36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 197
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1005
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-70. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-71. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-72. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| PETITIONS
|
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Trade
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Grain Handling
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Criminal Justice
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Motion
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1045
1050
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1055
1100
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1105
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1110
1115
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1120
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1125
1130
1135
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1140
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1145
1150
| Mr. John Duncan |
1155
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1200
1205
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1210
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1215
1220
| Mr. John Harvard |
1225
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1230
1235
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1240
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1245
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1250
1255
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1300
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1305
1310
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1315
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1320
1325
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1330
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1335
1340
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1345
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| GRATIEN GÉLINAS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| NATIONAL ABORIGINAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
|
| Mr. Raymond Bonin |
1400
| CANADIAN CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| CANADIAN POLICE INFORMATION CENTRE
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| GRATIEN GÉLINAS
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1405
| BELL UNITED WAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| GINETTE RENO
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| OLYMPIC ADVOCATES TOGETHER HONOURABLY
|
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1410
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| GÉRALD LAROSE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1415
| THE EAST COAST FISHERY
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| INTERNATIONAL FORUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1425
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| BILL C-55
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
1430
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE SENATE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| INTERNATIONAL FORUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| CUBA
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1445
| GRAIN
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
1450
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GRAIN
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE SENATE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1455
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| CANADIAN PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| GRAIN
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1500
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Criminal Justice
|
| Motion
|
1505
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1510
1515
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1520
| Mr. Ted White |
1525
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1530
1535
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1540
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1545
1550
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1555
| Mr. John Maloney |
1600
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1605
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1625
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1630
1635
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1640
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1645
1650
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1655
1700
| Mr. Ted White |
1705
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1710
1715
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1998-1999
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1c—Parliament
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion No. 1
|
1750
(Division 343)
| Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1c—Justice
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion No. 2
|
1755
(Division 344)
| Motion No. 2 agreed to
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1c—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion No. 3
|
(Division 345)
| Motion No. 3 agreed to
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 346)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Bill C-73. First reading
|
1800
| Bill C-73. Second Reading
|
(Division 347)
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion for concurrence
|
1805
(Division 348)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Third Reading
|
(Division 349)
| Motion agreed to
|
| INTERIM SUPPLY
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 350)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Bill C-74. First Reading
|
| Second Reading
|
(Division 351)
| Motion agreed to
|
1810
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 352)
| Third reading
|
1815
(Division 353)
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1820
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1825
1830
1835
1840
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1845
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1850
1855
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1900
1905
1910
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1915
1920
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Devco
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1925
| Royal Canadian Mounted Police
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1930
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Canada Port Authorities
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1935
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Housing
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1940
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 197
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1)
I wish to table the notice of ways and means motion to amend the
Excise Tax Act, and I ask that an order of the day be designated
for consideration of the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
1005
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 24th report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on chapter 27 of
the December 1998 report by the Auditor General of Canada, on
subsidies and contributions and certain programs of Industry
Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table a comprehensive
response to this report.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-70, an act
respecting national parks.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today on
behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage a bill entitled an
act respecting national parks. It will strengthen the protection
of nationally significant heritage resources, facilitate the
completion of the national parks system and control commercial
development in park communities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-71, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February
16, 1999.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-72, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on
changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the
Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security
Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to
the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from people in Peterborough who are
concerned about the people of Iraq.
Whereas ongoing UN sanctions against Iraq regarded as the most
stringent ever imposed by the United Nations have devastated the
Iraq economy and resulted in the deaths of over one million
civilians, many of them children, and whereas article 2 of the
United Nations charter states that “all member states shall
settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace, security, and justice, are not
endangered”, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada
to strongly appeal to the United Nations, to the United States
and to Britain for a rejection of any further military action
against Iraq.
They call for a serious attempt at peace negotiation with Iraq
and its neighbours. Further, in order to build a stable and
sustainable society in Iraq, excluding an embargo on military
materials, they request that all other sanctions be lifted.
1010
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present under Standing Order 36 a petition signed
by a number of Canadians including some from my own riding of
Mississauga South on the subject of human rights. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
human rights abuses continue around the world in countries such
as Indonesia.
The petitioners also point out that Canada continues to enjoy
the recognition internationally as being the champion of
internationally recognized human rights. They therefore call
upon parliament and indeed the Government of Canada to continue
to condemn those who perpetrate human rights abuses and to seek
to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
TRADE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of
constituents from the great city of Kamloops.
They point out a number of concerns they have with the fact that
the Government of Canada signs international trade agreements
which lock the hands of future governments in terms of making
decisions on behalf of a variety of issues.
I will not elaborate but the petition goes on at some length in
terms of what these concerns are. Essentially they are asking
parliament to look into the matter.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
respond today to Questions Nos. 170 and 172.
.[Text]
Question No. 170—Mr. Guy St-Julien:
Concerning children who have contracted the hepatitis C virus
from blood transfusions at birth, what provisions does the
federal government intend to make in order to: (a) ensure a
decent future for these children; (b) ensure that required
medical services can be obtained in a province other than the
child's province of residence; and (c) reimburse travel
expenditures incurred to obtain these medical services since the
blood transfusion?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Canada's health
system provides high quality health care services in every
jurisdiction to adults and children alike. Children who were
infected with hepatitis C through the blood system will continue
to have access to these services no matter where they live in
Canada.
On September 18, 1998, the federal Minister of Health proposed
to provinces and territories, a comprehensive set of hepatitis C
initiatives. Recognizing that the provision of health care,
including travel arrangements, falls within the jusrisdiction of
provinces and territories, this proposal included an offer of up
to $300 million in transfers over 20 years to help provinces and
territories pay for needed medical care so that people who were
infected with hepatitis C through the blood system are ensured
access to the treatments they need.
Question No. 172—Mr. Howard Hilstrom:
With respect to the Canadian Lama and Alpaca Association, which
has been incorporated under the Animal Pedigree Act in respect of
a distinct breed, entitling it to issue certificates of
registration: what actions, if any, has the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food taken to ensure that the association is
not issuing, and has not issued, certificates of identification,
which can only be issued by an association incorporated in
respect of an evolving breed?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): The Canadian Lama and Alpaca Association, CLAA, was
incorporated in 1989 under the Animal Pedigree Act in respect of
lama and alpaca as distinct breeds. The act establishes that a
certificate of registration is the correct document to be issued
for distinct breeds.
As a result of questions raised by a member of the CLAA, the
animal registration officer looked into which types of
certificates were being issued. The association was notified in
writing on December 17, 1997 that they should be issuing
certificates of registration on all future animals registered
with the association.
The department was informed in a letter dated April 6, 1998 that
the CLAA board of directors had agreed to change the certificates
and was proceeding with redesigning them.
The animal registration officer met with the CLAA president and
general manager in Calgary on June 30, 1998 to discuss this and
related matters.
The animal registration officer obtained a draft version of the
new certificate on December 9, 1998. The registration officer
has noted that changes to the draft are required and is following
up the association.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
GRAIN HANDLING
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has an application for an
emergency debate from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the responsibility and the duty of all elected MPs
in this great country of Canada to debate and discuss issues of
national importance.
It is particularly important that we debate and discuss issues
where serious financial harm is happening and where that
financial harm leads to dysfunctional families, to harm to
children going to school, and these sorts of things.
The emergency debate I am asking for today involves the stoppage
of the grain movements out of the port of Vancouver due to strike
action and the unwillingness of other employees on the docks to
cross those picket lines.
The seriousness of the situation is compounded due to the
serious financial situation that many farmers find themselves in
due to no fault of their own. I speak here of foreign subsidies
that drive commodity prices down.
As a result, it is of paramount importance that members of the
House express what is happening in their ridings and give the
government an opportunity to speak to the situation and reassure
Canadians and farmers that in fact we in this elected House are
doing our job and taking care of their well-being.
I would ask under Standing Order 52 that I be granted permission
to have this emergency debate tonight immediately following the
normal business of the House.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak
to the application for an emergency debate.
The Deputy Speaker: No. I am afraid that the rules
provide that the member who has asked for the emergency debate is
entitled to say a few words and that is it. The Chair then is
expected to rule on whether or not there will be an emergency
debate.
In the circumstances the Chair
has considered the hon. member's request. While the hon. member
raises certain points that are valid, in the Chair's opinion the
request does not meet the exigencies of the standing order at
this time and accordingly the request is denied.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved:
That, in the opinion of
this House, the government has failed to deliver criminal justice
programs and laws that reflect the will and concerns of the
majority of Canadians, including issues like child pornography,
young offenders, impaired driving, conditional sentencing, drug
trafficking, home invasions, police funding, consecutive
sentencing, corrections facilities and illegal immigration, and
as a consequence, have put individual safety, and in some cases
national security, in jeopardy.
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day
for the supply period ending March 26, 1999, the House will go
through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the
supply bills later this day. In view of recent practices, do
hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With the exception of the mover of the motion, the member
for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, all other members of the
Reform Party will be dividing their time during today's debate.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this motion on behalf
of the Reform Party, Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and to
lead off debate on an issue that concerns and even scares a lot
of Canadians, the current state of our criminal justice system.
In a recent publication by a University of Ottawa law professor,
the chief assertion of the work was that Canada's system of
criminal justice is undergoing a public credibility crisis of
dangerous proportions. That was stated by a law professor who is
well respected in Canada. It is not the Reform Party saying
that. This is a law professor who has spent his life in this
work.
This should not come as a surprise to the government. Maybe
today after this debate and the sharing of information which
should take place we can expect some change. I say that in all
sincerity, but after watching this government I really wonder.
Today members will have an opportunity to hear from colleagues
on our side of the House who are involved in the justice area,
from members of other parties and from the government. We can
only hope that the government will have a change of heart and
start looking seriously at the criminal justice system.
Canada's criminal justice system has become a series of
technicalities, plea bargains, defence by psychologists, law by
judges and outright misrepresentation by lawyers and the courts
of the consequences of a sentence. We all know by now that a ten
year sentence really means three years. Why not say it and quit
adding to the cynicism that already exits in the Canadian public.
Each day newspaper headlines scream out another example of a
criminal justice system out of control. Headlines like “Legal
System Getting Away with Murder”, “Child Porn Flooding into
British Columbia”, “B.C. Justice Strikes Down Law Against Child
Porn”, “Conditional Sentence Granted in Murder of Husband”,
“Man Who Killed Mother is Free to Go”, “Canada Fertile Land
for the Mob”, “RCMP Budget will Undermine Its Work” and
“Fewer Police Today Per Capita Than 20 Years Ago” are appearing
in our newspapers.
I think members get the picture. It is a litany of articles and
stories contrary to what we might expect in this country. We
have to ask ourselves: Are we protecting our citizens and meting
out justice or protecting the guilty and providing injustice?
