims in this country,
victims who came to Parliament and asked that we act, this
government had the courage of its convictions and it acted. The
Reform Party voted against it.
I think the victims of this country would far rather have action
than talk.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to know why victims groups right across the country have been
so concerned about the talk and precious little action they have
seen from the government here. They are not sensing any sense of
comfort, I do not think. The victims we have spoken with are
frustrated. They are frightened that the likes of Clifford Olson are
going to harass them again and again.
There is no justice in a minister who calls himself justice to say
that he is looking after these people and victims rights. On Bill
C-37, only two months later after those small changes to the Young
Offenders Act did he have to send another crew out across the
country because his original bill did not do it. He did not do it right
the first time.
We have unequivocally always said in the Reform Party that
victims should come first, unconditionally. Yesterday the minister
seemed to agree with us. Now I am really wondering if he does
agree with us totally that victims always should take precedence
over the rights of the criminal unconditionally.
Is he truly serious about putting victims rights first,
unconditionally, or is it more simple talk before an election?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if one takes the trouble to cut
through the inflammatory rhetoric and the emotive language of the
Reform Party and look at what those members are really saying, the
problem is it does not make any sense. They pretend that they are
the only spokespersons for victims in this country, which is
nonsense. This government has acted, not just spoken.
They do not really understand the issue. Even the purported
victims bill of rights, which has gone to committee, totally ignores
the distinction between federal and provincial responsibilities.
I listened to a CBC radio program this morning, a very good one
here in Ottawa. Family members of a murder victim were on. They
were asked if there was one thing they could have had in the justice
system that would have made their plight easier. They answered
grief counselling and assistance through the court process. That of
course is a provincial responsibility.
That is why I went to the table with the provincial attorneys
general and asked them to look with me at the Criminal Code. That
is the kind of effective action that will make a difference, not this
kind of talk.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The fears expressed by the Bloc Quebecois several months ago
concerning Pearson Airport are now being confirmed. The federal
government is now paying a high price to purchase Pearson
Terminal 3. Moreover, it is preparing to settle out of court with the
developer, who is suing it for $662 million because of the
cancellation of the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson. If
we add up all of the amounts it plans to pay out for the three
terminals, the total is well above $1 billion.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that the Liberal government's
irresponsibility in this matter will cost Canadian and Quebec
taxpayers very dearly, and that thousands of jobs could have been
created with the amounts squandered in this way?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the figure used by the hon. member is simply wrong. The
decisions made by the local authority in Toronto, the Greater
Toronto Airport Authority, to purchase the T-3 terminal was its
decision. It will be funding that through a bond issue. This is not a
government decision but one of the authority itself.
9448
(1430)
I should point out that there are substantial savings by having the
whole airport run by the same authority rather than two-thirds of it
run by one authority and one-third by another authority. That is
why for the Greater Toronto Airport Authority it is in its interest to
purchase the T-3 terminal and why it is in the interests of the T-3
consortium to sell. The price was determined by buyer and seller
and the government did not cheerlead or quarterback that decision
of those two groups.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993, the Liberals made the privatization of Pearson
Airport a major campaign issue relating to the integrity of the
government.
Since the government is now preparing to pay out more than $1
billion to the developers of Pearson Airport in Toronto to make
amends for the harm it has done, would it be prepared to do the
same to make amends for the harm it has done in connection with
Mirabel Airport?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that the figures being used by the hon. member
simply bear no relationship to any fact whatsoever.
The Pearson airport terminal purchase of $719 million is a deal
between the Greater Toronto Airport Authority and the T-3
consortium. That is what they decided, a willing buyer and a
willing seller, and they are working out the terms of that at the
present time.
If the hon. member wishes to compare the rent relief provided to
the Toronto airport authority of $185 million to construct a runway,
to construct two fire halls, to construct a deicing facility, if he looks
at that and compares it to the $100 million plus given to the ADM
at the time of the transfer of the Montreal airport he will discover
that in proportion to the amount of traffic, Montreal came out
almost twice as well as Toronto.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
whole country knows by now that the Minister of Justice does not
understand what Canadians want in a victims bill of rights. It is not
an amendment to the Criminal Code but a guiding light for the
Criminal Code.
Specifically, one of the rights is the protection from anyone who
intimidates, harasses or interferes with the rights of a victim. Why
do you suppose that is there? I will ask the Minister of Justice.
Why is Clifford Olson permitted to write to the parents of the
children he murdered, like Mr. and Mrs. Rosenfeldt, where Olson
wrote of Daryn's last words and described in detail how he died?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rules and the regulations of the
prison system as I understand them make it possible for anybody
who does not wish to receive mail from a particular prisoner to let
that be known and the prison will see to it that person does not send
mail to that person.
I spoke earlier about inflammatory language and emotive
rhetoric. I think we can say now we have seen one of the prime
examples from this hon. member who takes a discussion of the
principles of criminal law to such extremes.
We should focus on the real issues, making streets safe, making
communities safe, making the laws stronger and having a justice
system that is sensitive to the interests of victims. That is exactly
what our priority has been these last three and a half years, whether
with changes to the criminal law in relation to the drunkenness
defence which created an awful lot of victims or changes to the
access by defence counsel to confidential records.
Our strategy, as opposed to the strategy of those with the rhetoric
across the aisle, is to do things to make sure we have fewer victims
in this country. That is the strategy of this government.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has just witnessed an appalling lack of understanding of
what victims want. Victims of crime want to be informed, if the
minister wants specifics, in a timely fashion of the crown's
intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the
defence.
(1435)
Does the justice minister have a problem with that request? Will
he tell Canadians today that he will legislate this before an election
is called?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member shows
breathtaking presumptuousness in pretending that he speaks on
behalf of victims, in pretending that he and his colleagues alone
understand the needs of victims. Of course they do not.
If we need any evidence of that proposition, think back to that
day in 1995 when victims appeared in a room in this building. They
were people who had lost mothers and fathers, sons and daughters,
sisters and brothers to tragic violent crime, people who had been
shot to death. There were victims who came here in tears to ask
9449
these hon. members to vote in favour of Bill C-68 to control
firearms more effectively. And what did they do? They turned a
deaf ear to those victims. They turned their backs to those victims.
Almost all of them voted against the very bill those victims wanted.
The example given by the hon. member today demonstrates his
inability to grasp this issue. Plea bargains by prosecuting crown
attorneys are in the jurisdiction of the provinces. I have taken up
with the provinces my concern that they approve those systems. If
the hon. member would have regard for what we are doing he
would know we have the interests of victims very much at heart.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Last fall, the Government of Quebec officially asked the federal
government to return amounts set aside for parental leave as
provided under the Employment Insurance Act so that it could
implement its own family policy. However, last week we read in
the media that the minister intends to make this conditional on
reaching an agreement on manpower training.
Can the minister give us the assurance today that negotiating
recovery of the amounts provided for parental leave under
employment insurance will not be conditional on an agreement on
manpower training?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier
should not be too concerned about the conditional aspect, since the
Government of Canada is still confident an agreement on
manpower will be concluded with the Government of Quebec. This
has been a long-standing priority for all Quebec workers. I want to
stress that as far as we are concerned, any conditions would be
minimal.
To reassure the hon. member for Mercier, I would like to add that
the government intends to be very flexible and is open to
suggestions on parental insurance, as we are in all areas for which
we are responsible.
In fact, I can confirm that our officials will meet on April 11, if I
am not mistaken, for a second session to rough out the main aspects
of this initiative, and we are therefore confident that we will be on
target.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems,
and I would like to be quite clear about this, that negotiating the
recovery of amounts set aside for parental leave under employment
insurance will not be conditional on reaching an agreement on
manpower training, and I hope my impression is correct.
Is the minister prepared to do what it takes to ensure that an
agreement on parental leave is reached between now and the next
federal election?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would have been nice if the
official opposition had asked me to spend all available time on
settling the manpower question once and for all.
The opposition is asking me to take time off from my work on
the manpower issue to discuss parental insurance, which is very
important to us as well. The federal legislation is very flexible, and
we have no doubt we will be able to reach an agreement.
I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Human
Resources Development is a hard worker. We will do every thing it
takes to deal with these issues and update Canadian federalism to
meet the expectations of Quebecers.
* * *
(1440)
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on March 14 a
pedophile, who is a nine time offender, was released into the
community of Red Deer. I met with over 200 concerned parents in a
gymnasium. At that meeting, the RCMP said that this person would
reoffend. The prison officials said that he would reoffend. The
parole board said that he would reoffend. They say that the next
time his crime will probably be more violent.
The people in my community, the young parents who were there,
asked whether one of their children would be the 10th victim. What
message will the justice minister give these parents?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a parent of young children, I
recognize the concern that any parent feels about such an offender
or such offences.
It is because I am a parent of young children that I drew
particular satisfaction with the initiative of which I was a part when
the government and the caucus introduced Bill C-55 to deal with
exactly the kind of case that the hon. member has described.
The system has to change and it has to change in the way that we
proposed in the high risk offender legislation. That bill, as the hon.
member knows, will empower the sentencing court at the time
sentence is passed to require that after the person is released from
prison, unless they are jailed indefinitely, they can be supervised
closely for a period up to 10 years to make sure that our children
are safe from them. That is in addition to the provisions already in
the code allowing the criminal court at the request of provincial
AGs to ask that someone be locked up for the rest of their lives
without possibility of release.
I believe Bill C-55 is going to make my choice-
9450
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is just not
good enough. I looked into the eyes of these parents and they are
feeling scared for their children. They are saying that the system
and the justice department are failing them. They are not
delivering. This pedophile committed nine other offences. The
psychiatrists say he will reoffend. This individual is sick.
The Liberal answer that I got is not good enough. I want the
justice minister to tell the people what he is going to do for them.
This is happening right across Canada.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall have to send to the hon.
member a copy of Bill C-55 which deals specifically with the kind
of situation he has described.
Mr. Solberg: Well, that's really good.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): There's a great answer, a
photocopy.
Mr. Solberg: We'll send it to every pedophile.
Mr. Rock: The fact is that I have looked into the eyes of victims.
Mr. Ramsay: You've looked into their eyes and have done
nothing.
Mr. Rock: As Minister of Justice I have made it a point in my
job to meet with victims whenever I have the opportunity, parents,
brothers, sisters, sons and daughters-
The Speaker: The questions that we are having today are very
important. I know that all hon. members want to hear the response
of the minister. I invite him now to continue his response if he so
wishes.
Mr. Rock: I was saying that I have made it a point in my job to
meet with victims and members of families who have lost others to
violent crimes. I think it is an important part of my job to deal
directly with them and to hear about their experiences so that I can
learn from them.
It was almost directly as a result of that experience that the
government caucus drafted and put before the House Bill C-55
which is now at report stage and deals specifically with the kind of
high risk offender to which the hon. member refers. I hope we can
count on his support and the support of other members of the
Reform caucus as we finally get action to deal with the kind of
threat the hon. member has identified.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the official languages commissioner tabled a new report.
This year, not only is he continuing to place the two language
communities on an equal footing, which is ridiculous when you
look at the conditions in which francophones outside Quebec live,
but he is telling us there is no need to be alarmed about the rate of
assimilation of francophones. He said that a francophone who does
not speak French in the home is not necessarily anglicized.
(1445)
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell
us what he calls a francophone in British Columbia who speaks
English at work, at home, in restaurants, in hospitals, and even
when he plays bingo?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our linguistic duality is a fundamental part of the
Canadian identity and there is no doubt about the government's
commitment to the official languages.
Here in the House the government will continue to play a key
role in promoting the right of minority communities throughout
Canada to grow and develop.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Francophones in Ontario, as well as in Acadia, are being done
out of hundreds of millions of dollars in job training. Because
services are not available in their language, they must take courses
in English.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development, who
said only recently that the federal government protects French in
Canada, contribute in this way to the anglicization of francophones
outside Quebec?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if people listened carefully,
what I said recently was not that francophones in Canada protect
Quebec.