Today the Reform Party motion will identify the concerns and
fears of many Canadians.
Today the House will hear about the legality of child
pornography in British Columbia.
We will hear about the release of pedophiles into the community
because of the insensitive if not bizarre Shaw ruling. We will
hear how these individuals are free to prey on our children with
the blessing of the court.
We will hear about the new youth criminal justice bill which
refuses to acknowledge what is fundamentally wrong with youth
justice.
We will hear about what are known as conditional sentences; that
is, where murderers, rapists and other perpetrators of violent
crime spend their sentences in the community rather than in
prison. It is a novel idea. They put a bullet in the head of
their sleeping husband and they get to move to British Columbia
to enjoy the mountains and the scenery. It is like winning the
lottery.
We will also hear about people who live in fear of home invasion
and hostage taking.
We will hear about impaired drivers and the carnage they are
leaving in their wake. There is no compelling initiative in the
Criminal Code to deal with them.
We will hear about cutbacks in RCMP funding, of the closing of
the training centre and what this means to our personal safety.
We will hear about our borders, the gateway for every crook and
terrorist who wants a place to ply their trade. Speakers from
our side will tell the House how these illegals look upon Canada
as the promised land.
We will also hear of the intransigence of the Liberal government
and its failure to deal with consecutive sentencing, despite a
private member's bill by one of its own MPs calling for change.
1020
We will hear about drug trafficking and the inability to police
it due to cutbacks in resources.
We will hear about the state of our correctional facilities and
how, if one pulls the right strings, they can bring their polo
pony or play a leisurely 18 holes of golf. I hasten to add that
one first has to bludgeon and shoot his wife to death for this
type of royal treatment. Petty criminals need not apply. This
is reserved for the truly heinous.
As members can see, this is a smorgasbord of crime and supposed
punishment. It is a litany of indignity, abuse of the system and
no retribution.
Allow me to begin with the issue of child pornography.
Following the B.C. supreme court ruling by Justice Duncan Shaw
striking down section 163.14 of the Criminal Code, concerning
child pornography, as unconstitutional because the rights of
freedom of expression of John Robin Sharpe were violated and, as
the ruling states “a person's possessions are an expression of a
person's thoughts and essential self”, I kept asking myself the
same question, when is infringement of these charter rights—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I need some clarification from you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to
the issue of speaking on topic. The motion before the House has
to do with the defence of provocation. We are now talking about
child pornography. I think we need clarification because it
could influence the debate for the rest of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the motion before the
House today lists a string of matters of legal concern. The hon.
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is discussing matters
relating to our legal system. Anyone is going to be hard-pressed
to call him on a question of relevance given the wording of the
motion before the House today. There is a long list of legal
items in it and I think the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is not straying too far from the topic
at the moment.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that. It
is amazing that the member opposite would rise on a point of
order if he had looked at the motion. Possibly he has not read
it. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to
deliver criminal justice programs and laws that reflect the will
and concerns of the majority of Canadians, including issues like
child pornography...
That is what I am speaking about right now and it is what I will
continue to speak about. It may be very painful for members on
the other side to listen to these things, but Canadians are
concerned about them and that is why my party is debating these
issues today.
In the case of Shaw, the justice determined that the essential
self of John Robin Sharpe was invaded. Shaw determined that the
right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the
limited beneficial effects of the prohibition of child
pornography. Some may argue that the judgment may not always
mean justice. This crucible we employ to render determination is
fallible and sometimes so arcane that any scintilla of common
sense seems lacking.
When Justice Shaw spoke of essential self I would take it to
mean the worth, dignity and intrinsic value we place on our being
and that of others. I would take it to mean our right to peace,
security and self-determination. I would take it to mean our
right to live without fear of reprisal and that any harm brought
upon us, particularly by those in a position to manipulate or
destroy that vulnerable human spirit that is present in the
young, would be met with condemnation and swift justice.
That is why so many Canadians view the Shaw decision as a
failure in rendering justice that protects individuals least able
to protect themselves.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am not dealing with relevance. I just want to bring to the
attention of the House that this House has for many years
followed closely the provisions of what we call the sub judice
rule. The matter that the hon. member is discussing now is a
matter involving the criminal law, an individual who has been
charged and the matter is still at process.
I urge upon the House to have regard for the provisions of the
sub judice convention so that the ability of the courts to deal
with this matter fairly and properly and the rights of the
individual involved before the courts are not prejudiced by the
public debate here.
I ask our Chair to direct his attention to that.
1025
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot know all the cases
that are before the courts in this country and which ones members
are commenting on.
What is clear is that there is a rule which requires that
members refrain from comment on cases that are before the courts,
particularly criminal cases, where comments might be ones that
tend to prejudice the outcome of the legal proceedings.
This is a discussion today in the House on matters of criminal
law primarily, if I can lump the various items of discussion
together, and using that word without in any way prejudicing the
discussion or limiting the terms of the motion that the
opposition has put before the House today.
I would urge hon. members to have a look at Beauchesne's, at the
sub judice rule as stated in that work, and bear it in mind in
the course of their comments today.
I know that hon. members would not want to prejudice the outcome
of legal proceedings in our courts. I know that in their debate
today they will exercise the usual temperance and prudence as
befits members of the House. I thank the hon. member for
Scarborough—Rouge River for drawing the rule to our attention.
I know the hon. member will be careful in what he says and I hope
that we will be able to carry on that way all day.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You just referred to temperance. I noted that the member for
Prince George—Peace River, who has since left the house, was
using intemperate language. He referred to our country, Canada,
as this bloody country.
I would ask him to withdraw that remark
and to refrain from using such intemperate language in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member were here, perhaps
I would be able to do something like that. He seems to have
disappeared for the moment. Here he is.
Perhaps the hon. member would refrain from using such
intemperate language in the House. I did not hear the remark,
but I know that no hon. member would want to speak that way.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting
when we get on this topic how sensitive the government is.
The member knows that what I am talking about is a case that has
already been before the court. There is an appeal going on. I
am not trying to influence it. I am talking about a case that
happened and he knows that. It is quite legitimate.
To hear the other member complain about my colleague saying
something about Canada when yesterday government members were
calling us “not Canadians” because of the way we voted is
shameful. They have no shame left at all. They are so arrogant
and they will probably keep on interrupting me throughout my
whole speech because of that arrogance.
Let me continue. Those parents, and for that matter anyone with
any degree of compassion for the sanctity of the human spirit and
life, cannot be faulted in concluding that some individuals with
bizarre lifestyles and values want more acknowledgement by the
courts as opposed to those who fall within the mainstream of
values and lifestyles. Some, it appears, have more right to
freedom of conscience than others.
As in the case of any court decision, let alone a controversial
one like the Shaw decision, there are ramifications. Decisions
are not made to go into a void. There is a fallout and there are
long term consequences.
In British Columbia there have been two very real consequences.
Because of the Shaw decision two other individuals charged with
possession of child pornography have had their cases dismissed.
Some 36 other cases are pending and the lower courts hearing
these cases have no alternative but to throw them out.
Shaw's decision guarantees the legality of the possession of
child pornography until the court of appeal rules in late April.
For now British Columbia is the only province where the
possession of child pornography is legal, and that is not right.
The assertion by the federal Minister of Justice that things are
under control and prosecutions for possession are continuing is
simply not true. For now it is open season for pedophiles in
British Columbia.
Five days following the Shaw decision a group of 63 Liberal MPs
and six Liberal senators began a campaign of protest against the
Shaw decision. The 69 signatories to an open letter to their
leader, the Prime Minister, called child pornography a product of
crime. They called it sexual abuse of children and the work of
pedophiles. They stated that the federal government has no
greater responsibility than the protection of children by those
who prey on their innocence and their inability to protect
themselves. They even went so far, in closing a paragraph in
their missive to the Prime Minister, as to call for new child
pornography legislation and for the Prime Minister to consider
using the notwithstanding clause to ensure the charter will never
again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children. A
very realistic view of the situation and a reasonable request of
the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, empty in honour and resolve
and a cruel hoax on children as events would prove themselves 13
days later.
1030
On February 2 these same Liberal MPs were asked to stand in the
House and give a meaning of support to their previous
protestations. They were asked to support a Reform Party motion
calling for the reinstatement of child pornography laws in
British Columbia, even if it meant using the very clause of the
Constitution Act which they implored the PM to use two weeks
before.
When push came to shove, 59 of this virtuous group of Liberal
MPs abandoned any notice of the vulnerability of children and
their victimization at the hands of pedophiles. Four had the
resolve and did what they said they would do.
The task assigned our police in the interdiction of child
pornography is a mess. That is why the Shaw decision makes it
even more frustrating for those charged with policing and
reducing the proliferation of child pornography, particularly its
dissemination on the Internet.
In British Columbia's case police can intercede and confiscate
child pornography but cannot prosecute. The unregulated Internet
has become the vehicle of choice and 20% of all traffic is
generated by traceable kiddy porn web sites.
In a recently released RCMP intelligence report British Columbia
is identified as the only province where child pornography is a
serious concern for law enforcement agencies. Is that not a
cruel irony in light of the Shaw decision and its concern for
essential person rights for pedophiles?
Those individuals involved in this pernicious behaviour, hiding
behind the charter of rights, are attempting to systematically
normalize sexual immorality and the Shaw decision gives them that
licence.
Herbert London, professor of humanities at the University of New
York, said morality is not subjective but is a prerequisite for
ordered society. Those who want the transmogrify of value system
to which the majority of Canadians subscribe are an anathema to
decency and respect.
I will turn now to another tragic example of Liberal government
intransigence and dismissal of public concern. Last week we were
treated to the long awaited changes to the Young Offenders Act.
The new criminal act will be called the youth criminal justice
act but despite this high sounding phrase it really will not
change things a lot.
There are some glaring omissions and some glaring shortcomings
to this act. I will identify some of those. First there is the
limitation of the publication of names for certain offences
classified as adults.
The bill limits these to five situations: murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and repeat
serious violent offences. This leaves a lot of violent and
frightening offences out of the loop.
Second, the Reform Party, and for that matter an all party
committee recommendation, called for the lowering of the maximum
age of youth offenders from 17 to 15. We did not get this and I
am surprised the minister would not address it.
Third, there has been a consistent call from all quarters
dealing with young offenders to have the minimum age of offenders
lowered to 10 years from 12. Again, the committee of this House
and the minister's own justice department years and years ago
called for this reduction. So has a private member's bill from
one of my colleagues but we have never seen that.
The opting out provisions are also a concern for us. Simply
put, there has to be universality in the provisions of the law,
period. We also question the federal government's commitment to
financial resources to youth justice. The announcement of $206
million is over a three year period. The federal government has
never met its 50:50 cost sharing in the youth justice area and
this money will hardly make up for that shortfall.