Mrs. Picard: We do not understand yet. Francophones do not
understand anything.
Mr. Pettigrew: What I said was that Canadian francophonie as a
whole was of great interest and could be very useful.
Mrs. Picard: You are not answering the question.
Mrs. Tremblay: Really, you can do better than that.
9451
Mr. Pettigrew: I would therefore like to say that the
Department of Human Resources Development is continuing to
do an excellent job in the field of training, that we are in the
process of co-operating much more closely with the provinces. We
are ensuring that francophone minorities in the provinces will
continue to be able to take advantage of training services in the
French language.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.
Over the last several months concerns have been expressed about
an enforcement gap at our borders that allows drunk drivers, child
abductors and other individuals suspected of criminal activities
into Canada.
What is the government doing to apprehend suspected criminals
and to prevent them from crossing our borders?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all of our
border MPs for raising this issue, especially the member for Erie
who has been diligent, on a number of occasions, in bringing it to
our attention.
We have acted as a government with the introduction of Bill
C-89, which gives customs officers the first line of defence for safe
homes and safe streets an ability to apprehend people under
Criminal Code infractions and to do something about it themselves.
This bill has the enthusiastic, vocal support I might add, of groups
such as CAVEAT, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Child Find and
others, including the customs union and border men and women
who do a fantastic job and will continue to do so.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no
matter how much smoke the Treasury Board president blows at it,
the facts are very clear. The government has forced the provinces to
eat $7 billion in cuts to health and education while keeping billions
of dollars extra in its own departmental budgets, money that it
promised it would cut.
These are the facts. The government has overspent in agriculture
by $126 million; transport, $400 million; regional development,
$812 million. The total is $3 billion plus.
How does the government justify cutting $7 billion from health
and education transfers to the provinces when it is billions of
dollars short in reducing waste in its own departments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again I have to inform our friends and colleagues in the
Reform Party that the money he is talking about was taken out of
the departmental budgets when the program review targets were
put together.
(1450 )
We have indicated that the figures changed over the years
because of changes in accounting practices and so on. We have
even given them a reconciliation of the figures so that it would be
easy for them to go step by step and see that the program review
has reached its objective.
Now the only thing I can do is to ask them to read the text we
have given them.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if a
small businessman juggled his books to avoid paying taxes like the
government is juggling its books to avoid public scrutiny, they
would be in jail making licence plates, except in Canada where
they would be watching cable television.
These spending cuts were promised by the finance minister in
the 1995 budget to justify his $7 billion gutting of health and
education transfers to the provinces. Two years later we find that it
is all a big sham, that the government did not make the cuts.
Why has the finance minister cooked his own books to mask his
government's failure to cut spending while forcing provinces and
Canadians to pay the price of his inaction?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
cuts according to their own affirmation are nothing compared to the
cuts in transfers they would make. How can they complain about
the cuts we are making when they would cut all the social
programs, cut the transfer programs to the provinces.
We have cut our own programs 40 per cent more than we are
cutting transfers to the provinces. In this case we have done the
right thing which is to reduce the size of government. It would have
been a terrible mess if the Reform Party had done that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
9452
The annual migration of snow geese from the United States to
the northern regions results in major losses to the farmers of the
Bellechasse region, the Beaupré coast, Ile d'Orléans, and other
regions of Quebec. Last year, the Canadian Wildlife Service issued
permits running from April 22 to May 26, to allow scaring and
shooting so as to limit the damage done to their fields by the geese.
This measure reduced losses considerably.
Is the Minister prepared to instruct the Canadian Wildlife
Service to issue permits for scaring and shooting again for 1997?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
is probably aware, any changes to the migratory birds convention
requires the convention to be ratified. We are looking forward to
that ratification very soon.
As soon as the convention is ratified we will be able to deal with
permits and special licences to deal with the problem the member
has indicated to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary is not very familiar with her portfolio, for
the permit last year was issued under the present convention
between Canada and the U.S.
All that we are asking is that permits be issued immediately to be
used in the days to come by the people living on the South Shore,
the Beaupré shore and the Ile d'Orléans, to scare and, if necessary,
to shoot the geese.
When it comes down to it, does the government realize that,
through its refusal, its silence or lack of understanding, its
incompetence in this matter, it is condemning farmers to assume
losses for which they are in no way responsible, and requiring the
taxpayers to compensate those same farmers, although
inadequately?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
reiterate my position on this issue. If the member is referring to the
snow geese hunt, they are under the migratory birds convention. A
study group has been put together with Canada, the United States
and other northern communities and the issue is being attended to.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
information has surfaced concerning Ted Weatherill, the chairman
of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
While the Canada Labour Relations Board held hearings
between 1990 and 1992 concerning Canadian National and
Canadian Pacific Railways labour disputes, Mr. Weatherill was
wining and dining with senior executives of both corporations, no
doubt part of the $148,000 he spent on meals. If that is not a
conflict of interest, I do not know what is because ministers have
resigned for less.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister
remove the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board now?
(1455 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is the same as yesterday. I have asked the
auditor general to look into those claims. As soon as I get the
auditor general's report I will make a decision.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is sweeping this under the carpet until after the election just like the
Somalia inquiry.
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members please not to put
motive to actions. I would ask the hon. member to proceed to his
question.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general will report to the
House at a later date, a long time from now. We have a chairman
who is not only abusing his expenses but who is abusing his power.
This guy has got to go. Will he go today? That is the question.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, may I remind the member that this issue is not under the
carpet, it is under investigation. It is proper when there is an
investigation that we wait for the result.
If the member is serious about changing the chair of the labour
board, maybe he and his colleagues should have voted instead of
filibustering Bill C-66. By now Bill C-66 would have been law and
we would have a new board.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for whomever is answering on behalf
of the Minister for International Trade today.
As we know, the Liberals promised not to sign NAFTA without
side agreements on jobs and the environment. The government
broke that promise, as it did so many others, and signed NAFTA
anyway. Now Canada is playing a leading role in negotiating the
OECD multilateral agreement on investment which will prevent
Canada from requiring employment targets of new foreign
investment in Canada.
9453
Yesterday the Minister for International Trade said that the
Liberals will not sign unless this provision is taken out. Canadians
could not trust the Liberals in 1993. Why should we trust them
today?
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, leave it to the NDP not to understand the importance of
investment to Canada. That aside, negotiations respecting
multilateral investment will be undertaken very carefully by the
government. A number of criteria have been established which we
have effectively enforced over the last few years in screening
investments either on the part of Investment Canada or in the
context of cultural policies.
As we move forward trying to find opportunities to liberalize
investment, not just into Canada but on the part of Canadians
elsewhere, we know that what we will gain from this is increased
market access and better export sales by companies into other
countries every billion dollars of which results in 8,000 jobs for
Canadians from every part of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.
The Dominion Bond Rating Service has recently upgraded
Canada's short term debt position. However, other rating agencies
are questioning our long term debt. Will the secretary of state
address the concerns of some of these agencies in rating Canada's
long term debt?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Durham brings up a very important question. It has been the policy
of the government to bring the fiscal health of the country back to a
reasonable level, and we have done so.
The rating agencies have provided Canada with an upgrade on its
short term debt which reflects the improved deficit position. More
important, it reflects the improved economic conditions in the
country. The DBRS provided us with a mixed message. It
complimented us on the efforts in reducing the deficit and it noted
that we have both low inflation and an improved current account
balance which is a very difficult matter to achieve.
Next year we will see a decline in the proportion of debt to GDP.
That is a critical milestone and a path to financial health.
(1500 )
The Speaker: I draw the attention of members to the presence in
the gallery of members of the Legal, Constitutional and
Administrative Review Committee from the Parliament of
Queensland, Australia, led by Ms. Judith Famin, Chairperson.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
9453
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that a ways and means
motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules and another act related to the Income Tax Act, be concurred
in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(1545 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 286)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
9454
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dupuy
Easter
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young-117
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Nunziata
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-78
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bergeron
Bonin
Caccia
Cauchon
Comuzzi
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Eggleton
Fillion
Fry
Gauthier
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Maloney
Payne
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find a disposition in
the House that we would forgo the ringing of the bells and that we
could take the vote immediately on ways and means Motion No.
20, and subsequent to that vote on ways and means Motion No. 20,
that the vote originally deferred to the end of Government Orders
later this day on the matter of Bill C-27 would also be dealt with
immediately following the vote on the ways and means motion.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1550 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that a ways and means
motion to implement certain provisions of the budget, tabled in
Parliament on February 18, be concurred in.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous ways
and means Motion No. 19 be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with the exception of the member
for Windsor West, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: I heard a no. On a point of order, the hon. whip of
the Reform Party.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there were quite a few things involved
in that motion, most of which Reformers agreed with. What we did
not agree with was the application of the votes. When we vote, one
9455
vote and not proceeding with the bells was good but we do not
want to apply the vote at this time.
The Speaker: What we have agreement on is that we will not
ring the bells, that we will call the vote now and that the vote will
be a recorded vote, as we usually do it. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Strahl Also, Mr. Speaker, that we will vote immediately
after that ways and means motion on Bill C-27 rather than wait
until the end of the day.
The Speaker: We will now take the vote on ways and means
Motion No. 20.
(1555 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 287)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dupuy
Easter
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young-117
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-77
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bergeron
Bonin
Caccia
Cauchon
Comuzzi
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Eggleton
Fillion
Fry
Gauthier
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Maloney
Payne
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. We will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on Motion No. 1 of Bill C-27.
9456
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, an act to amend
the Criminal Code (child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal
harassment and female genital mutilation) as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
(1600)
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
vote yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yes.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker,
New Democratic Party members present today will vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
(The House divided on the Motion No. 1, which was negatived
on division:)
(Division No. 288)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-77
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dupuy
Easter
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young-117
9457
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bergeron
Bonin
Caccia
Cauchon
Comuzzi
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Eggleton
Fillion
Fry
Gauthier
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Maloney
Payne
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
vote yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker,
New Democratic Party members will vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 289)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Cullen
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Young-193
NAYS
Members
nil/aucun
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bergeron
Bonin
Caccia
Cauchon
Comuzzi
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Eggleton
Fillion
Fry
Gauthier
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Maloney
Payne
9458
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you
seek it I think you would find unanimous consent of the House that
at the end of debate on private member's Motion No. 267 the
question will be deemed to have been put, a recorded division
requested, and the vote deferred until the end of Government
Orders on Wednesday, April 9.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1605 )
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and certain other acts, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee; and of the motion.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, we think the House is nearing the end of this
session. We expect an election soon. It is unfortunate that just when
everyone has learned to say the constituency name of
Kindersley-Lloydminster it will cease to exist. We will have to
learn to pronounce some new names.
I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill
C-17, in particular the amendment regarding victim statements. It
is very pertinent to what is ongoing today in the country.
A headline in today's Star Phoenix in Saskatoon reads ``Seeking
rights for victims''. I will not read the entire article but in summary
it states:
A grieving grandmother went to Parliament Hill to condemn a justice system she
says coddles criminals and ignores victims. Theresa McCuaig whose grandson was
tortured to death by four Ottawa street gang members backs Reform's proposed
victims bill of rights.
Often the victims are the ones ignored not by Canadians and
certainly not by those who care about people but certainly by our
legal system, by our justice system, by the government and in
particular by the Minister of Justice.
I have been a member of the House now for over 3.5 years.
When I first came to the House many of the debates were on justice
issues. I have heard my colleagues raise justice matters a number of
times.
I come from a rural riding where people tend to trust one another
and where the crime rate is probably among the lowest in Canada.
Even rural Canada is beginning to see more victims of crime all the
time. Certainly in our medium sized and larger cities the problem
of crime is rampant and the list of victims is growing. The fact that
victims are not given a proper set of rights in Canada's charter of
rights is absolutely unacceptable.
When I was the Reform House leader I heard many bills and
motions debated. It was always the same story. The Liberals would
refuse to acknowledge there was a problem. They would be
exposed to the truth time and time again, mostly by Reform
members of Parliament. Case studies were presented to the House.
The issue was raised at the justice committee. The issue was raised
in the House. The issue was raised in Reform supply day motions.
Time and time again we would be heckled from the other side.
They would ignore the problem and pretend there was no problem.
There were all kinds of ridiculous statements from the Liberal side
whose members were totally out of touch with the citizens of
Canada who were telling us about the problems they were
experiencing: we were extremists; we were raising an issue that
was not important to Canadians; we were glorifying crime.
I remember being in Winnipeg in 1992 on the eve of the
Charlottetown accord. A good friend's car was broken into while
visiting Winnipeg. I thought gee, crime was starting to affect
people close to me. Just the other day the wife of one of my staff
had her car broken into right here in Ottawa.
When it starts happening to people we know and we start hearing
about it not on an odd case by case basis but regularly, we start to
wonder if as members of Parliament we are doing our job in
correcting the problems with the justice system, in providing
adequate protection for our citizens and in providing adequate
protection for the victims of crime who are growing in number.
In her interview with the Star Phoenix Mrs. McCuaig said no.
She said that the Reform Party's proposed bill of rights was the
right thing. We also propose to allow victim statements and to
allow the victims to have a proactive role in dealing with this issue
rather than being reactive and having the rug pulled out from under
them on a regular basis.
(1610)
We have wasted time over the last 3.5 years. We have seen
inaction on the part of the Liberal government. The Liberals said
9459
there was no problem, that we were imagining things, that we were
alarmists on the Reform side. Suddenly on the eve of an election
the bells are ringing among the electorally challenged people. They
are starting to wonder if they are going to be re-elected. They
realize they have fallen short on the issue of correcting
inadequacies in our justice system and in protecting the victims of
crime.
We finally started to see some action by the justice minister. The
government has agreed to Reform amendments that were proposed
to strengthen Bill C-17 which we are currently debating.
The riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster will disappear. As a
result I will be running in a new riding called
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. The new portion of the riding that
I will be seeking election in includes the west portion of Saskatoon.
It has probably the highest crime rate in the city of Saskatoon.
I have been talking to citizens of this area. It is interesting to
know who currently represents the area of Saskatoon I am seeking
election in. One of the members of the legislative assembly is no
less than the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanow. It is
interesting that an NDP premier of the province of Saskatchewan
would be representing a high crime area. He has represented that
area for some time. He has been in power for some time and from a
provincial level has not been able to deal with the issue of crime.
Prior to the current justice minister in Saskatchewan, this area of
the city of Saskatoon was represented by the provincial minister of
justice, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Romanow and Mr. Mitchell, two of the
most powerful New Democrats in the province of Saskatchewan,
were not able to reverse the trend of increasing crime in their own
constituencies.
Then I looked to see who represented this part of the city
federally. Lo and behold some of the most severe areas in which
crimes occur are represented by the current member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn. I looked at his resume. He has been involved
in the justice committee. I believe he even chaired the committee
for some time.
Seldom have I heard the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn speak
in the House about the problems in his constituency. I have not
sensed any concern on his part. He is one of the members who
would often heckle us for raising the subject in the House of
Commons. One would think he would have more concern for his
constituents.
The current chair of the justice committee or parliamentary
secretary is the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He
also heckles us in the House when we raise the issue of crime.
While the riding I want to represent is not one that he is currently
involved with, it is just to the north in Prince Alberta.
Another person who is trying to represent this part of the city of
Saskatoon and currently represents part of it is New Democratic
justice critic, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. It is
interesting that I have not heard him speak in the House on crime
issues. As the justice critic he is very silent. I hear our justice
critics raising the issue in the House at every opportunity. I do not
hear the NDP critic being concerned about victims. He has been
very silent on the issue. He is more interested in the price of
gasoline at the pumps than victims and victims rights. That
concerns me.
Today I watched the Minister of Justice in question period who
was sitting right across from me. Several members of our caucus
asked the minister about his failure to act more quickly to correct
some injustices in the justice system. I watched the minister talk
about what he had done in the past and what he was proposing to
do. It reminded me of lip sync. His mouth was going. He seemed to
be saying words but I was not hearing anything. I do not think he
really meant the words that were being broadcast over our public
address system in the House of Commons.
It seemed like his heart was not in it. It seemed like he was
saying it because he had to as we are on the eve of an election. It
seemed like he was only pretending to be concerned about justice
issues. He rather dismissed some of the serious concerns we
brought forward. The only reason he has addressed this issue and
allowed the amendments that we have put forward is because he
fears the electorate.
(1615)
That is the good thing about elections. Citizens' concerns can be
ignored for a few months, perhaps for a few years, but then an
amazing transformation overcomes government. We saw it
previously with the Conservative government that did nothing at all
in the justice area for the years that Prime Minister Mulroney was
at the helm of his government. We have seen nothing of
significance during this Liberal administration until the eve of an
election. Suddenly the minister is talking about some of the
reforms that could have been implemented in the first year of its
mandate. There is only one way the Canadian public can rectify a
problem if the members of its government refuses to listen and that
is to replace it.
We expect that the most likely date for an election is June 2.
Canadians will then have a chance to tell some of these Liberal
members what they think of their performance in the House of
Commons. They will be able to judge whether or not they voted the
right way on justice issues. Some of those victims of crime, like
Theresa McCuaig, their relatives and neighbours will finally be
able to make their voices heard in the loudest possible way. That is
the dropping of a ballot in the ballot box.
I want to close my comments this afternoon by saying that while
I represent a rural riding I am becoming more and more aware of
9460
the seriousness of the growth of crime in our country, not only in
the urban areas but the rural areas as well. I am convinced that one
of the primary reasons that my party is achieving more and more
support by Canadians is because of the positions we have taken on
the crime issue. We have been responsible. We have been aware.
Perhaps the most important quality that has helped us is that we
have been aware of the problem and then put forward constructive
proposals.
It is with great joy that I support the second amendment to Bill
C-17 that would allow for broader and better victim impact
statements. I would ask all members to not only support this
measure but also the many others that we have proposed. Let us fix
the justice system together.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
find it rather frightening to look at the content of some of these
omnibus bills. Bill C-17 is one of those bills. It actually
encompasses a lot more than what my colleague has just described
as a very important item. I agree the bill should go through because
of the mandatory admission of victim impact statements. This
should be one of the more significant pieces of legislation to talk
about right now, and certainly pass.
There is a lot more in this bill that is frightening. It is frightening
to see some of the very significant charges and sentencing
provisions in the Criminal Code changed, for instance, the issue of
house breaking. To unlawfully break into a dwelling is now
considered to be a dual procedure offence whereas it was
considered an offence carrying a minimum of 10 years in prison.
Some of the other changes that we see in the sentencing provisions
trivialize the offence.
(1620 )
Unfortunately, over the last three and a half years, that is exactly
the kind of legislation that the country has been getting from the
Liberal government. It is an effort to trivialize some of the more
serious offences which have been committed against society.
We are going to be contending with a weakness when it comes to
some very significant charges like shop breaking and being
unlawfully in a dwelling house, where they will be placed into a
dual procedure category which they should not be. They should be
maintained as serious charges.
The major topic that I want to speak on is victim impact
statements. I have had the opportunity to sit in on several court
hearings, as have my staff and other members of the Reform Party.
We have managed to glean from these hearings what is happening
with victim impact statements.
Victim impact statements should be mandatory. Bill C-17
addresses that point. However, the statements should be pure in the
sense that whatever impact the victim feels the crime has had on his
or her life should be told to the court. At the present time a judge
can look at the victim's impact statement, with the accused present,
and edit the statement. That is absolute nonsense. The edited
statement may not be anywhere close to what the victim had
intended.
Evidence is evidence. Why should a judge be given the power to
alter the statement of a witness? That is exactly what is happening.
I attended the hearing in Saskatchewan concerning Marie King
Forest. I watched the judge tear her statement apart. He called it
editorializing. He told her not to get emotional. This happened not
only in that hearing, but also in the following one I attended which
was held in Calgary. The victims were told that if they got
emotional there might be a re-trial of the offence. What are our
courts turning into?
Mr. Hermanson: Try the victims.
Mr. Hanger: Yes, as my colleague puts out, it is to try the
victims. It is to upset them. It is to keep every victim off balance.
That is the message they are getting. Why should we, as
parliamentarians, allow that to happen?
When this issue came forward many months ago, in fact many
years ago if we look at section 745, which was implemented over
15 years ago by a Liberal government, why were there not outcries
from every parliamentarian? There was not. The Liberal Party is
content to leave it that way. It is content to keep the victims in our
society on edge, off balance and constantly suffering.
There is a point of justice and I do not believe that it is being
delivered as it should be by the Liberal government with the
legislation which it has brought forward. In spite of the fact that the
Liberals have been told time and again, they refuse to make any
adjustment.
I believe that in section 745 hearings the statements are very
important. At the most recent hearing which I attended we heard
the statements of other witnesses. This case concerned Mr.
Glaremin. If the victim's impact statement can be altered, what
about other witness statements which are issued?
Expert testimony was granted at Glaremin's trial. However, it
was not from an expert. It was from a paraphrased condensed
version that the court allowed to be entered and allowed the jury to
read. In other words, somebody had already altered it. It was
supposed to be from the expert witnesses. There was no
opportunity for even the crown to cross-examine it. This is absolute
nonsense.
(1625)
The killer was then up on the stand giving his evidence. What
was he saying? Was he telling the jury how he felt? Absolutely.
Was his statement altered or edited by the judge? No way. He could
even reconstruct the events that brought about his conviction.
9461
There may have been some objection on the part of the crown in
reference to that point, but he said it and the witnesses were not
around to say otherwise because the trial was long gone. It had been
15 years ago. Here again was the opportunity for the jury to hear a
very sanitized version of what had really happened. That is what
happens at a section 745 hearing.
We should not be talking about just a single statement. This
omnibus bill, C-17, should strike section 745 and clear it right off
the books. That is where it should end. First degree, premeditated
murderers should be subject to the most severe of penalties, not
some opportunity for involving parliamentarians in a debate on
whether a statement is good or not or that the murderer could get
out earlier. First degree, premeditated murderers should be subject
to the most severe of penalties.
I have had several victims in my office over the last little while.
The consensus right now is not to have anything done with section
745 but to bring back the death penalty. That is the comment and
the desire, I would suggest, on the part of a number of Canadians. I
would suggest that number is very high. People want section 745
gone but they also do not ever want killers let out. Not only should
life mean life but the ultimate penalty is now being discussed in an
even broader context.
However, this is not on the lips of the Liberal members. The
death penalty is not a item that will ever be brought to the floor by
the Liberals.
Reform's position on the death penalty is that we would like to
see it brought to the people in the form of a binding national
referendum for first degree, premeditated murderers. That is really
the way to deal with the issue. Who wants to entrust it to elected
representatives who refuse to do what the people want? Give it
back to the people and let them decide. If the issue should be
brought forward then so be it, it will be brought forward.
We could go on and on about section 745 because this issue will
never die. There are some 600 possible applications coming up
under this section. I think that is to what Canadians should really
pay attention. The pressure should come on the federal
government, the Liberal government. It brought this section in and
it is up to the Liberals to get rid of it. If not then they should be
voted out of office.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today as well to give my thoughts on the two amendments that we
are debating and most specifically this latter one before the House.