I go back to the point of the 10 to 12 year olds because I was
never so shocked, the day that bill was introduced, to see the
Minister of Justice talking about Reformers wanting to put 10 and
11 year old children in jail.
An hon. member: That's true.
Mr. John Reynolds: The parliamentary secretary said it is
true. I will tell her it is an absolute lie. Nobody in this
party has ever said we want to put a 10 or 11 year old in jail.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will not want to
start using that word. I think he knows it tends to disorder in
the House and I invite him to refrain from such use. I do not
think he was accusing any hon. member of lying from what I heard
but I would prefer he not use the word.
1035
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I would never impute
another member with telling a lie but I would tell anyone
listening that anyone who says the Reform Party wants to put 10
and 11 year olds in jail is not telling the truth. This party
and the justice committee want to see 10 and 11 year olds in the
system where they can be looked after to make sure they do not
become young offenders and get involved in the system. That is
what everybody wants. We want them in the system. The provinces
want them in the system so they can get the funding from the
federal government which it does not want to put in. That is what
this system is about in terms of 10 and 11 year olds.
This government wants to put no money into it. It does not want
to help the provinces help these poor 10 and 11 year olds who are
in this system. That is what it is all about and that is why the
Liberals throw out the false claims about who wants to put who in
jail. I have never in my life seen anything so low for a justice
minister. I hope they will withdraw what they are saying in that
area.
An hon. member: You want to cane us.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, we hear someone from
across yelling that we want to cane them. What a sad day in
Canada when we have members here talking about caning and putting
people in jail when we are trying to get a system that works.
This government, which will not fund the Young Offenders Act
properly, has not done it properly. That is why we have problems
in this country. It is just like the health program. It is
supposed to be funded 50% by this government but it is doing 20%
and 14%. It has made a mess of it and it tries to blame it on
the opposition.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think my hon. friend has made an error in his comment. He was
suggesting that funding for health care was 50:50. Is he
suggesting that the government is not holding up its end?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member knows
that is not a point of order.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, if the member took it
from me to say that the government was funding at 50:50 I
apologize to him and to Canadians. I was saying it should be
funding at 50:50 and it is not doing it. In my province it is
about 14%. In Ontario it is even less. It has messed up the
health care system which gets these 10 and 11 year olds into
crime, and it cannot stand that. It cannot take the heat.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I thought the hon. member was the critic for justice, not the
critic for health. I thought the topic today was justice.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that with these points of
order that are not points of order we are getting into some
difficulty. The hon. member was discussing the motion before we
started getting some spurious points of order. The hon. member
for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast I know will want to return to
the topic.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I hope they will stop
making these serious interruptions. I hope you are not taking
this out of my time.
The Deputy Speaker: It will be added on.
Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Maybe now that they know that they will not get up as often.
Let me now tell them about the attorney general in Ontario. They
love the Ontario government on that side of the House and they
will love it even less when it wins a re-election in Ontario with
a big majority. This is what the attorney general of Ontario has
to say about the Young Offenders Act:
Ontario is concerned that under the new federal bill 16 and 17
year olds who commit adult crimes are not automatically tried as
adults.
That is a serious issue that most Canadians think of. Most
justice ministers across Canada have asked this government to
address this issue but it has not addressed it:
Even for murder, aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter and
attempted murder there is no guarantee that youths will be
sentenced as an adult. Even on the third rape charge, there is no
guarantee of an adult sentence.
That is the kind of change we are trying to make in this bill.
Most serious violent offences still require the prosecutor to
prove an adult sentence is necessary; jail sentences have been
reduced; youths sentenced as adults for murder are still subject
to more lenient periods of parole ineligibility than adults
sentenced for murder; mandatory jail time is not required for
youths convicted of an offence involving a weapon.
This could result in a 17 year old who commits first degree
murder or other violent crimes still being treated as a child.
“Under this new act, a three time rapist could still be treated
as a child. Rape, drug trafficking, guns—these are adult crimes
and have to be treated as such. In the youth criminal justice
act, there are no guarantees that serious violent crime will be
treated as adult crime”, stated Mr. Harnick.
“What the people of Ontario have been asking for is legislation
that will better protect our children and our communities, that
will send a message to young people that they will be held
accountable for their actions and would deter youth crime.
Instead, the federal Liberal government has released a bill that
has little regard for public safety and even less regard for
providing meaningful consequences for criminal behaviour such as
sexual assault, drug trafficking and use of a weapon”, said
solicitor general and minister of correctional services, Bob
Runciman.
“Many police officers and citizens across Ontario are
frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems
primarily concerned with the rights of offenders”, explained
York regional police Chief Julian Fantino.
“It's disappointing that the federal government won't take the
opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law
to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime”.
1040
An hon. member: Another friend of yours.
Mr. John Reynolds: I hear the parliamentary secretary
complaining about this police chief.
She did not complain about the stooge they had standing up at
their press conference saying what the government wanted them to
say. They do not all agree. There is a blatant disagreement out
there about what is happening in the Young Offenders Act. They
bring the people to it.
An hon. member: Very respectable.
Mr. John Reynolds: The people I am talking about are
respectable. They do not like this bill. It is a bad bill and
should be changed. Hopefully we will do that in committee.
“This new legislation is not only overdue, but also fails once
again to protect society from dangerous and violent offenders”,
said Garry Rosenfeldt, executive director of Victims of Violence.
“Criminal behaviour of 16 and 17 year old youth will still
remain in youth court, irrespective of their crime. Thus one of
the most profound and controversial loopholes within the justice
system remains”.
“In the new bill, the definition of serious violent offence is
so vague that it is also almost useless. Poll after poll has
shown that 80% of Canadians have little or no confidence in the
federal Young Offenders Act. The new youth criminal justice act
will do nothing to improve that. It's a shame Ottawa refused to
listen”.
This is the Ontario government. It sure loves this bill, the
one this government is bragging about, when it has done very
little to help Canadians.
There is another issue in our criminal justice system that
raises Canadian cynicism to new levels, the use of conditional
sentencing. I could go on for long. It seems I have been
interrupted so many times I am not getting this whole exercise
in. Conditional sentencing is a serious issue and needs to be
addressed. One of my colleagues will talk in more detail about
it.
The whole issue in the justice system today is that this
government is not listening. It wants to blame the Reform Party,
the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives for all the problems in
the country.
The Liberals have had two elections since the Tories were
defeated to straighten things out. They still have not done it.
They still do not have health care where it should be. The
justice system is nowhere near what it should be and this is the
government that has done that. It has served its time.
What do those members do now? They get arrogant. If they
present a bill, we are not good Canadians if we do not like it.
If we hammer the justice bill, we are against all the good things
that should happen in this country.
I have seven children and seven grandchildren. I know what is
happening in this country as much as any Liberal on that side
with young people. We need some changes in this law and we need
them now.
I hope the government will listen when we get to committee,
listen to what is happening in this debate today on the issues
that are before us and make some serious changes in the areas of
justice. We need them and we need them bad.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member opened by saying he would deal with an issue that scares a
lot of people. Then he went on to build a whole case and to fuel
the very point he was just making by trying to scare people in a
very systematic and point by point way, painting the worst case
situation in every possible point of view.
One of the quotes, which I would like the member to add
substance to, was “put a bullet in the head of your husband and
you get a reward by moving to beautiful B.C. to enjoy the
mountains and the oceans”. I have to ask him, after I am
finished my remarks, to comment on that and to flesh that out a
little because it does not make any sense to me.
The whole issue of criminal justice and inner city safety is
something I deal with every day. I represent a riding in the
inner city of Winnipeg that is rife with many of the problems
touched on by the member.
What strikes me is how there can be the same set of
circumstances and two completely different views of how to deal
with it. We have heard Reform over the years, even prior to my
coming here, on caning in Singapore. That was one of my
favourites. Spanky and his gang was the term going around at
that time. I understand he is an expert on the subject. He even
had a book on caning in Singapore.
1045
During the 1997 election campaign when I was walking along the
streets I could always tell when I was following the Reform
candidate because people would be asking me about boot camps that
would be introduced based on the American model. Reform is still
advocating and promoting the whole idea of boot camps. This is
unbelievable.
And longer prison sentences. All conventional wisdom dealing
with criminal justice has indicated that longer prison sentences
do not do anything to deter the incidence of crime. Reform
members are dealing with an obsolete concept and fueling the
fearmongering.
In the United States a whole generation of young black males
were locked up because they were a nuisance. Yes, they got them
off the streets and the Americans are showing a decrease in
crime. I would argue that there is no connection between those
two things. The reason there is a decrease in violent crime in
many of the inner city communities is that they have the lowest
unemployment rate since the second world war. That is a way to
slow down property crimes. Crimes of that nature are a
predictable consequence of poverty and unemployment and all of
the other things we need to look at. There are two different
views for the same set of circumstances. The NDP would rather
deal with the root causes of crime.
What does the member mean by stating that by putting a bullet in
the head of her husband the woman gets rewarded by moving to
beautiful British Columbia, which again is a subject of opinion,
and enjoying the mountains and the ocean?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Winnipeg
and it is a wonderful city, but if I had a choice I would rather
be in British Columbia.
On the question regarding putting a bullet in his head and going
to British Columbia, I do not have the newspaper clippings here
but I will make sure they are delivered to the member's office
very shortly. There was a woman in Ottawa whose husband who
worked for the RCMP was lying in bed; she put two bullets in his
head and obviously killed him. She also killed the dog. She
received a conditional sentence and went to British Columbia
where her children are. That was her sentence. A conditional
sentence.
That is why I put the motion before the committee. I will give
the minister credit. I have been asking for this to go to
committee for quite a while. The committee has not handled the
problem.
Violent crimes of this type should not be given conditional
sentences. I think the woman would have received more time in
jail had she been charged with just killing the dog. The SPCA
would have created a big furore about it. But she killed her
husband and she is now in British Columbia. There are many cases
like that. I was going to get into this when I talked about
conditional sentencing but I ran out of time.
Two gentlemen in Montreal were convicted of a brutal rape. Both
men were given conditional sentences because the judge felt they
did not quite understand our justice system because it is not the
same as the one where they were born. They both have lived in
Canada, one for nine years and the other for eleven years.
That is what is wrong with conditional sentencing in this
country. The committee knows that. There has been no movement
by this government to get it into committee, speed it up and
start to do something about that. The parliamentary secretary
gets very mad when I talk about these things, but that is our
job. We are the opposition. We point out the faults. The system
is not totally wrong, but there are some serious faults in the
system and they have to be corrected.