What I find, after listening to the debate today and the comments
made by my colleagues from the Reform Party, is that when one
really listens to what is being said and what is being done here, the
Liberals are trying to play catch up. The Liberals made a lot of
mistakes in this legislation. These two amendments are two
examples of admissions of failure, the failure of the justice
minister to get it right the first time.
(1630)
For those who may not understand what I am talking about, let
me give a brief history here. Somewhere along this session of the
35th Parliament we brought in Bill C-17 which is basically an
omnibus bill, technicalities to improve things for legislatures,
police officers and so on, and then we went on to Bill C-41. Bill
C-41 had a provision that gave an automatic right for victims to
issue an impact statement or a victim statement at a trial, should
they so choose. That was an automatic right. We supported that.
Then the government brought in Bill C-45-
An hon. member: You voted against it.
Mr. Silye: We supported that clause. The whole bill was not
entirely good enough, so the party may have voted against it, but
that particular issue we supported.
Then on Bill C-45 the government introduced more Criminal
Code amendments and then in that bill it removed the automatic
right of a victim impact statement by deferring it to the year 2012.
What kind of justice minister passes into law a victim impact
statement automatic and then brings in another piece of legislation
that defers it, eliminates it, until the year 2012? Does he really care
about the victims? Does he really understand about the victims and
the impact that crime, deaths and all these things have on them?
This is an admission of failure because the government passed
two laws that contradicted each other on this particular issue. Now
it wants to bring in an amendment to rectify the situation.
Somebody caught it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice in committee caught it. I said perhaps. It has
now been clarified. The Reform Party members in the justice
committee caught it. They pointed this out and the intelligent
Liberals in that committee listened.
Today in question period the justice minister took credit for
ordering the committee to do this. We know otherwise.
Now there is an amendment before us that rectifies this and
reintroduces the automatic victim impact statements. We believe it
is for political reasons. We believe it is because an election is
around the corner. If it is not in the next month or so, it will be in
the fall. The Liberals will be able to claim they have looked after
the interests of victims. So be it. The people will make that
decision themselves, but we are glad that it is in here. We are glad
that this is now law. I do not care whether it is for election
9462
purposes or not, I am glad it is in here. For that purpose we are
supporting the amendments.
Why did the government not bring back Bill C-55? We have a
fear in our society by people who are worried that there are
dangerous criminals out there, high risk offenders, repeat offenders
and how we are going to handle them. That is another issue that
came up today in question period when we asked the justice
minister what he was going to do for those 200 families that sent
letters to the member for Red Deer about this pedophile being let
out. This is the ninth time this individual has been let out and
repeating the same crime. He goes in, comes back, does the crime,
goes back and the answer was ``we are going to send him a copy of
Bill C-55''. Who understands that as a solution?
The real solution is to bring that bill back and let us debate it. I
talked to our critic for the solicitor general, the member for Calgary
Northeast, and he informed me that the real problem with the bill is
that the government, specifically the justice minister, is worried
about dangerous offenders, and he is hanging his hat on the word
dangerous, and pedophiles are not considered dangerous. They are
considered habitual. I am just a businessman and I do not care
whether he habitually does dangerous things or does dangerous
things once in a while; either one is equally bad, either one should
be punished under the law and they should be punished the same.
We have to do something about pedophiles in our society because
they are becoming dangerous.
If we do not do something about it we are going to put more fear
into the lives of average Canadians, our neighbours, people who
live beside us with kids.
The solution we recommend is bring back that bill and amend it.
It talks about victims and victim rights and what to do about high
risk offenders, repeat offenders, dangerous offenders, habitual
offenders and we can take care of it. Let us build a prison for them
and keep them there for life, those who are certifiably incurable.
(1635 )
If they can be cured and have served their time and are released,
that is the law. But if they do it a second time, that is it, they are
gone. But nine times is ridiculous. Every expert from psychiatrists
to police officers has said he is going to do it again. Is it going to
your daughter or my daughter? Whose son will it be? Yours or
mine? Do we have to wait? Why can something not be done? Why
not build a home for these people and put them away for life? But
no, we are not debating that. We have to go on to the other failures
of this government.
The justice minister has acted irresponsibly on innuendo.
Perhaps the Pearson airport deal was something that came from the
Prime Minister, I do not know. But he acted on it and he denied the
rights of ordinary citizens to go to court to file a statement of claim
for damages, taking away the rights of individuals. Two days ago
in question period the defence minister said ``we respect the rights
of the courts and citizens before the courts''. Yes, that was really
doing it in the Pearson airport deal.
That fiasco has cost us over $200 million already and we are not
finished with it yet and we do not know what is going to happen
with it. However, we have a justice minister who claims the
contract is going to be cancelled because the developers are going
to make too much profit.
Then in discoveries we found out that the government's defence
will be that it is denying them the right to go to court because it was
going to lose money. That is contradictory.
Then there is Airbus. Allegedly through newspaper reports and
from a little tweety bird whispering in his ear he heard that perhaps
former Prime Minister Mulroney did something he should not have
done. He then conducted an investigation and claims he did not.
Somehow it happened and now there has been an out of court
settlement. We all know the story. I will not bore the House with
the details. That cost us some money.
The government through this amendment is admitting that it has
failed to serve the justice needs of the country.
The Criminal Code is confusing. It is almost as bad as the
Income Tax Act. When we try to clarify things and make our streets
safer, make our citizens feel more comfortable that the law is being
applied, what do we get, even with this amendment? We leave it to
a judge to decide whether he or she is satisfied that the accused who
is serving a sentence in the community would not endanger the
safety of its citizens.
The problem with our laws is that they are too discretionary.
There is too wide a range for judges to decide. It is too hard for
them to pinpoint and they always err on the side of caution. That is
why sentences are weaker than they should be. That is why the
punishment does not fit the crime in a lot of cases. We should
narrow the range.
The Young Offenders Act is a disaster. It is not punishing young
offenders the right way. Young kids are still getting away with
committing serious crimes.
I submit that these amendments are an admission of failure by
the government. We are glad it is finally being admitted. We are
glad that government members listened to Reform members in the
justice committee and that they are doing the right thing and
restoring the automatic right of victims to produce an impact
statement should they desire to do so. Nevertheless, they should not
be harassed by judges. They should be allowed to give statements
freely in a way which would communicate their feelings.
Justice is served only if we do it right. If we just trade words
back and forth here in the House of Commons saying that we took
action and got legislation it will not be right. We in the opposition
are saying that the government does not have it right. It had the
9463
opportunity to do it right, but it is not doing it right. It will not
listen. I believe it should. Maybe this is an example where it will.
(1640)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Order, please.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake-railways.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, when members are elected to the House it is the
general understanding of Canadians that they are sent to the House
to represent the views and the concerns of the Canadian people, the
people who go to the polls to elect them. We in the Reform Party
truly believe that is our role here, to act on behalf of our
constituents but also to represent the voice of the Canadian people
even in ridings where we were not elected if they are not being
represented by the MPs who were elected in those ridings.
We are seeing with the Liberal Party, with this government and
in particular the Minister of Justice a complete and absolute failure
to deal with issues of justice and issues concerning the Criminal
Code that will respect the concerns of the Canadian people. There
is no larger example of the use of the word failure when it comes to
the Liberal Minister of Justice. I would like to talk about some of
the failures.
The whole debate today is the failure of the Liberal justice
minister to properly address issues in legislation that have been put
forward by his department. The amendments in Bill C-17 reinstate
the automatic right of victims to present impact statements at
parole or judicial hearings. This right was granted through Bill
C-41, then taken away through Bill C-45. This is not only a failure
of the concerns of the Canadian people but it is a huge example of
the incompetence of the Minister of Justice who was put in that
position.
The justice minister is the highest justice position in the
Canadian government. He was put in that position because the
Prime Minister had confidence that he could do that job. He has
failed to do that job and not only has he failed in this instance to
appropriately recognize the deficiencies in the legislation that he
put forward and take steps prior to it being introduced in the House,
he failed to understand what the Canadian people wanted. He failed
to understand how important victim impact statements are parole
or judicial hearings. He failed and failure is not acceptable when it
comes to justice issues, nor is it acceptable when it comes to
dealing with the issues of the Canadian people.
That is what this minister has done, he has failed. He failed in
this case. He failed in bringing in appropriate legislation under Bill
C-68. He told the country that Bill C-68 was to be the be all and end
all to eliminating firearms crimes. That is what he said over and
over. The Liberal said this was going to fix people who commit
firearms offences in Canada.
There was not one substantial piece of evidence to support that
rationale. There is not one member of the Liberal Party who has
been able to put forward one shred of evidence to clearly show that
Bill C-68, the gun control bill, ever had any hope of addressing
criminals who commit firearms crimes.
It will accomplish something.
(1645 )
My theory and the theory of many Canadians is that the agenda
behind Bill C-68 is a massive cash grab by the government. The
average between the high and the low estimates of firearms is
probably around 10 million. Under Bill C-68 the Liberal
government has the complete freedom to impose registration fees.
The government is not restricted. It can impose annual fees on
every registered firearm. It will be somewhere in the
neighbourhood of $100 a year to own a firearm. That would be $1
billion.
Mr. Kirkby: What a bunch of garbage.
Mr. Harris: That is pretty attractive to a Liberal government
that does not know the meaning of cutting spending but only knows
the meaning of taxation.
Mr. Kirkby: There you go again.
Mr. Harris: One again the parliamentary secretary is trying to
defend Bill C-68, a bill that is completely indefensible. All through
the debate we asked the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary
secretary from Prince Albert to give us one shred of evidence that
Bill C-68 would cut firearm crime like they said it would.
Mr. Kirkby: We gave you a ton of evidence.
Mr. Harris: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice is heckling me. At that time he had a chance to give us one
shred of evidence and could not do it. Now he can heckle while he
is off camera. He had his chance. We even had the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Solicitor General stand in the House during debate
and say that n Canada people must consider it a privilege to own a
firearm. We are talking about legal property.
We could embellish on that. If it is a privilege to own a firearm
which is legal property, is it also their opinion it is a privilege to
own a car or a house or any other kind of private property?
9464
Reading from the Constitution, 1982, which Mr. Trudeau put
in place, one wonders whether there are any rights of individual
Canadian citizens to own property anyway: ``not to be derived
thereof without due compensation or process of law''. The
Constitution took care of that in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, so to speak. That is an oxymoron.
In the same way the Minister of Justice failed in respect to the
amendment being debated today, he failed in Bill C-68 miserably.
Let him try to sell that on the election trail, particularly in the
Prince Albert-Churchill River riding.
The Liberal government and the Minister of Justice failed on Bill
C-226, a private member's bill put forward by the Liberal member
at the time for York South-Weston who was kicked out of the
party because he would not toe the party line. We do not blame him
on this side of the House.
Bill C-226 was unanimously adopted in the House. It was a
private member's bill that would abolish section 745 of the
Criminal Code. It would ensure that life meant life for someone
convicted of the highest crime in the land, the crime of murder. The
bill would suspend the Liberal version of life imprisonment with 25
years without chance of parole.
We have introduced the Reform version of life imprisonment in
the House in which life means life. We have also introduced a
private member's bill to allow the people of Canada to debate, to
have a referendum on the return of capital punishment. The Liberal
government shot that one down even though a huge majority of
Canadian people would not only like to see the return of capital
punishment in Canada but would like the chance to voice an
opinion on it. The Liberal government would not allow that to
happen because it did not fit into its philosophy.
What is the job of members of the Liberal Party opposite? Is it to
represent their constituencies or to represent the philosophy of the
Liberal Party? One wonders what is more important to Liberal
members. There are some Liberal members in the House who have
their heads on straight and are very sensible when it comes to
criminal justice. Unfortunately the member for Kent is not running
for the Liberal Party in the next election. We are very sorry to see
him leave the House because when it came to justice issues there
were at least two or three sound thinking Liberals on the other side.