My friend from the NDP talked about boot camps. I do not know
if he has been to the one in Ontario but a lot of parents who
have had kids go to this boot camp have written the government
saying it was a great idea. It certainly beats the Liberal idea
of throwing them in jail. The Liberals want to throw them all in
jail. Why not have a boot camp where they can get some education
instead of putting people in jail. The Liberals want to put young
people in jail. We want to put them in a facility where they can
get an education and learn what it is like in society, not throw
them in the present jail system which is underfunded and does not
work properly because of this government and the government
before it.
There have been two parliamentary reports on penitentiaries in
this country. One was done in 1972, chaired by Mark MacGuigan,
of which I was a member and which made recommendations. The
other was done in 1987. Both the Tory government and the Liberal
government have done nothing about those reports.
We still have a rotten system and it is not working. Boot camps
might have a place in our system. I suggest that the member
visit the one in Ontario.
In my speech I did not get the chance to talk about prevention.
There is no prevention. We want to look at prevention to make
sure these things do not happen. That includes looking at
poverty and unemployment about which the member talks. I agree
with him. They are serious issues. We are not going to solve
the other justice problems without solving unemployment and
poverty issues. We want to look at those issues too.
1050
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
noticed that the member focused all his attention on the 10% plus
of violent offenders and that aspect of the new legislation. We
know that at the moment, sadly, we incarcerate 25,000 young
people a year. Some of those of course are not in for the entire
year, but putting a young person in some sort of confinement
certainly is going to mark them for life. That is four or five
times the rate at which we incarcerate adults in this country.
The member talked about British Columbia and we have heard some
discussion about Manitoba. One of the lowest rates of
incarceration I understand is in the province of New Brunswick.
It has very successfully involved the community in sentencing,
with pre-court handling of young offenders and more family
involvement in dealing with young offenders.
I understand that the province of New Brunswick has actually
closed five or six prisons recently. Imagine the financial saving
on the one hand, but also imagine the improvement in the people
who are going through the justice system as a result of not
spending unnecessary time in prison.
Will the member give some time now to discussing the 85% or 90%
non-violent offenders who are the main people we are dealing
with, who are the majority of these 25,000 young people we are
putting into some sort of confinement every year? Would he
comment on the New Brunswick example as a model for the rest of
the country?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to talk
about that. I also suggest to my colleague that he look at
Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec which have the three best
records in Canada for young offenders.
I also find it very strange that the government side is getting
up saying that we have 25,000 people in jail. Who put them
there? The Liberals did. They have had the chance to change the
rules. They have not done it. That is the whole point and they
do not understand. The system we have right now came from the
Liberals and the Tories.
We are talking about a system that works with young people in
the system. Put some money into prevention. There is no money
from the government for prevention. The government is supposed to
fund the Young Offenders Act 50:50. It is not doing it. It is
funding it 30%. There is no money for prevention. There is no
money from these Liberals.
The Liberals will try to have us believe that it was the
Reformers who put 25,000 people in jail. The hon. member
mentions 10%.
I wish the parliamentary secretary would not use the word lie
but she keeps on using it on that side.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I apologize.
Mr. John Reynolds: She apologizes. I will accept her
apology.
The Liberals are the government. I have been on the government
side where we can make laws. They can make laws. They are not
making them. They are talking about them. They try to blame
their faults on the opposition. In this area it is not the
opposition's fault. We have been offering good solutions. We
want to offer prevention. We think the money should be going
into prevention. It is not going there.
We will be bringing that out in the very near future with
details on how we can prevent a lot of these crimes in Canada.
Then we will see how serious the Liberals are about spending
money on the real problems in this country.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to talk about the
type of visual reality of the justice system that would happen in
this country if, God forbid, there ever was a Reform government.
It would be a justice system based on the law of the jungle, an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, vigilante justice. Call
it what you may, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly what the hon.
member just indicated to us when he spoke in this House.
The motion itself is reflective of that. It does not matter
what crime is committed in this country, let us get rid of the
judges, let us get rid of due process of law, let us get rid of
the lawyers, let us get rid of anything that comes between the
irresponsible and fearmongering policy makers on the other side
of the House and a justice system that has shown that it is one
of the best in the world. Let us forget of course about the fact
that they want to criminalize, maybe not throw them in jail, but
criminalize 10-year olds contrary to what the hon. member said.
Let us look at what is the worst in society as the rule rather
than the exception.
That is what Reform members have been saying in this House for
the year and a half that I have been parliamentary secretary.
1055
They talk about fearmongering and—I will not say
lies—misinformation where irresponsible policy makers want to
create a society where everyone has a gun and everyone shoots
whenever anyone gets in the way. That is exactly the type of
society they want to promote.
There is no such thing except the exception to the rule,
continuously the exception to the rule to what happened.
I believe Canadians do not share that vision of our justice
system. Canadians do not have a wild west vigilante mentality in
terms of this country's justice system. I do not believe that the
type of justice system being promoted by Her Majesty's Official
Opposition is the type of system Canadians in general want to
have.
I believe Canadians believe in the due process of law. They
believe in an individual having the right to a hearing before a
judge and jury of his or her peers. They believe our youth have
to be given the help they need whenever they need it. They also
believe that their money should not be spent in creating more
jails or incarcerating more people but by investing in
rehabilitation. I also believe Canadians believe in compassion
and in the respect of individual rights and freedoms.
Those are all the things this side of the House also believes
in. The fact that Canadians have given us a second mandate is
indicative also that most Canadians do not believe the system the
Reform Party is promoting is the type of justice system they want
in this country.
Today I would like to deal with one aspect of the motion. The
motion itself was a smorgasbord of whatever Reform has been
discussing in this House over the last six years that I have been
a parliamentarian. I would like to deal with the youth criminal
justice act which we recently introduced in this House and the
government's broader strategy to renew the youth justice system.
We believe the bill responds to the extensive consultations on
the strategy for the renewal of youth justice which was released
by the government on May 12, 1998 with concerned citizens,
governments at all levels and other partners who want
improvements to the youth justice system. Canadians want to
change the youth justice system and they want programs and
resources to support those changes. We propose to give them
exactly that, despite what the hon. member said in this House.
The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice
recognizes that the foremost objective is public protection. It
distinguishes legislation and programs appropriate to a small
group of violent young offenders and those appropriate for the
vast majority of non-violent young offenders. It takes a much
broader, more integrated approach than the simplistic approach
that is emphasized by the members in the opposition. It also
emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation. The strategy is based
on three key directions that work together to better protect the
public.
First is prevention. The best way to protect the public,
victims, families and youth, is to prevent crime in the first
place. I think we all agree on that. On June 2, 1998 the
government launched a $32 million a year community based crime
prevention initiative that includes children and youth as
priorities. Programs proposed by communities from one end of
this country to the other are currently being funded to prevent
youth crimes.
Meaningful consequences is the number two priority. Youth crime
will be met with meaningful consequences. But what is
meaningful? It depends on the seriousness of the offence and the
circumstances of the offender, something the opposition would
like us not to take into account of course.
Rehabilitation and reintegration. A fundamental principle of
Canada's youth justice system is that young offenders with
guidance and support are more likely than adults to be
rehabilitated and become law-abiding citizens. We on this side of
the House truly believe and some members on the other side of the
House also believe in programs that help to rehabilitate young
offenders, protect the public, prevent further crimes and reflect
society's commitment to youth.
[Translation]
I want to begin with what we plan to do to prevent youth from
committing crimes. This, in our opinion, is the best way to
protect society, and to help youth at the same time, as we wish
to.
The way to accomplish this is to address the very causes of
crime. We must use every means at our disposal to battle
poverty and child abuse, which are known to frequently lead to
youth crime.
1100
We cannot wage this battle alone, however. If we are to have a
long term strategy addressing the causes of youth crime, we are
aware that many others must be included: individuals,
organizations, and in particular the provincial governments,
which are involved in crime prevention, child welfare, mental
health, education, social services, and employment.
Families, communities and victims will also have a role to play
in this battle against youth crime, waged within the framework
of the national community safety and crime prevention strategy.
The government is spending $32 million a year to help Canadian
communities set up the necessary programs and crime-prevention
partnerships.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act will be the foundation for a
renewed system of youth justice, but it is only one piece of the
puzzle. We all know that legislation, however harsh, will not
stop young people from committing crimes and innocent people
from becoming victims.
This is why we have included rehabilitation and reintegration
into society in our bill.
[English]
The legislation is an important element of a broader strategy
for addressing the complex problem of youth crime. The
legislation provides an effective and flexible framework for
youth justice and distinguishes approaches for violent offenders
and the majority of less serious offenders.
It includes overarching principles and sentencing principles
which emphasize that the penalty must be proportionate to the
seriousness of the offence. It provides for greater protections
of the rights of young accused while attending flexibility and
streamlining procedures for the administrators of the system.
It includes a broader range of sentencing options, many of which
reinforce important social values like requiring the youth to
repair the harm caused by the offence. It addresses flaws in the
previous system and provides a balanced approach to the complex
problem of youth crime, not the simplistic approach of the
Reform.
We know however that legislation alone will not reorient the
justice system. It needs to be supported by programs, trained
professionals and committed partners.
The February 16, 1999 budget recognized the need for additional
resources to support the new legislation and renew the youth
justice system. Some $206 million was allocated for the first
three years and a total of about $400 million in additional
resources would be available for the six year implementation
period. This is a significant addition that will lead to the
renewal of the youth justice system.
[Translation]
Canada as a whole continues to incarcerate a higher percentage
of young offenders than most countries. This is a concern.
Although international comparisons continue to be difficult
because of the differences between systems, Canada apparently
incarcerates a relatively higher percentage of young people than
even the United States.
In addition, the rates of incarceration vary considerably across
the country, ranging from 9% to 32% per 10,000 adolescents
depending on the province.
It is sad that the great majority of young people in custody are
there for non-violent offences for which community approaches
will do a much better job of promoting social values such as
responsibility and accountability.
[English]
Contrary to the assertion of the opposition, the government is
addressing the youth justice concerns of Canadians with new laws
and supporting programs that will prevent crime and ensure
meaningful consequences for those who do commit crimes—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. parliamentary
secretary's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
usually agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Justice on issues of criminal justice, particularly very
important ones such as this one. We usually agree on the major
thrusts and on the implementation of the Criminal Code.
However, in this debate on the motion put forward by the Reform
Party, which is obviously motivated by the recent amendments
proposed to the Young Offenders Act by the Department of
Justice, I have a hard time reconciling the speech made this
morning by the secretary parliamentary with the new thrust of
the Young Offenders Act, with the new way of implementing the
youth justice system in Canada.
1105
Clearly, and even with the virtual agreement of two parties, it
is in response to the pressure exerted by western Canada and the
Reform Party that the Liberals reviewed the Young Offenders Act
to strengthen it and to provide for stiffer penalties.