We are very sorry to see that.
(1650)
I would encourage the Liberal government and the member from
Prince Albert to go to the polls tomorrow, try to run on their justice
positions, and let the Canadian people decide who they want to
choose. I think they will be in for a big shock.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I will venture forth some impromptu comments
on this minor amendment to the code. It symbolically goes to the
heart of the justice system and what the justice system is all about.
We as a society delegate to justice system specialists the
handling of law and order. For instance, the development of police
forces, the adversarial system, the concept of the burden of proof
and of innocence until proven guilty are all evolutionary changes.
The justice system is now out of touch with Canadians. That
delegated trust we have placed in the justice system is broken. As
society values change so must the justice system change. It must
reflect mainstream Canadian values. This is the point where
residents of my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby are most
cynical about the governance from Ottawa. They are not happy
with the results delivered by the justice system. They look for
answers and even provide their own common sense solutions which
never seem to be listened to. They also look for who is minding the
store and who is accountable for the poor results of the
administration of justice.
The justice minister comes along and tries to soothe. However
the Young Offenders Act and how young offenders are processed
are not acceptable as far as the community is concerned. Violent
offenders are still dealt with in a manner that fails to protect the
community. It seems at times the whole community is hostage to an
unresponsive system of weak law and weak federal government
that does not have the courage to set a climate of justice and
security for those who pay the bills and those whom the system is
supposed to protect and serve.
With the climate of legal rights over citizenship and
responsibilities to family and community, we have a government
that continues to behave like many others before it. It failed to
make the justice system accountable for the results it delivers. A
system that once took its authority of delegation from the
community fails to give due diligence to the reasonable desires of
those it is supposed to serve.
The motion before us today is a small measure but is symbolic of
what is needed. The justice system must serve the community and
not the other way around. We must change the preoccupation of it
being offender focused and make it more community focused.
When an offender is brought to court, through that delegation in
effect the offender is brought before the Queen. The crown cannot
fulfil its role when successive governments do not provide the laws
or the appropriate social philosophy that truly delivers peace and
order in our communities.
For example, section 745 of the Criminal Code should not exist.
It has little support across the country. The more Canadians learn of
9465
its absurdity and the workings of it, the more my community wants
it repealed.
I have been on the front lines of endeavouring to administer the
Young Offenders Act. I have been a parole office, a probation
officer, a family court counsellor, a divorce mediator and an
adviser to the courts. In a previous career I was in the middle of
trying to balance the needs and rights of victims with the need to
process offenders fairly within the limits and the bounds of law and
community sentiment.
That experience and others are some of the things that motivate
me to offer myself in service to the House, for the law that comes
from the House sets the limits and the tone for the justice
administered in the community. Therein lies the current conflict.
Old fashioned parties based only on partial or limited democracy
are completely out of touch.
(1655)
In the main Canadians have a different view. They are correct.
They are not misguided. In the final analysis the community knows
best.
The Liberals therefore have a problem of the soul. The public
has a basic view of the administration of criminal justice which is
not being represented by the Liberal government. It does not
represent mainstream Canadian values. The government is too
slow to change.
Liberals are no longer the small r reformers that maybe they
once were. They no longer represent the aspirations of average
Canadians who expect the crown to protect them.
The motion today and perhaps the convoluted way in which we
have come to this moment are evidence that the Liberals are not
good administrators. They are quite lacking in being fundamentally
capable of administering the country's affairs, the kind of
governance Canadians so desperately want.
Canadians in my riding tell me they want a stronger, more
protective justice system. They want a system that is not so
offender focused. They want a system that facilitates personal
deterrence and accountability for what offenders have actually
done, not being able to blame everything else in society except
themselves.
The guide must be taken from the good citizens of Canada. It is
my commitment to my community to deliver more competent
governance. We can be a safer and more just society and that is my
commitment.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we
are here today to discuss the amendments to Bill C-17. It is my
understanding that the only reason we are discussing the
amendments is that through Bill C-45 the minister inadvertently
removed the right of victims to make a victim impact statement.
As a result it was necessary to bring forth the amendments.
The minister seems to have had a new found enthusiasm for
victims rights and for toughening up the whole criminal justice
system. It is a little late. In Bill C-17 the minister did not even
address the issue. He had to add an amendment to give victims the
right to make victim impact statements in section 745 hearings.
It bothers me that the government would leave this until the very
latest date it possibly could. I suspect the reason this was done was
due to pre-election polling which suggested the government was
not tough enough on criminal justice issues. Therefore it had to
introduce amendments to shore up support.
The minister got himself into difficulty. If we go to the polls
within two or three weeks he knows this legislation will not be
passed in time. Therefore he has made an amendment to Bill C-17
that has nothing to do with the bill. He has to shore up support in
the criminal justice area which is so badly lacking. He has
discovered that he had better make an amendment to allow for
victims rights in section 745 proceedings.
We support the measure. It is important for the victim to be able
to make a statement. The victim should be able to make a written
statement in any criminal proceeding. We believe in it so much that
my colleague from Fraser Valley West introduced a private
member's bill to that effect. In the last 3.5 years we have said that
we should put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals.
Unfortunately we did not see that kind of support coming from
members on the other side of the House until an election call was
imminent. I think they are hearing footsteps. I think that at the
doors and in their polling they are finding out that they are very
weak in this area. Canadians want them to tighten up the criminal
justice system. They want to stop the harassment by people who are
writing letters from jails to the family members of those who have
been murdered and putting them through a very painful process.
They are hearing it loud and clear and they are trying to shore up
their support.
(1700)
I want to mention that I have an interesting situation in the riding
of Peace River where somebody who committed a very serious
crime, in fact murdered an elderly couple in the town of Valleyview
some 10 years ago, a cold blooded murder in my view, is now about
to receive his statutory release from a federal penitentiary. In fact
he has had statutory release three times in the last two years, parole
if you like.
This individual, whose sentence was changed from second
degree murder to manslaughter, was a minor at the time of the
murder of 16 or 17 years old. In every case when this person has
received a statutory release he has offended within two or three
days of that release. Obviously he does not want to be back on the
streets. He cannot function in society. He has not shown any
9466
remorse for his crimes. He has never apologized to the family of
the victims and has not accepted any rehabilitation.
In spite of that, six years of a ten year sentence will be up May 1.
This individual could easily be back in our community. What is the
message that this is sending? We are sending a message that this
person has not accepted rehabilitation. He does not intend to
apologize for his actions. Yet he is going to be released.
It really bothers me and it bothers people of our community
where this couple was murdered that this should happen.
Individuals should have a chance for rehabilitation but they have to
accept the responsibility of trying to improve themselves and admit
that they made a mistake in their life and try to move on.
This individual has not done that. In spite of that he is going to
be released into the community within approximately six weeks.
This is just symptomatic of the problems we are having. It just
seems that the government is a little late in recognizing that
Canadians are demanding some big changes in the criminal justice
system.
Two years ago the government went through the steps of trying
to put some window dressing on the Young Offenders Act. That did
not satisfy Canadians. What happened? A committee travelled
across the country to hear what was wrong with the Young
Offenders Act.
I believe other members are finding the same thing that I am
when I am at town hall meetings. The words Young Offenders Act
have become so repugnant that in order to change it we will even
have to change the name of the act to something that people can
accept and think that they are going to get some meaningful change
in.
The Young Offenders Act was not in place when this individual
murdered two elderly people. In fact he and his friend were telling
friends when they were drinking that afternoon that they were
going to go out and kill somebody. They broke into a home. The
gentleman was home and they tied him up, waited for his wife to
come back from playing bingo and then murdered them both in
cold blood. What happens to that individual? He gets sentenced to
six years for manslaughter. He is going to be out May 1 of this year.
Has he accepted any rehabilitation? Obviously not. The man has
a drug problem. He is on drugs in one of our federal prisons. He has
not made any move to accept any rehabilitation. He has not
admitted to the family that he did these actions or is sorry for them.
I cannot see how we can possibly let that person out.
In fact, we have a bill in the House right now which suggests that
in order to be designated as a dangerous offender the court should
have the power within six months to determine whether that person
on sentencing is going to be a dangerous offender. It seems to me
that that is kind of ludicrous. That option should be open to the
courts at any time during the sentence of that individual. In my
view they should be assessed near the end of the sentence, shortly
before they are released. Would that not be a better time to see if
that person has accepted rehabilitation?
(1705 )
If individuals are no longer a threat to society, why limit it to six
months after their sentence? If we have any faith in the
rehabilitation system at all obviously that person may decide they
want to make a change in their life and become a better person and
be a constructive member of society. How can you determine that
within six months of that person's sentence? It has to be done
toward the end of the sentence. That could happen at any time of
the individual's sentence and the assessment should take place near
the end of his or her sentence.
It bothers me quite a bit that the government has been dithering.
All of a sudden it realizes, through polling and individuals going
door to door in preparation for the election that this is a very
sensitive issue. We have recognized this all along. They are
suddenly finding that out and trying to make some corrections.
Now we are seeing amendments made to Bill C-17 which allow
victims to make impact statements.
I certainly support it. It is a little late but nonetheless I support it.
I hope the public remember on election day who has recognized
that these as important issues and reflected their concerns in
Parliament and who has just discovered it within the last couple of
days.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise in
support of this amendment which in effect restores a right taken
away by previous legislation for an automatic written victim
impact statement. In speaking to this motion I would like to talk a
little bit about a very serious story that unfolded in my riding of
Skeena.
About two months ago a young lady named Tammy Fee came to
see me. She lives in the community of Terrace in my riding. She
asked for my assistance and told me her story. Several years ago
she had a boyfriend and recognized early on that it was a
destructive relationship, not one that she wanted to be in. She told
her boyfriend that she was going to end the relationship. At this
point the fellow became unglued. He did not want to accept that.
He was a very controlling individual and could not accept the
fact that Tammy Fee was no longer going to be his girlfriend or
have anything to do with him. He harassed and stalked her for some
period of time after she broke off with him.
The day before he attacked her he chartered a helicopter and flew
over her house so that he could plan how he was going to gain
access to her dwelling. He came into her house in the middle of the
night. He obviously knew what he was going to do because he had
masking tape fixed on to his vest or shirt so he could gag her
immediately on entry. He came in through a window at two o'clock
in the morning. He cut the screen. Tammy was asleep on the couch
9467
when he came into the house. The very first words she heard this
man utter were ``you're dead''. You can imagine the terror.
I have never been in a position where I have been assaulted in
this kind of manner. I have never been put in fear of my life. I can
only imagine what that would feel like because I have never
experienced it. ``You're dead''.
Over the next several hours this individual assaulted Tammy
sexually and otherwise. He indicated he was going to take her life.
She realized the only way she was going to survive was to play
along so she did.
(1710 )
The very minute she had the opportunity, when he relaxed his
guard, she ran out of the house to the neighbours and phoned 911. I
have heard transcripts of the 911 call. They are hair raising, they
are frightening.
The RCMP arrested this fellow, took him the the local lock-up
and took Tammy in at the same time to make a statement. Tammy
told me that she was so afraid, so traumatized by this event that she
did not even want to be in the same police station with this fellow
even though there were all kinds of RCMP officers around and
even though on an intellectual level she knew she was quite safe
there.
The RCMP arresting officer told her: ``Do not worry, Tammy.
This guy is gone for 10 years at least. For 10 years this guy is going
to be not only out of your hair but out of society. He is going to be
incarcerated''. This was the gut reaction of the arresting RCMP
officer to this attack.
Members can imagine how I felt as Tammy's elected
representative when she came to me and said: ``This assault took
place two years ago. The individual who assaulted and raped me
and threatened my life is to be released on May 23 of this year''.
She said: ``I am so afraid that this man is going to come back to
Terrace to seek retribution for my turning him in. He is going to
want to finish the job''. She said: ``Mr. Scott, I am so afraid that I
have made arrangements to change my identity, my social
insurance number and relocate somewhere else in Canada so that
this fellow cannot track me down and do any more damage to me
than he has already done. I am afraid for my life. I am afraid that
this fellow is going to come back and take my life''.
How can we as a just society, as a caring society, let this happen?
How can we stand by and watch a young woman who has already
been traumatized, already been through hell, be traumatized again
by a justice system that refuses to take the responsibility for the
safety of its citizens as its first priority? I am absolutely appalled
that I have to deal with a constituent on this level on this matter. I
have no answers for her. What am I supposed to tell this young
woman? ``Take your chances. I do not think he will come back''.
That is not what the police have said and it is not what an
independent psychological evaluation has suggested. As a matter
of fact parts of that psychological interview were put in the Sun
newspaper shortly after this fellow's trial where the psychologist
said that it was highly likely this individual will offend again. If it
is not Tammy Fee, there will be some woman, somewhere in the
country, probably in British Columbia who will pay a price for his
release. Somewhere somebody is going to pay a terrible price for
the release of this fellow back into society.
How can we let this happen? I heard the justice minister over the
last three year talk about the fact that we are a caring society. I do
not have a problem with that and I do not think most members in
the House have a problem with being a caring society. The question
is, who do we care about? Do we care about the fellow who
attacked, raped and threatened this girl's life? Or do we care about
the girl?
The problem with the present criminal justice system and with
the weak-kneed efforts the justice minister has made to date, is that
we continually place more importance in the rights of the criminal
than on the rights of Tammy Fee and others like her.
My colleagues have spoken over and over again in the House
about incidents very similar to this and yet nothing happens. I
appreciate what the justice minister said today in question period.
He said that Reformers did not have a lock on caring, that we did
not have the sole domain on caring about victims in Canada. I
would hope not. I would hope that everybody in the House and
every right thinking Canadian would be concerned about that.
(1715)
Why has the justice minister not done anything about it? I do not
believe the justice minister would purposely like to see Tammy Fee
reassaulted, but I do not think he has done anything to ensure that it
does not happen. As justice minister in Canada he has the absolute
power to change it and the government has the power to change it.
The government has sat here and listened for 3.5 years to very
serious suggestions from this party and has failed to act. Half the
time I hear members of the government across the way snickering
and laughing when Reform brings these matters forward. Then on
the eve of an election-talk about cynical-the justice minister
tries to paint himself as a person who is legitimately concerned
with the rights of victims. He will not accept Reform's victims
rights bill but he is legitimately concerned about the rights of
victims. I do not think so and I do not think Canadians think so.
This issue is so important that it should cut across political lines.
It should not be a matter of Reform, Liberal, Bloc and NDP. It
9468
should be a matter of decent Canadians caring about their fellow
Canadians, the personal safety of their fellow Canadians, and doing
something about it. To the great discredit of Parliament that has not
happened.
As a result of that failure to act there will be many more victims
out there and will continue to be victims out there until such time as
we have a government and a justice minister who are willing to
take tough measures to keep our citizens safe.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, one of the most important things a government is elected
to do, if not the most important thing, is to look after the safety and
well-being of its citizens.
While I agree the amendment to Bill C-17 does something to to
restore the impact statements of victims, I wonder how we lost that
right in the first place. I think of what the government has done in
its 3.5 years of inactivity with regard to the justice system. I also
wonder if maybe what I am hearing around the Hill and reading in
the papers is right, that we could be into an election in the next
three weeks or so, some time in June.
Finally I wonder if the government has awoke to the fact that
justice issues are a concern. The Liberals have decided that in some
areas their seats are looking a little bit rocky, their members' seats
are a little tippy. They had to come up with something to shore up
what they have let fall apart so they brought in Bill C-17.
Let us go back to what I originally said would happen to victim
impact statements. Let us go back to a few hours ago in the House
during question period. The hon. member for Beaver River said she
would almost think there was an election on the horizon. It is ironic
but the justice minister who has been terribly soft on crime for 3.5
years all of a sudden is trying to pass himself off as a champion of
victims rights. She stated that the people would not be fooled and I
believe she is right. She went on to state that she would like to
know if the Liberals were really serious about putting victims first.
Will the justice minister commit here, now and today to passing
Reform's victims bill of rights before the next election? He should
not think about it. He should do it.
(1720)
The hon. minister said there was one reason why the justice
committee was devoting time today, tomorrow and later this week
to the proposed victims bill of rights. It was because he asked them
to do it. The last time the matter was debated in the House of
Commons he undertook to direct the matter to the justice
committee so that it could look at the proposals in detail. He wrote
to the committee. It has kindly taken up his request and is looking
at the matter. There is always more to do to make justice systems
better and that includes the rights of victims. He did not think the
Reform Party or anybody else should overlook what has been
achieved by the government on behalf of victims.
I do not know about that, but he went on to say that over the last
3.5 years it introduced more meaningful changes to the Criminal
Code for the benefit of victims than any government in memory.
He also indicated that the Reform Party ought not to think that it
has any monopoly on concern.
He went on to state that a few months later in 1994 they tabled
Bill C-41 to provide for the rights of victims. Bill C-41 is before
the courts. It has been challenged in the courts of B.C., Ontario and
Alberta. I wonder exactly what the minister meant and what he was
so proud of. It provides for written statements. We argued
unsuccessfully that verbal presentations should be applied too.
However the government, which now says it is caring, sharing and
worried about its citizens, did not pass that amendment.
That was the great Bill C-41 the minister was so happy about
today. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Bill C-45 is the one
which actually took away this right. All of a sudden the
government is playing catch up. The government was warned time
and time again back then that it would run into serious difficulties.
While the minister goes on to say how great they have done, I do
not think the public out will be fooled. They have done absolutely
nothing.
It seemed awfully strange when we were talking about the rights
of victims and their concerns to hear the minister mention Bill
C-68 that requires law-abiding citizens to register their firearms.
Has anyone read anywhere in that bill where it states that criminals
should also register their firearms? Has anybody read that? I think
not. Why? People out there have to start wondering why the justice
minister is going after law-abiding citizens and not the criminal
element.
I know some of the arguments he put forward. Let us look at
some of them. It will stop the smuggling of guns in Canada. I do
not have to go back too far in my memory, because it has been since
I have been in the House, to when I listened to the same
government say to me and to the rest of the House that to control
smuggling of cigarettes we had to drop the price. We had to take off
the taxes.
I now hear a minister say that through Bill C-68 they can control
the smuggling of guns. I have to wonder about that. They cannot
control the smuggling of cigarettes. That is easier to do than
firearms. However that was one of the justice minister's arguments.
He said that it would control suicides. I do not know how. If
somebody is going to commit suicide they are going to do it with or
without a firearm.
(1725)
Mr. Hanger: Liberal logic.
9469
Mr. Stinson: Yes, it has to be. I can think of no other reason
for it.
I wonder what could be the real reason behind Bill C-68. I heard
an hon. member say today that maybe it was some form of tax grab.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. They say it will
be a one-time implementation fee. I have to ask the people out
there when was the last time the government only charged once for
anything. I have never heard about it. It is an ongoing thing. Three
years down the road there will be an increase. Once people register
their firearms there will be an increase.
It is not a crime control bill, no matter what the minister says. It
is a smoke screen. He knows it. We know it. The people out there
know it. They know the whole justice system has been a smoke
screen since the minister got in. His priorities go first to the
criminal element. They do not go to the victims. It would only take
the stroke of a pen to change that. It should not take 3.5 years or 5.5
years. Most of this garbage was brought in by previous Liberal
governments.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to be involved in the debate on Bill C-17.
We have considered the other bills that were before the House,
Bill C-41 and Bill C-45, and we have talked about victim impact
statements. We are talking about not those bills themselves but the
whole approach of the Liberal government to dealing with crime,
safety, victims and criminals. That is really what we are dealing
with.
As we proceed with debate in the next two, three or four weeks
prior to embarking on a national election, I know Canadians will
want answers to those questions.
My hon. colleagues on the standing committee dealing with
criminal justice issues have focused on these issues for over 3.5
years. They have tried in every way possible to move the
government from the position of being soft on criminals and giving
no real attention to the victims of crime, either direct victims or
their families and friends.
The question on the table today is whether the Liberal
government has dealt with the matter of crime and safety on the
streets of Canada. Can we walk at night without fear?
We visited many people in our constituencies in the last two
weeks and found no clear answers. Members of Parliament in all
parties heard from many people that victims of crime, their
families and friends were not being recognized by the government.
The criminals had a higher priority than the victims. That is wrong.
I beg leave at this time to adjourn debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9469
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion
and the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has six minutes left.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Motion No. 267 put
forward by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. She has put
forth a very interesting private member's bill which really goes to
the heart of why we have certain problems within Parliament today.
The substantial changes needed in our country will not come
from the legislation we put forward in this House. Before we make
the changes in the country we first have to start with changes within
Parliament, which is what my colleague is trying to do through her
motion.
One major problem we have in this House and indeed in this
country is that Parliament does not operate as a democracy. Rather,
it operates more like a medieval fiefdom. The principles of
democracy are repeatedly and continually trashed in this House.
The government knows this and the government has ignored it.
Perhaps the greatest example of this was a study which was done by
members sitting in the House today, the Minister of Health, the
Minister of Labour, the newly elected Acting Speaker of the House.
All these individuals put forth a very erudite study which
basically took apart the structure of governance we have in the
country today and said that we do not live in a democracy but here
are some constructive solutions we could put forward that would
bring the power of the people into this Chamber so their wishes,
desires and ideas could be brought to bear on the legislation we
debate in this House. They were ideas we would support and indeed
they are ideas that members from the Reform Party have put
forward repeatedly.
However, once these members and this group came into power as
the government, these good ideas were tossed under a table and
9470
have been ignored by this government. It has been a huge lost
opportunity. There were such ideas as recall, giving members of
Parliament the ability to represent their constituents through
private members' bills, which is what my colleague from
Mission-Coquitlam is putting forward. She is saying that private
members' bills must become votable and that they must be
entertained in this House in a very sensible and respectful fashion
instead of being tossed under a table to be forgotten, as most of
them are.
We are the only democracy in the world where private members'
bills are non-votable. Why do we use taxpayer dollars, why do we
use the efforts and the intelligence of members across party lines to
put forward private members' bills only for them to have one hour
of debate in this House and be made non-votable? Why do we have
private members' bills, such as the one my colleague has put
forward on victim rights, go through the system only to be held up
by the government in committee? The government can and does
block intelligent, compassionate and fair private members' bills in
committee if it chooses to do so.
That is not a democracy. That is a trampling on the rights not
only of the members in this House but, worse, it is a trampling on
the rights of the public to have its wishes, desires, ideas heard in the
House. That is what is happening.
(1735)
We talk often about ideas and how we can strengthen our
democracy, ideas on how we can put forward new solutions for our
country. We will not have those changes, the substantial changes
that our country needs to make it strong, to make it powerful, to
make it as good as it can become unless we first begin to have
changes in this House. That goes from justice to the national unity
issue, to economics, to the environment and to health care. Each of
these important issues is not going to have the effective solutions
they require and demand unless the government says ``Enough is
enough. We are going to bring the power of Canadians into this
Chamber. We are going to bring the power, the knowledge and the
intelligence of members of Parliament to bear on the legislation
that we debate here and we are going to make it effective''.
If we do that we will be able to achieve the potential that our
country can have. Until we do that it will not occur.
I ask every member in this House to support the very intelligent
private member's Motion No. 267, put forward by my hon. friend
and colleague from Mission-Coquitlam, to make private
members' bills votable, to make them debatable, to make them
transparent and to make us truly answerable to the people of
Canada. If we do that we will certainly be doing Canada and
Canadians a huge service, which at the end of the day is our role
and responsibility.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise to speak today in the debate on MotionNo. 267, which the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam tabled in
this House and which is a votable item.