How can we reconcile the speech of the parliamentary secretary
on rehabilitation and social reintegration with the possibility
of having 14 and 15-year old kids being imprisoned and having
their names published in newspapers, which would mark them for
life? How can we reconcile these two things with the parents'
responsibility?
I therefore ask the parliamentary secretary if she thinks that
her speech is credible with regard to that issue?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe my speech is
very consistent in this regard. As the hon. member is well
aware, we have made our bill flexible precisely so that the
system that is already working in the province of Quebec can
continue to operate. We have, however, given attorneys general
and ministers of justice everywhere in the county the right to
reflect their communities' values.
It may be that Quebec's view is not one shared by all parts of
Canada. It is our hope that the $206 million we have allocated
to rehabilitation and to social reintegration of youth will help
to create rehabilitation programs.
I would point out at the same time that we were not pressured in
any way. We have made a collective decision, which is how the
Liberal party operates, and it is one that reflects all views of
this country.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the government side to
create a false picture and then rail against it. It is rather a
phony, hollow play.
When we on this side talk about personal responsibility,
government members call it fearmongering. When we talk about
victim concerns rather than being too offender focused, they call
it rather simplistic. Obviously we can hear today how touchy
they are because there is a big problem out there in the
community for which the government is responsible. They are
accountable.
Just to be reasonable and to deal with facts, not false notions,
we can do a lot better in the justice system. When we perform
our official opposition role of pointing out inadequacies, what
we ask from the government is simply to fix the problem and not
get into an esoteric debate.
There is a lot of boasting today about the new young offenders
bill before parliament. Will the government be prepared to
accept amendments to the bill based on consultation with the
community rather than continue to boast about how good the
proposed bill is?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the
House have never dealt with anything except the facts.
Unfortunately that is not the case on the other side of the
House. Yes, we know there are inadequacies and, yes, we are
addressing them on this side of the House.
As far as victims are concerned, I remind the hon. member that
we have dealt with victims as a priority in the justice system,
including in the new legislation that we tabled last week.
As far as making any comments on consultation, I do not think
there has been any piece of legislation which has had as much
consultation as this piece of legislation that we have introduced
in the House.
A justice committee did a consultation. The ministers of
justice across the country have been consulted. A number of
organizations and a number of Canadians have been consulted.
There has been extensive consultation as far as this piece of
legislation is concerned. There will be further consultation
according to the process we have established as a parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think it would be a good thing go back to the motion itself,
which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to
deliver criminal justice programs and laws that reflect the will
and concerns of the majority of Canadians, including issues
like child pornography, young offenders, impaired driving,
conditional sentencing, drug trafficking, home invasions, police
funding, consecutive sentencing, corrections facilities and
illegal immigration, and as a consequence, have put individual
safety, and in some cases national security, in jeopardy.
1110
One is forced to conclude that this motion was prompted, as I
said earlier, by amendments to the Young Offenders Act, among
other things, but that it is also a reaction to the shocking
case in British Columbia relating to child pornography.
I have some misgivings about the misconceptions this implies.
The motion is based solely on perceptions, on emotions, on
exceptions, and on the misinformation the Reform Party has been
involved with ever since 1993, as justification for its desire
to make some extremely significant changes, to the Young
Offenders Act in particular.
I am not saying today that everything is rosy and wonderful and
that we have the best system in the world. That is not the
case. All systems need to be modernized and improved. There
are areas where the government does not perform and should.
There are vitally important areas where the Liberal government
does nothing and should do something.
More dollars are laundered in this country than anywhere else in
the world. What is the federal government doing about it?
Absolutely nothing. We are proud to be the country laundering
the most dollars. It would be easy to intervene. The
government could simply outlaw the use of $1,000 bills, as the
Bloc Quebecois member for Charlesbourg has been suggesting for a
while now. Nothing is happening.
Epic battles had to be waged here to get the Liberal government
to pass minor legislation on gangs.
It does not go as far as we would like. It is not right for
criminal gangs to call the shots as they are doing across the
country without any intervention and the heads of the gangs
being caught.
Certain laws protecting public security contain weaknesses. In
terms of police services funding, the government could certainly
put more money into prevention. Then there is the victims
element.
There must be compliance with the Canadian Constitution as well.
Odd to hear this from the mouth of a Bloc member, but there is
a Canadian Constitution, and the people in this House do not
appear to really know what it is about. It sets out
responsibilities. But, as the Bloc member pointed out, not even
the government complies with the Constitution, intervening in
provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Perhaps it should set an example.
The bottom line is that there is room for improvement in the
system, but perhaps we should not expect to amend the Criminal
Code or the Young Offenders Act by debating this kind of motion,
or by citing specific cases that have made the headlines.
The Young Offenders Act is something I take a great interest in.
I am familiar with the Young Offenders Act because a consensus
was reached in Quebec. Efforts to address youth crime have been
going on for 25 or 30 years. Lawyers, criminologists and
specialists fought just as hard with the Government of Quebec of
25 or 30 years ago as they did with the federal government to
bring about the structure we have today, and all stakeholders
are proud of their achievement.
Members will surely understand my mistrust with respect to any
sort of amendment to a bill that could undermine Quebec's
approach to youth crime.
When I see this sort of à la carte legislation being proposed,
when I see legislation purporting to be very flexible, according
to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary,
legislation that each province could enforce as it saw fit, I
wonder. Why does the federal government want a Young Offenders
Act then? Why does it not withdraw completely and leave the
provinces with full jurisdiction over youth crime?
1115
Quebec would immediately praise such a move on the part of the
Minister of Justice, if she had the courage to make it. But I
am afraid this is not about to happen. The whole thing is a
smokescreen. It is not true that the new way of doing things
with regard to criminal justice is as flexible as the government
would have us believe to get Quebec to shut up, as federalists
often try to do.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I hope that the members from Quebec who
are here are listening and will ask me questions. I will be
pleased to answer them.
The Minister of Justice, and even Reformers, rely on statistics
that do not demonstrate any need to make amendments to the Young
Offenders Act.
I will quote the figures mentioned by the minister herself when
she introduced her amendments. They are from Statistics Canada,
which means they should be precise numbers. The crime rate among
young people has dropped 23%, even for violent crimes. That is
those crimes targeted by the minister's proposed amendment,
those that prompted her act and propose changes. There has even
been a 3.2% drop since 1995.
Contrary to what a Liberal member said, juvenile crimes do not
account for 10% of all crimes, but for less than that. One
should look at the actual figures before saying things that make
no sense.
That is why, given the statistics quoted by the minister, we
must arrive at the conclusion that she is blindly amending an
act that is good.
I attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice,
which examined this issue. I heard all the stakeholders,
including some from western Canada, British Columbia and
Ontario, and they said the problem was not really the act itself
but the related funding.
In Quebec, people said “It is not the act that presents a
problem, but the financing. Please do not change the Young
Offenders Act. Maintain the status quo”.
Some 25 or 30 years ago, we in Quebec decided to invest in
rehabilitation and social reintegration instead of in bricks and
mortar for jails in which to keep young people locked up, so
that they come out at age 25 or 30 with a fine education in how
to commit crime, and an inability to do anything else. What we
do instead is to invest in the individual, to focus on the heart
of the problem. We have excellent success rates for
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Of course it does not make the front page headlines when a young
person who committed a murder at age 15 and was placed in
rehabilitation now, 10 or 12 years later, having been
rehabilitated, becomes an anonymous member of society, marries
and starts a family, has a job, and is not dependent on society.
This does not make the front page, of course, but it is a
situation we see daily as a result of the way we apply the Young
Offenders Act.
Members will understand, therefore, that it is impossible for me
not to react when I hear inaccurate statistics and information
given in this House. I will speak out as strongly as possible
against any such attempt by either the Reform Party or the
Liberal Party, who seem to get along very well when a detour to
the right is necessary. I will be quick to stand up and defend
my point of view, which is a point of view shared by all
Quebeckers, and we know what we are talking about.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the
speech by member, colleague and friend from Berthier—Montcalm
sad.
If there is a point of consensus on this bill it is the remarks
by the head of the Quebec Bar, Jacques Fournier. He said that
this bill was not only in line with the philosophy of the Quebec
Bar, but that the government had once again demonstrated that it
is flexible and that it is following up on the extraordinary
work done by the legal community on this issue in Quebec.
1120
I understand that the opposition has to oppose. It is very
frustrating for a colleague like the member for
Berthier—Montcalm, whose voice revealed in a way that he was
trying to defend the indefensible. I would ask him, however,
what he wants exactly, given that we are being flexible and
especially that we are providing the funding, because I am
interested in this matter. The Centre Mariebourg in my riding
helps prevent crime in its way and works with young people.
Is the role of the member for Berthier—Montcalm to defend the
indefensible and to come up with all sorts of ways to promote his
own political cause? Should he not, in any case—and we are all
familiar with his intellectual honesty in this regard—applaud
the work of the minister and the flexibility of this government,
which works? What wears him out in the end is that the system
can work within Canada, is it not?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that
the member for Bourassa takes this approach, because I have
tried to avoid petty politics when it comes to the very
important topic of crime. If the member had followed the
proceeedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights, he would know that on several occasions I set aside
partisan politics in order to raise extremely important points
for the betterment of the law, which I hold very dear.
In this case, I am being told what Quebec's president of the bar
said. Quebec's president of the bar represents his peers. I am
a member of the bar, and therefore he must represent me. He is
also supposed to represent his committee, which has examined the
issue. Other members of this committee include Ms. Toutan, Me
Bois and Me Trépanier. Although I have not discussed the issue
with them, I have heard what they have to say and they are
squarely against the president of the bar's comments. They will
apparently sort this out among themselves.
Quebec's president of the bar did not inform any of them that he
would be attending a press conference with the Minister of
Justice, and, in particular, none of them was aware of his new
view of the Young Offenders Act in this great land, Canada.
I will leave the Quebec bar to sort this out among themselves.
Things will undoubtedly be said to which we will not be privy,
but I am certain that there is still a consensus in Quebec and
that it is opposed to the amendments the minister is proposing.
If the minister, her parliamentary secretary, or even the
Liberal member for Bourassa were convinced that the Quebec
approach is the best one, how can it be that they, as
federalists who want only the best for Canada, have not been
successful in selling this idea in English Canada? How can it
be that, in order to put Quebec in its place, they are creating
national standards and then telling Quebec “If you want any
money, you'd better put up and shut up”. Yet, when it comes to
what will be implemented in western Canada, flexibility will be
allowed, a flexibility that is not part of the law.
Today, there are some reflex reactions that did to exist
previously, and that will eventually have an impact on how young
offenders will be handled in Quebec, and this I cannot allow.
If the Liberal members from Quebec can, they will have to bear
the responsibility for their actions. I, as a lawyer and an MP
who is doing a serious and professional job here, cannot accept
the minister's approach.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the rest of the day and
this very scintillating debate. I am pleased to be participating
in this debate.
1125
I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have brought forward
this motion to deal with the criminal justice system, to deal
with the way laws are interpreted by the judiciary and to look
into issues like child pornography, young offenders, home
invasions, impaired driving, conditional sentencing, consecutive
sentencing, correctional facilities, illegal immigration and a
number of others.
I do not think we, and particularly members on the government
side, should feel defensive. We will not suggest they are
responsible for every aspect of our criminal justice system and
its interpretation. We also will not suggest any party has the
corner on truth when it comes to dealing with these issues.
However, it is important to share our points of view in hopes
that some changes will occur. I do not expect a single member of
parliament, if they were honest in terms of representing the
views of their constituents, would say there not improvements to
be made to the system.
The government has recently introduced changes to the Young
Offenders Act which, on a personal basis, I believe is a step in
the right direction as changes are obviously required. I think
there are improvements that can be made to the bill. My friend
from Quebec who just spoke pointed out some of his concerns. The
Liberal member reflected the fact that we are being flexible so
that communities in different parts of the country can be
reflected in the way the Young Offenders Act is interpreted and
used.
Perhaps it is a strength to acknowledge that parts of the
country such as the province of Quebec have had incredible
successes dealing with the young offender issue provincial
jurisdictions much more than some other jurisdictions. We can
therefore learn from them.
On the other hand, we have to be concerned that we will have a
number of systems dealing with young offenders across the country
that reflect these realities in parts of the country. Do we
really want to have a justice system that is different in one
part of Canada for some Canadians than in another part? There is
a national standard when it comes to interpreting the Criminal
Code. These are issues we have to discuss and consider.
My friend spent some time talking about the Shaw decision
surrounding the issue of child pornography. I think I reflect
all our views when I say we share a deep concern the moment it is
legal to have child pornography in one's possession for personal
use. One would have to ask what other use there would be.
Building material? I doubt that. It is obviously for personal
use.
In British Columbia a judge has said that it is okay to have
child pornography in one's possession as long as one is using it
for one's personal use. That is a terrible situation. I think
MPs from all parties would say that is not right and that we will
take steps to ensure that is changed. Every time there is an
individual with child pornography of some sort in their home it
means that some young people have been abused and taken advantage
of in a most degrading circumstance.
This is obviously an issue of concern because we are hearing it
today. The parliamentary secretary ought not to take these
criticisms personally. We are simply putting them on the table
and saying these are issues that must be dealt with in whatever
form it might take. If it is a change to the Constitution by
using the notwithstanding clause, so be it. If it requires new
legislation, so be it.
There is also the issue of impaired driving. I think we are all
concerned when we listen to our local divisions of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving and others and read their literature about
the carnage on our highways that is attached to those people who,
for whatever set of reasons, choose to drink and drive. Perhaps
we need to get a little tougher on them.
I think it was the state of New York that announced a change in
policy where if someone is found to be driving his or her vehicle
and drinking, the vehicle is impounded and sold. The driver does
not get it back under any circumstances. That will slow people
down and make people think twice. It is hard to say whether that
is a solution but we have to look at all aspects.
On a personal basis, there is the issue of illegal immigration.
This is a huge topic and deserves a full day of debate in the
House of Commons. There are a lot of people who work hard to
enter Canada in legal ways by going through all the proper
channels in time consuming processes and so on. We also see
people who short-circuit the system and then go underground. There
are thousands of people who abuse our immigration laws in that
way and therefore wreck it for those who are legitimate
applicants. This is something we have to take more seriously.
In the last few days I think we all had visits by police forces
across the country, the RCMP and others.
They visited almost every member of parliament, pointing out
their incredible frustration with working hard to nail some drug
dealer only to see the drug dealer getting off in court on some
bloody technicality and being out there hours later selling drugs
on the street to young people. There are all kinds of abuses. I
do not know how police officers can stand it.
1130
An hon. member: They do not make enough money.
Mr. Nelson Riis: They do not make enough money. I do not
think we could pay police officers enough for the work they do on
our behalf.
They were here the other day pointing out the frustration they
experience in attempting to uphold the laws. We are probably not
short of laws but it is the way the laws are being interpreted,
the way they are being administered, and the way the judicial
branch is dealing with the laws.
I will go back to the Shaw decision in British Columbia. We
would be remiss today if we did not mention one of the more
unfortunate issues relating to our corrections system, that is
the large number of aboriginal inmates in our jails. A large
number of first nations men and women are incarcerated in Canada
by and large because they often cannot afford a good lawyer to
argue their case. As a result of living in conditions that can
only be akin to poverty and being unable to get the legal advice
and support they require, they end up serving time in jail, which
as someone said earlier is really a crime college.
If a young offender who is in some difficulty wants to become a
full time criminal, there is no better place to learn the art of
crime than in jail. If a young offender breaks the law in some
form we have to be very cautious and see jail as a last resort.
Steps need to be taken in an attempt to break the cycle of crime
as opposed to sending the young person off to crime college, as I
call it.
If we are to make our streets and neighbourhoods safe, we cannot
rely on the police to do it. We cannot rely on the judicial
system itself to do it. We all have to be part of the solution.
In other words, communities have to buy into the fact that they
too have to be part of the security.
I am thinking of the various protection plans which exist in
neighbourhoods, the neighbourhood watch approach. People look
out for one another. If they see a suspicious character they
call the police. If someone is breaking down someone's back
door, he is probably not an uncle trying to get in.
This brings me back to the whole issue of adequate funding for
our police forces. I do not think there is a single jurisdiction
in Canada or a single taxpayer in Canada that would not wilfully
add a few cents to the tax load if it was going into better
policing for neighbourhoods and safeguarding streets and
communities across the country. I think we all admit that
government funding when it comes to security, particularly in
terms of funding our police forces, has not been sufficient. As
a result Canada's security has suffered to a certain extent.
We have to send a signal, which I think this debate today will
help to do, to the judicial aspect of our system in Canada. Many
people have suggested that we have a good legal system but there
is not much justice in it. Often we see justice being set aside
for all kinds of spurious reasons. I hope the judges,
particularly the ones that have made some terribly goofy
decisions in the last little while, will take note of our
discussions today.
I want to make an appeal in my closing comments. While we are
dealing with crime and how to deal with those who break the law
or have been alleged to have broken the law, we need to spend
some time looking at the causes of crime. Why do people break
laws? Why do people decide to do something they know is illegal?
I suspect there are two fundamental causes. One is people do
goofy things. I am thinking particularly of many young offenders
who do something as a result of youthful exuberance or a moment
of misjudgment. They are not criminals; they just do something
stupid. I suspect an odd one of us in this room has probably
been in that category at one time or another.
1135
Second, let us admit that a fundamental cause of crime is
extremely dysfunctional families that have become dysfunctional
often because of some element of poverty.
I am not linking poverty and crime. I am saying that high
levels of poverty, excessive levels of poverty, often lead to
very dysfunctional families and result in dysfunctional behaviour
in society and consequently to crime. Let us spend some time on
the causes of crime, not only on crime itself.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member from Kamloops. I heard him
make reference to the rate of incarceration of our aboriginal
peoples. He also made reference to looking at the front end,
trying to look at prevention and so on.
I have often thought about two statistics that are not normally
linked. I wonder if the member has some independent thoughts on
them. I would like him to share them with the viewers and
listeners. They relate to what we all know so sadly as fetal
alcohol syndrome which affects the aboriginal population in a
statistically high way. We also know that victims of fetal
alcohol syndrome have traditionally and statistically provable
high rates of incarceration.
If we look at those two statistics independently in the broad
population there is a definite linkage. If we look at them
specifically in the aboriginal population, it would be very
interesting to know what the link is. We are possibly
understating the true impact of fetal alcohol syndrome and how it
is ravaging the population, particularly in terms of the rate of
incarceration of aboriginal peoples.
I have never actually seen a study that links those two
statistics. Does the member from Kamloops want to make any
comments in that regard?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the inquiry by
my friend from Vancouver Island North because he has identified
one of the very serious issues confronting our society as a whole
but particularly concentrated in some aboriginal communities, the
whole issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and the victims of it.
It is fair to say that any individual suffering from the results
of fetal alcohol syndrome will have a difficulty functioning well
in society. People who have difficulty functioning in society
often tend to be marginalized, tend to get into situations where
there is very little hope in terms of having a successful future,
and therefore often turn in desperation to acts of violent crime.
Particularly they get caught up in substance abuse issues in
their own communities or homes and violent crimes.
The member has done the debate a great deal of service by
flagging an issue that is not only of concern to us all but
probably ought to be much more of a concern: the ramifications of
substance abuse generally in our communities. I thank my friend
from Vancouver Island North. That is a positive aspect of this
debate. We are all putting items on the table for consideration
in the hopes that somebody somewhere is listening.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
noticed that all of those who spoke today referred to child
pornography in B.C. Anyone involved in child pornography is sick.
We have to take necessary steps. We all have to come together,
fast track and do whatever has to be done to correct this
situation in B.C., because we do not want anyone else across the
country doing it.
We have to think about those little children.
1140
The Prime Minister told me that in 1972 he received pictures of
little girls and at that time he was trying to do something to
straighten it out.
What steps does my colleague from the NDP think all of us
collectively should take to straighten out this matter
immediately?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate a
question from the hon. member for Saint John. In her emotional
question she reflects the view on this issue of every member of
parliament representing every Canadian. We have to take whatever
steps are necessary to obliterate any use of child pornography.
Arising from our earlier discussions, if new legislation is
required to send a very clear signal to our judiciary, so be it.
We will pass that expeditiously. I am sure all parties would
move on that. If it requires the use of the notwithstanding
clause of our Constitution, we will suggest that we use that.
Essentially this behaviour is unacceptable by any clear thinking
individual in society. We as a parliament will take whatever
step is necessary to obliterate this blight as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and always an honour to
rise in the House to debate issues of such substance. I commend
the hon. member who brought the multifacted issue before the
House for debate. It touches on a number of very important
subject areas.
Many criminal justice debates that take place in the House are
done on what one might describe as a visceral level. It is fair
to say that issues such as child pornography, sentencing or truth
in sentencing certainly conjure up very strong emotions for
individuals throughout the country, particularly those who are
most affected. I am speaking of victims.
It is fair to say that significant steps have been made in the
past number of years to address the inadequacies and the
injustices that exist with respect to the treatment of victims in
our criminal justice system. I would even go so far as to praise
the justice minister for having recognized this.