It is followed by an amendment by my colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata and an amendment to the amendment I
myself tabled in the second hour of debate. The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata and I are not in disagreement. An event
led to the tabling of this amendment, and I will take the following
minutes to explain it.
The aim of the motion by the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam is to include in the Standing Orders of this
House the requirement that every parliamentary
committee-standing, legislative or special-report to the House
on a bill referred to it. Obviously, the intent is to avoid having bills,
especially those of private members, which have been approved at
second reading by this House, disappear in the woodwork. The
committees consider them without any set schedule or agenda, and
we end up often months later without the committees having dealt
with them.
The aim is commendable. The committees are the extension of
this House, and this House is always entitled to know the fate of a
measure it has approved in principle, which was then referred to a
standing, special or legislative committee.
The problem is that a number of private members' bills literally
collapsed before committees. The bill introduced in the first
session of this legislature by my colleague from
Mission-Coquitlam, Bill C-234 if I am not mistaken, was not
reported to the House, and all its clauses were defeated in
committee.
The hon. member for Vancouver East, who is in the House today,
had greater success. The government supported the principle in her
bill on polling hours across Canada, in view of the various time
zones.
(1740)
Formally, however, the House has no knowledge of what took
place in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
during consideration of her bill. No report has been made, and the
bill is in a sort of limbo before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, although we all know that Bill C-63,
a government bill, settled the question of the different polling hours
across Canada. It will apply in the next election.
Another bill, introduced by my colleague from Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley, also died before the committee without the
committee ever reporting on it. When we study a bill in committee,
and I will use the example of the bill of our colleague from
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, and go over it clause by
9471
clause, the last questions put by the chairman to the committee
members are: Is the title of the bill adopted? Is the bill approved?
Shall I report it to the House?
In the case of the bill I have just mentioned, all of the bill's
clauses were defeated. It was the committee's basic right to defeat
all the bill's clauses. However, when we get to the point of deciding
whether the bill's title would be accepted, I think a substantial
problem occurs when the House votes at second reading on a bill
that has a title. Perhaps the title can be changed by a standing or
legislative committee, but can it be withdrawn? Can we wipe it off
the record? This is a question of substance that deserves closer
study.
As to the last question ``Shall I report it?'', the answer is
obviously yes. It is common sense that, when a bill has been
studied, whether the committee has made amendments or not, or
has rejected all the clauses in a bill, the committee must report
promptly to the House since the bill belongs to the House.
Motion No. 267, as it stands, with the amendment I moved,
would make it possible to have a report from the committee within
sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the
committee. Why is there a difference between the amendment
moved by my hon. colleague, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, who called for a report within six
months, and the sub-amendment I myself moved, calling for a
report within sixty sitting days?
The reason is that between the time the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata moved her amendment and I moved
mine, the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, which
had received an order of reference to study, among other things,
this very question of reports from committees, produced its report
and referred it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. The Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business
recommended unanimously, by consensus of all parties, that any
bill referred to a committee be reported on within sixty sitting days.
The wording before us, with the amendment I moved following
the tabling of the report of the Sub-Committee on Private
Members' Business, is more or less the same as that recommended
by the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business. I say more
or less, because the sub-committee's report contained the
additional recommendation that, in the absence of a report, the bill
be deemed approved by the standing committee or the legislative
committee or the special committee, but approved without
amendment.
This part is not repeated. I think that it is easier to reach a
consensus in the House with the motion as written and with the
amendment moved in the second hour of debate requiring a report
within sixty sitting days. This issue was discussed for several
months by the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business and
the report was unanimous. I think that this merely endorses a
recommendation approved by representatives of all parties on this
committee.
(1745)
That ought to simply speed up and gain respect for private
member's bills; in other words, a bill must be handled in the same
way, whether it originates with the government or with a member.
It is a parliamentary matter which must be handled with diligence,
and which must not be swept under the rug to suit everyday
preoccupations or agendas, whether short term or medium term.
It is obvious that people sometimes feel uncomfortable with
voting against a bill, but they say to themselves that it will get held
up in committee and then it will die on the Order Paper; it will get
dealt with when there are only two weeks left in the session.
I believe that inclusion of new Standing Order 97.1 will be a step
forward. I say a step forward because it will not solve the problem
entirely. It will not solve the problem of the political will of those
sitting on committees. If they have it in mind to reject a bill, reject
it they will. Political will cannot be legislated. A standing order
cannot create political ideas or orientations. It is a support which
can, of course, help those who tend more toward weakness; it can
serve as a guideline to committee members, but all the rest is
political will.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is nearly up.
Thank you for having the patience to put up with me for twenty
seconds more. When the issue is put to a vote, I will be voting in
favour of the amendment to the amendment, which I moved, and of
the motion as amended, if the amendment passes.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is the hour allotted in the House to put away party
politics and talk about, debate and discuss specific pieces of
legislation proposed by members not as an extension of a party
platform or part of a campaign promise but as a specific initiative
directed at a perceived problem. That is why I am speaking today in
support of the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 267
proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
The amendment to the amendment to the motion is entirely
consistent with Recommendation No. 4 made by the subcommittee
on Private Members' Business, namely that the present Standing
Order 97 be changed to require the committee to which a private
member's bill has been referred to report it back, with or without
amendments, within 60 days, or with a recommendation not to
proceed further with the bill, or to request additional time. Failing
any of those, if it is not reported within the 60 days it is deemed to
have been reported without amendment. In my opinion this is a
proper recommendation and certainly an amendment worth
supporting in this place.
We all know that to be referred to a committee a private
member's bill must first receive approval by vote in the House. I
9472
will not get into what precedes that, but it certainly must be voted
upon and approved by the House.
Private members' bills are by their very nature smaller in size,
narrower in scope and generally targeted toward one issue or what
is regarded as a deficiency in the present law. It is the government
which tables much broader comprehensive bills, the big ticket laws
that define policy perspectives or the direction of the government.
These large comprehensive bills can require considerable time in a
committee in terms of hearing from witnesses, the department,
experts and the minister. Often it is a very lengthy process followed
by a clause by clause review and the amendment process. It can
certainly be time consuming. In any event it is in the government's
interest to pursue its legislative agenda, get a bill out of committee
and get it back into the House for third reading.
With respect to a private member's bill a member has no one to
push or pull it through a committee other than the collectivity of
the House, and that by itself is not enough in a committee room.
(1750)
By tradition committees give priority to government bills. As we
know from the history of this Parliament on occasion they give no
consideration whatsoever to private members' bills. Or, as we
know by the history of this Parliament, they fail to report it back to
this place after they have considered it.
Certainly there are any number of combinations that may occur
in a committee hearing whereby a bill may be reported back as is,
untouched, or may be reported back amended. It may be deemed
not to be a good bill and in one sense not approved by the
committee. Yet when it is not approved by the committee it is not
returned to this place because the rules at the moment appear to say
that if a committee kills a bill that is the end of it.
It is rather strange that a committee of 8, 10 or 12 people can,
when it chooses to do so or for whatever reason, never deal with a
bill. Or, if they choose to kill it or not to approve of it, they have
authority and power greater than that vested in the collectivity
known as the House of Commons. That is perverse and is wrong.
That is what Motion No. 267 as amended will stop. If we have
any respect at all for the House, for our elected office in the House
and for the work of sponsoring members who have done the work
of getting a bill passed at second reading, that is no way to behave.
With this subamendment the committee will not be constrained
but will be directed to do its job. There will be those in committee
who will say their committee is very busy and they cannot get
around to it. The subamendment says if they cannot get around to it
for whatever reason they should explain that to the collective
wisdom of the House which may in fact extend the time.
At the present time there are committees, sometimes properly
and sometimes perhaps one could say improperly, that do not want
to impose upon themselves the workload of dealing with Private
Members' Business.
In those cases where a committee refuses, is unable or for
whatever reason refuses to deal with a bill, the committee is saying
to the House that it is not interested, that it is very busy and it
chooses not to deal with it. That is an insult to the House, an insult
to the member and an insult to the office of member of Parliament.
We are looking at this subamendment as empowering, which is
probably a very overworked word, the average member of
Parliament. We are saying that they were not elected to come here
and simply speak in favour of their party principles. There is a time
in this place to lay aside all of that. There is a time in this place
when elected officials of the people can be legislators, make a
difference, propose a law and attempt to sell the message of that
law to the others in this place. When the majority in this place
agree, a law can be passed. In reality that is probably about as great
as my chance of winning the lottery tonight because there are a lot
of forces converging against it.
I understand in every case the majority will not agree with the
message contained within a bill. At the same time we have an
opportunity to do something about it.
There is one final remark I want to make on this subject. Sadly it
does not matter how many private members' bills we push out the
door here and down the hallway into the other place. We also have
to start talking to the people in the other place about how they
regard the role of members of Parliament and how they regard this
place.
(1755)
I want to relate to the House the fact that I was just at a
committee hearing in the other place considering a private
member's bill which happens to be mine. The chair of the
committee said that backbench MPs should not get involved in
legislation.
I sent him a note which said that I appreciated the high regard in
which he held members of Parliament. Notwithstanding this
subamendment which I am totally and unequivocally supporting,
all of the change made in this place becomes meaningless with this
anchor called the other place down the hall.
I will certainly be here tomorrow to support the motion. I
congratulate the sponsor of the motion and the mover of the
subamendment.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on MotionNo. 267 in its last hour of debate.
The motion is about returning the business of the House to the
House. At this time I thank Bloc members from Bellechasse and
Rimouski-Témiscouata for the amendment and the subamend-
9473
ment which add a time element to my motion, that is to have the
committee ``report on its work within 60 sitting days from the date
of the bills reference to the committee''. I feel this time
requirement is necessary to complete Motion No. 267.
When one considers the amount of time members of the House
have waited to see their bills emerge from committee and the total
disregard by some committee members of the obvious wishes of
the members of the House when they vote unanimously to pass
private members' bills, one realizes we must have change in the
process.
I believe that change will come best from the members
themselves in establishing rules and guidelines within which we
must all work, rules such as the subamendment that the committee
must report the bill back to the House within 60 sitting days. In this
way the committee shows respect for the House and respect for
legislators.
Motion No. 267 did not come about because the subcommittee
on Private Members' Business was undertaking a study on the
disposition of private members' bills at the committee stage, while
I am very pleased it is doing so. Motion No. 267 came about
because a bill to which the House gave unanimous consent was
literally destroyed in the committee stage. It was treated with
disrespect. The words of witnesses from across Canada were
treated with disrespect. The democratic will of the elected
members of the House of Commons was treated with disrespect.
The motion came about because Bill C-232, also known as the
grandparents bill which got unanimous consent from the House in
May 1995, when sent to the justice committee was treated with
such contempt that I wonder how the Liberal members of that
committee can hold their heads up. Their total disregard for
families, for children of divorce and for our seniors who are the
longest paying taxpayers is inexcusable.
We had excellent speakers as witnesses: Grandparent's Rights
President Nancy Wooldridge from British Columbia and long time
family law practising lawyers such as Charles Merovitz of Ottawa,
Barbara Baird of Fredericton and Sheila Keets of Vancouver. Their
testimony alone demanded in our family law to have the Divorce
Act changed slightly to address a need to keep families united and
supportive in spite of divorce.
I am concerned by the lack of respect shown for testimony that is
often shown for the testimony given by some very expert and well
trained Canadians who come as witnesses to the committee. The
justice committee voted down the grandparents bill. It voted down
each clause and it voted down the title. Members of the committee
were so arrogant that I realized we had a serious problem with our
committee process.