I would also take the opportunity to praise the late Shaughnessy
Cohen for her work on the justice committee as chair and in
heading up a round table discussion in Ottawa that included many
stakeholders in our justice system as it pertained to victims
rights.
I will speak more specifically to some of the elements of the
motion before the House today. When we speak to issues such as
the recent decision out of British Columbia in the case of the
Queen v Shaw that talks of the ability of a person to possess
child pornography, it certainly conjures up a statement made by a
law professor, Victor Goldberg in Nova Scotia, at Dalhousie
University, when he said that bad facts make for bad law.
Often times we tend to get caught up in an individual case and
hold it out as the standard or as an example of how the law
should change. Often times that is a useful exercise, but we
have to be very careful because proportionality and a measured
response are implicitly important in the criminal justice system.
That is not to say that I or members of the Progressive
Conservative Party in any way, shape or form condone the decision
that was made with respect to child pornography. The suggestion
that we brought forward was that it was an instance where there
should have been direct intervention from the justice minister.
There should have been an immediate response.
In cases such as that one the public perception is very
important. For justice to be done it must be seen to be done.
This is an old legal maxim from the myths of antiquity. Having
practised law, Mr. Speaker, you would understand the importance
of responding quickly but proportionately.
What should have happened and what we respectfully submit should
have taken place in this instance was that the justice minister
had an opportunity to refer it immediately to the top court to
have the Supreme Court of Canada issue a ruling on the case
immediately so that there would be clarification for law
enforcement agents.
There would be clarification for judges, in particular in the
province of British Columbia, but right across the land. There
would be a renewed sense of confidence in our justice system that
is so sorely lacking these days.
1145
I want to touch briefly on the changes that have been brought
forward through this new legislation, the youth criminal justice
bill, which was tabled last week in the House. Again I cannot
help but feel some sense of regret and a sense that it was a
missed opportunity by the Minister of Justice to bring forward
perhaps more meaningful legislation that would resonate across
the country and restore the sense of justice.
It is fair to say that over the past number of years there has
been a constant disintegration and erosion of our confidence as
it pertains in particular to the way our laws apply to young
people in this country.
The law itself is not all bad. The philosophy of the Young
Offenders Act I think is one that we all agree with and one which
we all embrace, and that is that young people do in fact have to
be held to a different standard than an adult, a mature person.
However, this particular legislation, rightly or wrongly, has
been perceived as something that was set up to protect a young
person as opposed to protecting society. At the end of the day,
what justice in this country is all about is ensuring that those
who choose to live within the ambit of the laws that have been
formulated over the years and put in place through precedent and
legislation are protected. Those laws are there to protect
people who choose to live that life.
There are those who step outside those laws. They choose to do
so for a reason. There are all sorts of philosophies about how
criminal behaviour stems from poverty and many social ills,
mental illness and others. However, at the end of the day the
public has a right to be protected from those individuals,
whatever the cause. They have the right to feel safe in their
homes. They have the right to feel safe walking down the streets
of their communities. They have the right to feel that when
their children leave the house in the morning they will return
home safe and sound.
What we have to do is ensure that those laws are not only
properly in place but properly upheld and interpreted.
There has been much to do and much talk in recent days and
months of judicial activism and the accountability level of our
judges in this country. It is a very slippery slope when we
begin to openly criticize our judiciary. They are entrusted with
perhaps one of the most important jobs that can be performed in
this country. In fact I would go so far as to say that judges,
in the day to day carrying out of their duties, the individual
discretion which they can exercise in a courtroom is perhaps one
of the most powerful, most compelling employment situations that
we see, perhaps even more so than an elected official, perhaps
even more so than the Prime Minister.
It is vitally important that those judges are given the tools
and the laws to enforce what they feel is appropriate in the
circumstances.
The young offenders legislation I suggest was a missed
opportunity to perhaps give those judges greater tools, with
respect specifically to lowering the age of accountability.
Members opposite have made a great deal of this situation, saying
that members of the opposition are advocating a very strict
hammering approach that would see young people, 10 or 11 years
old, thrown in jail. That is not the suggestion and I have not
heard anyone espouse that position.
We are talking about a mechanism that would put in place the
ability to trigger some form of social reaction that would bring
a young person into the system at the earliest possible instance.
Early intervention is what it is all about, the pre-emptive
strike, this approach that has been so vociferously advocated by
the government and yet it is overlooking an opportunity to do
this. It was from its own justice officials that this idea came
forward. I believe there is a failing in that regard.
With respect to the resources that have been allotted to this
initiative, this legislative change that is to occur for our
young offenders, it is fair to say that there are scarce
resources under the existing system of the Young Offenders Act
and even with the injection of money that has been proposed this
will not adequately compensate those in the social services,
those in child welfare, who are going to be utilized even more so
under this particular legislation.
It is once again a very tricky shell game that has been brought
forward, much like we saw with the budget itself and the
suggestion that greater resources were going to be put into
health care. It does not compensate for the amount of money that
was taken out.
1150
The same can be said of our justice system. Over the past
number of years, particularly since 1993, we have seen drastic
cuts to our policing services and our social welfare services
that work so closely with law enforcement and our judiciary. Mr.
Clark, the leader of our party, has made this a priority. He
very recently held a press conference to point out the
inadequacies with respect to the funding that has been allotted
in particular to our national police force, the RCMP.
We are very glad to see that the decision has been made to
reopen the RCMP cadet college in Regina, but there is the obvious
question: Who closed it? Who made that priority decision to
stop training police officers in this country?
It comes down to political decisions and political will to
change the law. There is an ever present opportunity on behalf
of the government to respond with laws that are not only
appropriate but which address the problems being brought to light
by members of the opposition and by members of the government.
As we speak, there is a bill at the justice committee to
increase the discretion of a judge to allow for consecutive
sentences for the worst of all possible crimes, the most heinous
crimes perpetrated in today's world, such as sexual assault and
murder. This bill came from a government member, yet the
resources and the effort being made by her own party are
extremely discouraging when one considers the effect which the
adoption and imposition of this bill could bring at the end of
the day.
I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss these most
important issues. We are in the process of bringing about,
hopefully, much needed change to impaired driving legislation.
This has been itemized as something of great priority in this
country. The issue of drug trafficking and organized crime has
also been given a keynote appearance in this debate. We hope
there will be further debate on these very important issues. We
in the Progressive Conservative Party embrace the opportunity to
participate in this debate.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He made some comments about the
RCMP training centre. This is a very significant issue that
sends a very strong signal about where the government is coming
from when it comes to supporting our police forces.
My understanding is that the RCMP anticipates that it is going
to have a 50% attrition rate over the next five-plus years. That
is a very high rate of attrition. The bubble is going through in
terms of the high percentage of people approaching retirement. In
order to replace that natural rate of attrition a certain number
of recruits must be going through the system. It would be a
challenge under the very best of circumstances if that training
centre were open today, but it is not and it has not been. We do
not know where the government is going with all this.
What on earth can be going on in the mind of the government that
would allow this to happen? Sure, it will not affect major
things in six months or twelve months, but there are downstream
ramifications for our national police force, which is one of the
most important symbols of this country and one of the most
important practical organizations we have, although it is
receiving no support from over there.
I wonder if the member could elaborate on that and maybe shed
some new light on the subject.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. I know he has a personal interest in such
matters.
1155
The short, flippant answer to what is going on in the
government's mind would be, not very much. However, to delve
into this situation and to put it into perspective, the cadet
training college has been closed for upwards of four months now.
Yes, that may be a short term saving for the government in terms
of its bottom line which, as we know, is what is driving the
finance minister these days. However, the bottom line is also
that the short term gain is going to result in very long term
pain.
As the hon. member has pointed out, much like the nursing
shortage that is going to emerge in this country in years hence,
the same could be said of policing.
The RCMP is a very proud institution with a great deal of
history, but officers need proper training. Even with the
reopening of the facility, there is talk about shortening the
actual training period.
This comes down to a very shocking decision with respect to
priorities on the part of the current government. Why it would
do so is beyond me. Most individuals with whom I have talked in
the policing community or in law enforcement find that this is
simply a staggeringly shortsighted decision.
I commend the government for at least having recognized that it
was a mistake in the first place and for reopening it; however, I
cannot help but make the analogy with the current budget. The
government is basically coming in the back door, taking out the
furniture and the television, and wheeling an old rocking chair
in the front door. It is taking out more than there was in the
system in the first place.
I thank the hon. member for the question. I hope that greater
emphasis and greater priority will be placed on criminal justice
and on the training of officers so that in the years and months
to come we will have a sufficient police force, a sufficient pool
of trained officers to draw from so that Canadian communities
will once again receive and enjoy a level of protection. There
is a thin red line of protection—and I use red because we are
talking about police scarlet letters—that exists between the
policing community and the community itself, and the protection
which it has come to respect and deserve from the criminal
element.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. Regrettably,
we have to rise to demand that this government make changes to
the justice system which reflect the views of the vast majority
of Canadians.
Regrettably, it is we in the opposition who have to remind the
government constantly of its responsibility to react to what
Canadians are saying, rather than reacting to its own
philosophies when it comes to criminal justice.
I am going to talk about the criminal justice system as it
relates to impaired driving today. Before I do, I want to take
this opportunity to relate something which was very disturbing to
me.
On Thursday, March 4, I read in the paper that a 57 year old
woman, a grandmother, had just been released from prison after
spending six months in incarceration. On Saturday, March 6, I
read in the paper that another person had been sentenced to six
months in prison.
The second person, on March 6, was sentenced for the act of
child abuse, sexually molesting a child. This person, according
to the report, was unrepentant. He saw nothing wrong with what
he did. He received a sentence of six months, of which he will
serve probably two and a half months under the Liberal justice
system.
Let us return to Thursday, March 4, when this 57 year old lady
was let out of prison. She served six months in prison because
she dared to cross into a bubble zone around an abortion clinic
to kneel and pray.
1200
If anybody in the House, anybody in the Liberal government,
could show me some sense of justice in the relationship between
those sentences and crimes I would be very surprised. Imagine,
an unrelenting, unrepentant child molester sentenced to six
months and someone who dares to cross a bubble zone at an
abortion clinic to kneel to pray receives the same sentence. It
is unbelievable how our justice system serves up so much
injustice. It is so out of whack.
I mention that because it shocked me. Even though there is no
reaction I am sure it is shocking members of the Liberal
government to hear that. If they do not believe what I am saying
I suggest they dig up those two issues and read them for
themselves.
Impaired driving is a very serious crime. It kills in the
neighbourhood of 1,400 people every single year. It injures over
60,000 every year. As a matter of fact, impaired driving is the
number one cause of criminal death in this country, more than
three times higher than homicide. In the last five years it has
cost our health care system. The property and causality claims
are billions of dollars. In over 10 years nothing substantial
has been done to arrest this very serious problem.