There was the interference of the Canadian Bar Association, in
particular the family law section chair Steven Andrew who advised
members of the committee on what they should do. He presented
himself as spokesperson for family law lawyers across Canada
when in fact they had not been notified. They had not received a
questionnaire. Nor had they asked him to speak on their behalf.
Misrepresentation of the greatest latitude was committed by this
person and by the umbrella representative, the Canadian Bar
Association. When one considers most of the Liberal justice
committee members are lawyers, one begins to question the fitness
of these members to sit in judgment of any bills passed in the
House and deferred to committee. If the Canadian Bar Association
keeps close watch on every piece of legislation passed, and I am
told that it does, are not these lawyer MPs in conflict of interest?
What happens when an election comes around and they lose? Is not
the Canadian Bar Association their mother organization again? Do
they pay dues to keep their law degree in good standing while in
office as a member of Parliament?
(1800)
No, the need for change, in my mind, for the committee system
began when a small group of elected MPs decided they could do
what they wanted with the business of the House of Commons
without just reason.
When the committee votes down a bill, its clauses, its title and
votes down returning it to the House, the bill has in fact two lives.
As far as the House is concerned it has not been returned to the
House, so it is technically and procedurally alive, yet it is buried in
committee and not allowed to emerge. Therefore, to the member,
the bill is dead because he or she can do nothing more with it.
When the bill was resurrected after the February 1996
prorogation of the House, along with other bills which had passed
second reading, the committee voted the bill, now known as Bill
C-245, down again, without discussion and without respect for its
content.
It was then that I knew I must put forward a motion in the House
to seriously look at the way our committees do business. In the
spring of 1996 my Motion No. 267 was introduced in the House. I
am very pleased that the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs on September 19, 1996 adopted a motion that a
subcommittee be struck to look at the way private members' items
are made votable and to study the disposition of private members'
bills at committee stage. I commend the three members of the
subcommittee. The chair was the Liberal member for Mississauga
West, and the Bloc member for Bellechasse and my colleague from
Saanich-Gulf Islands were the two other members.
I also realize that recommendation No. 4 proposed by the
subcommittee and revised on March 13, 1997, deals very closely
with the content of my motion, especially with the subamendment
which is now before the House.
Democratic reform is part of the Reform platform. As chair of
the parliamentary Reform caucus task force in 1994 I put forward
9474
private member's Motion No. 89 to ask the members to allow free
votes in the House. The motion passed in the early spring of 1994.
We have been voting freely on Private Members' Business since
that time, but now we have another calamity. The members of the
House have passed good private members' bills from all sides of
the House and they are being buried in committee, without just
cause and without reason given. Even a judge has to give reasons
for his judgment.
The deputy House leader says that we cannot do things in a rush.
There has certainly been no rush. It is now three and a half years
down the road since we allowed freer voting in Private Members'
Business and our bills are still buried, without just cause, in
committee.
While the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas said: ``The
government has also taken a free vote approach to Private
Members' Business,'' I would remind him that was in response to a
Reform member's free vote motion which was passed in the House.
It was not initiated by the government.
The member for Stormont-Dundas stated correctly that the
government reinstated nine private members' bills after the first
session was prorogued, but what was the point of the government
making this grand gesture if it was going to allow these bills to be
buried again in committee, without just cause? Was it all smoke
and mirrors?
I must point out again to the member for Stormont-Dundas that
the reason committees are taking so long to report bills back to the
House is because they have buried these bills with no intention to
report them back to the House. The member for Stormont-Dundas
stated: ``Perhaps the sponsor has not done everything to identify
the bill as a priority for the committee's consideration''. Let me
explain.
First, a member must argue to make the item a votable item. The
member had to convince other members of the House. Then the
member should and did contact every member of the House to ask
for their help and for any suggestions, not once but three times,
before each hour of debate in the House. Then the member worked
with all interested members of the House, with a gallery containing
considerable numbers of grandparents watching each hour of
debate. The members of this House gave the committee its
directive: unanimous consent at second reading.
Then this member ensured that the witnesses the committee
members heard were among the country's most experienced and
competent family law lawyers from across Canada, as well as from
the grandparents' groups, speaking on behalf of their
grandchildren. That, as I see it, is the responsible way for a member
of this House to get a private member's bill passed.
The members of the House in committee must be free to
deliberate on the expert testimony of excellent witnesses, without
side deals being made, without lobbying. They must be free to
deliberate on what is presented by the witnesses.
(1805 )
Canadians want their members of Parliament to do their jobs,
study the bills proposed, hear from a good slate of witnesses and
then discuss and deal with clause by clause in an intelligent
fashion. This was not done. It was not even contemplated.
The members of the committee did not even discuss the
testimony of the expert witnesses brought from across the country
or their findings. As the Reform member for North Vancouver
stated: ``The present system is designed to prevent Private
Members' Business from getting anywhere''. I am afraid at this
time that is true.
I agree the amendment to change the reporting time to 60 sitting
days by the member for Bellechasse is a good, practical
amendment. I am glad members can work together to get good
legislation before the House.
Motion No. 267 is badly needed at this time to encourage
members of the House to work on private members' bills and
motions and represent their constituents. As the member for
Skeena stated in his submission to the subcommittee about the lack
of respect shown for private members' bills: ``Many members,
such as myself, felt that under the current rules this respect is
missing and consequently we do not pursue opportunities to
advance bills or motions''. This is a tragic state of affairs for
democracy.
Therefore, I ask the support of the House to send a strong
message to the government, a message that brings democracy back
to the House in some degree. Please support Motion No. 267.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise in support of this motion because I spoke earlier on the effect
of private members' bills and the need to make them votable.
I believe that the role of a member of Parliament to represent his
or her constituents can be reflected in a private member's bill. As
members know, a private member's bill, no matter how short or
uncomplicated, takes a lot of work and it is important that a
member of Parliament be recognized for this work.
Changes have occurred in the House but we must move forward
and be more innovative. I tabled two private members' bills. The
first one took forever to be drawn. It was deemed non-votable but it
was still important. It was a question of fairness. It addressed an
amendment to the Elections Act which would make parties illegal
if they did not slate 50 candidates in an election and asked the
parties to liquidate all assets and disband.
9475
The 75-year old Communist Party was deemed illegal and no
longer exists. However, my private member's bill eventually
collapsed with the adjournment of the House.
My second private member's bill was a lucky bill. I tabled it in
June at 10 a.m. and at 1 p.m. on the same day my name was drawn.
This is very unusual. It became votable and, with the assistance of
all parties, it was sent to committee within 45 minutes of debate. It
was later adopted by the government and became law. It was the
staggering of hours across the country on election day.
I would like to conclude by saying that private members' bills
are extremely important. They are one of the few tools for a
member of Parliament and I feel they should all be considered
votable and come to the House all in the name of fairness.
Mr. Janko PeriG (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me
congratulate the hon. member who moved Motion No. 267 and the
seconder.
In this session members from all sides tabled private members'
bills and I believe those ideas came from communities right across
the country. As individual members of Parliament or, as this
Chamber calls us, backbenchers, we do not have the same
resources as the government or the ministers have. We cannot
prepare and draft a bill as polished as the government does.
From my own experience, I have tabled three private members'
bills. One of these bills has been stuck at committee for one year. I
have been hearing excuses for one year that the committee is
overloaded or is too busy with other issues. Then I found out that
on many occasions the committee did not even sit. After
complaining with some force, the committee finally moved on.
Then we hear from hon. members some support for this motion.
(1810)
I believe that the motion is very important for the democratic
process of the House. We were all sent here by the people of
Canada. I believe that if we come up with good ideas that those
ideas should be dealt with here in the Chamber, not at the
committee, and not by two, three or ten people on a committee.
They should not have the power to stall bills and destroy the ideas
which, in my opinion, are very valuable and important to building a
democratic society.
I know that time is running out. Once again I declare my support
for the motion. I believe that other members of the House will do
the same so that the democratic process will lead to a stronger and
better Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made earlier today, the question on the motion is deemed to
have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred until Wednesday, April 9, 1997, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
9475
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I still find it hard to believe that the government
has allowed the railways to impose an additional freight rate
increase on prairie farmers. On March 11, I rose in the House to
express my concern and ask for a justification. Of course, there was
no way to justify this insult to farmers.
Late last year, about November, grain was piling up in prairie
elevators and elevator agents began placing orders for grain cars. In
December when those cars did not arrive they started phoning to
ask where they were. The railways reported to agents throughout
the prairies that there were a few minor problems in the system, but
the cars were coming in a few days.
In January, the agents phoned again, and again they were assured
that the cars would soon be arriving to move the grain to port. By
February there were some 50 ships in the port of Vancouver waiting
to be loaded with grain that was still backed up in the prairie
elevator system and on the farms.
The Canadian Wheat Board reported that the transportation
problem was likely to cost the Canadian farmer some $65 million
in demurrage charges and deferred sales.
The matter received some media attention at the time and I was
the first to raise those concerns in the House by late February. At
that time the minister of agriculture expressed some concern about
the problem and said that the railways had to take some of the
blame for the problem. For my part, I think the railways had to take
a large part of the blame. After all, they did have the responsibility
to move that grain.
The responsibility was all theirs because the Liberal government
in the past three years had surrendered the Crow benefit and the
guarantees it protected; had turned over regulatory authority of the
system to the railways; had changed the way rail cars were
allocated; had privatized CN so the public interest no longer had
influence over the way the railways operated; had encouraged
downsizing to the point where so many railway maintenance
workers were laid off that they could no longer maintain the
locomotives and cars needed to move the grain.
In a short three years, the Liberals had given away the store but
were now still trying to sell the inventory.
Now in response to the railways' further demand for more
money, the Liberals through the Canadian Transportation Agency
have improved a further freight rate increase which will likely
9476
result in an additional $15 million being taken out of farmers'
pockets.
In the House the other day in March I called this a Liberal reward
for the railways' poor performance. It is nothing less. The loss of
the Crow benefit was an insult and this is an injury. On top of all
this, I read in the Financial Post that the Liberals are considering
even further railway deregulation as their answer to this problem. It
is obvious that they do not understand deregulation is at the heart of
the problem facing us.
When we had the Crow rate and the Crow benefit we did not
have the problems we have today because there were performance
guarantees required of the railways. Those guarantees are gone and
so is the service. A number of provinces including Saskatchewan
are calling for a public inquiry into the grain transportation system.
I think such an inquiry is necessary. Nothing has been put in place
to positively identify where the problems come from and nothing
has been put in place to ensure that the problems do not exist again.
After more than $80 million in additional transport related costs
farmers deserve nothing less.
I ask the minister to justify how any of this is possible and to
give us reason to believe that the interests of farmers are in good
hands. I do not think he can do it.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, despite the doom and gloom
scenario and the obvious lack of knowledge exhibited by the
member opposite on this issue and the work being done by the
Minister of Transport on this very issue, the severe weather this
winter has had a significant impact on rail movement in western
Canada, in particular for grain deliveries to the west coast.
Unseasonably cold weather and heavy snow in November,
December and January had a serious impact on rail operations at a
critically important time of the year for grain deliveries.
Fortunately the situation on the prairies and the west coast has
improved. As of April 2 there were 14 vessels waiting for grain on
the west coast compared with 20 the week before and 39 vessels the
week before that. This marked improvement is the direct result of
the combined efforts of all system participants to get the grain
moving again.
However, the delivery problems encountered this winter show
that the grain transportation and handling system continues to be
vulnerable. We have a responsibility to ensure Canada has the most
efficient, effective and reliable grain transportation and handling
system possible.
This government intends to use this season's events as an
opportunity. In this regard the Minister of Transport is currently
evaluating several proposals designed to look at the entire grain
transportation system with the objective of making it better. In the
short term, the Minister of Transport is continuing to actively
monitor the performance of the grain transportation system to
ensure that any remaining backlog of grain is cleared up as quickly
as possible.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)