Over the last month and a half we have seen witnesses come
before the justice committee to present their opinions on how we
should address this very serious crime of impaired driving and
how we can cut the senseless deaths. Now the justice committee
is charged with reviewing all the testimony, taking into
consideration all the recommendations and to bring back before
the House by May 15 a bill that will take some very serious and
positive steps to cutting the incidence of impaired driving,
cutting deaths, injuries and cutting the cost to our health care.
I have to tell members at this time that I have some very
serious doubts as to whether these Liberals, who talk the talk
about wanting to cut the carnage on our highways, cut the
incidence of death and injuries and the billions of dollars of
cost, are serious. I have seen no indication that these Liberal
members who sit on the justice committee and others who well over
a year ago unanimously sent to the justice committee a supply day
motion by the Reform Party that called for action are serious in
any way about addressing the very serious crime of impaired
driving.
Millions of Canadians have cried out for the federal government
to take some leadership on this crime and do something that would
reflect a zero tolerance attitude toward impaired driving. The
victims of impaired driving deserve no less.
1205
I am sad to say I am not confident at this time, having been
involved in the justice committee hearings and the subsequent
meetings going on right now, the government is serious despite
what it has said.
There are a number of steps we can take. I guess the most
appropriate one would be to look at the level of blood alcohol
content in the driver of a vehicle once the reading on the
breathalyzer is determined. There is much testimony to support
the lowering of this level to .05 from .08, which I support. We
also have a very serious problem with the court system that has
not been addressed by this or previous governments.
In cases where people are charged with impaired driving we have
heard testimony from prosecutors and policing officials that the
judiciary automatically tends to accept the evidence of the
person who is charged rather than the evidence of the crown
prosecutor and the police force that has laid the charge.
Something is wrong with that picture.
Something is wrong when a prosecutor can walk into a court,
present certificate evidence from very high tech instruments to
detect the level of BAC, where the margin of error is so small
that it is almost insignificant, and the judge will tend to
believe evidence contrary to those proven certificates of
evidence.
I really hope, for the sake of the victims of impaired drivers,
for the families left behind and for the sake of our health care
system, that this government for once since 1993, since I have
been in parliament, will do something positive to take some steps
in the justice system that will be of benefit to Canadians. Here
is an opportunity for it to do that. I hope it does not let
Canadians down once again.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague from Prince George.
I would like to ask the member about the problem of break and
enter which is becoming quite prevalent in Canada. In light of
the fact that the revised Young Offenders Act was presented, I
would like to have his opinion on why he thinks this was left
out.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not
attempt to speak for the members of the Liberal government. Lord
knows some of the steps they take or do not take are quite
puzzling.
Yes, in British Columbia in particular the incidence of home
invasions is at a very serious epidemic stage right now. It is
incumbent on this Liberal government and members who represent
British Columbians to respond to the call from residents of
British Columbia to bring in some very tough and specific
guidelines on how we treat offenders who do this very serious
crime of home invasion.
Let us remember that the victims in almost every case are frail
and elderly people who cannot defend themselves from home
invasions by these thugs who would take advantage of them.
Nothing less than serious jail time is appropriate in that case.
1210
I live in a city that a few years ago won the distinction of
being the highest B and E city in western Canada, Prince George,
B.C. It was something we were not very proud of.
These were done mainly by young offenders and so many of them
were repeat offenders because they were receiving nothing but a
slap on the wrist when they appeared before the judge the first
time and a slap on the wrist the second time.
I like what a judge from New York said about two weeks ago:
“When a young offender comes before my bench on his first
offence, I want it to be the worst experience of his life. Why?
Because I don't want to see him back here again”. I
congratulate that judge.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech very carefully
about impaired driving and the problems it is creating on an
ongoing basis.
One of the proactive things I did as an independent member of
parliament was to put forward a private member's bill dealing
with the use of interlock devices for repeat offenders of
impaired driving. Unfortunately I have not been lucky enough to
have my name drawn so that we could debate that bill.
Can my hon. colleague talk a bit about the interlock device and
whether he sees some merit in having that as part of a complete
package that does adequately address the very serious concern of
impaired driving in Canada?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the testimony and
evidence we heard before the justice committee by people from
Guardian Interlock gave us a good insight into what such a
valuable tool this device would be, particularly in the case of
people who were repeat offenders or who were stopped with a high
level of alcohol.
Let it be clear that the Guardian Interlock system should not be
used in place of any serious penalties that should be given to
people who drive while impaired. It should be used in addition.
It is not to take the place of a penalty. It is an additional
part of it.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr.
Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure for me to rise to
address these very serious concerns the Reform Party has brought
forward today.
Unfortunately like so many Canadians, probably millions across
the land, I am suffering a little from a cold and it is not very
pleasurable to try to make a speech. If my voice fails me at some
point during the speech members will understand why. Over the
weekend I lost my voice completely. Some people would say that
would be a good thing, in particular some members across the way
who do not like to hear what I have to say from time to time in
this place. It is bad news for a politician not to have a voice
because it is the one essential tool of the trade, so to speak.
Today in the short time I have I will be addressing the issue of
conditional sentencing. I should explain for viewers at home and
those in the gallery what conditional sentencing is.
Conditional sentencing should not be confused with parole and
conditional release. Conditional sentencing allows judges a tool
whereby rather than sending a convicted or confessed criminal to
jail or prison, they can divert that individual to conditional
sentencing, to serving their time in the community or at home in
many cases under certain conditions. Thus the term conditional
sentencing. There are certain conditions imposed on that
individual.
Conditional sentencing was established under legislation of Bill
C-41 in the first session of the 35th parliament.
That is the parliament immediately preceding the one that is
under way at present. This bill made sweeping changes to
Canada's sentencing laws, but in each case neglected to reflect
the interests of Canadians. The majority of the debate when Bill
C-41 was before the House was focused on classifying murder.
1215
According to the Liberals, killing only one person is not so bad
as long as you do not kill more than one, or murder out of hate.
If either of those cases were prevalent in a particular
conviction, either a multiple murder or a so-called hate crime,
then the individual might have to serve their entire lenient
sentence.
But I am digressing from my main point today which is
conditional sentencing which was also contained in Bill C-41.
As far back as March 1995 the Reform Party has been pleading
with this government to change the law to exclude violent crimes,
but so far our cries have fallen on deaf ears. It has been four
years since we first raised this very serious issue. It is some
two and a half years now since this law has been put into force.
On September 3, 1996 conditional sentencing actually came into
place and began to be utilized by judges across the land.
In 1995 the Reform member for Crowfoot moved several amendments
to Bill C-41 in committee which would have disqualified violent
offences from conditional sentencing. It would have ensured that
the sentences were to deter the offender and others from
committing offences and that the sentences were to provide
compensation to the victims and/or their families.
The Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence echoed
the concerns expressed by the member for Crowfoot, yet the
Liberals did not support any of those measures. I find it ironic
in light of that fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice rose in her place about an hour ago in
questions and comments following her speech and said that she or
her government would be willing to look at amendments to the
newly announced changes to the young offenders legislation. Some
of us on this side of the House and indeed all Canadians might be
just a bit sceptical of how sincere she was. We might even have
some reason to be cynical about it.
Conditional sentencing was meant to cut costs. Although it can
be argued that some financial costs have been cut, the human
costs of the victims of crime are mounting. The trauma one feels
from an unjust sentence is immeasurable. I am sure one feels
victimized all over again. The societal costs of conditional
sentencing are mounting. Rapists, killers, child and spousal
abusers and drug dealers are set free without deterrents or
consequence. It is my firm belief that without proper punishment
there is no deterrent.
Bill C-41 allows convicted criminals to serve their sentences at
home in the community rather than in jail. It is my belief and
the belief of many MPs including the justice minister that it was
not parliament's intent that conditional sentencing be used in
the cases of violent or sexual offences. In January 1998 the
justice minister publicly stated that. She said, “There have
been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences
were used when it was not the intention of parliament to have
them and those should be appealed”. The minister added that
conditional sentencing was never intended to apply to violent or
sexual offenders.
I am going to relate to the viewing public a few of the cases
where I believe conditional sentencing was applied
inappropriately.
In Montreal three men were given 18 month conditional sentences
after raping a 16 year old pregnant woman and holding her upside
down from a balcony. The judge thought that this was part of
their culture.
In Winnipeg a youth previously convicted of theft and seven
armed robberies and on temporary leave from a Manitoba youth
centre received a one year conditional sentence and three year
probation for the drive-by shooting death of a 13 year old.
In Nanaimo a 28 year old man received a one year conditional
sentence for shooting his girlfriend with a crossbow.
In Edmonton a 57 year old man who swung a machete at a 21 year
old male cutting his face and cutting a third of his ear off got
240 hours of community service and a curfew.
1220
I raised this particularly appalling case during question period
just last week. In Ottawa, Paul Gervais confessed to sexually
assaulting nine boys, yet he got two years conditional sentence
and a curfew. That is absolutely appalling. I think the general
public has every reason to be outraged at these types of
sentences.
Also in Ottawa, Robert Turcotte strangled his mother to death.
He received a two year conditional sentence, 100 hours of
community service and a midnight curfew.
Pay close attention to this one. In Vancouver, a person out on
conditional sentence for two counts of theft and dangerous
driving has been accused of killing an 83 year old woman during a
home invasion.
While the justice minister prefers to allow the appeal courts to
address the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing, the
courts have indicated the opposite. The issue of conditional
sentencing continues to become more and more of an ambiguous
matter within the courts.
Despite the minister's belief about the intention of conditional
sentencing, in August 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that
violent offenders are entitled to serve time in the community
under conditional sentences. The B.C. appeal court ruling
stated: “If parliament had intended to exclude certain offences
from consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in
clear language”.
It is my contention that Canadian courts are already bogged
down. We should not be using the courts to appeal these types of
sentences. Indeed the general public is waking up to this more
and more and is becoming justifiably outraged at some of these
sentences.
Since the minister has not responded to this public outcry or to
her own criticisms of the law, I have submitted two private
member's motions, Motion No. 383 and Motion No. 577, to rectify
the situation. Motion No. 577 is currently on the Order Paper and
reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights be instructed, in accordance with
Standing Order 68(4)(b), to prepare and bring in a bill to
prevent the use of conditional sentencing in cases where someone
is convicted of a dangerous crime including: murder,
manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking, sexual
assault, and all other classifications of assault including child
and spousal abuse.
If the government would act on a motion similar to that and
bring forward amendments to this section of the Criminal Code, it
would certainly stand itself well with the general public. It
would address a serious inadequacy in our present law.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I find more
offensive, the sanctimony of Reform Party members or their
contradictions. If I were to use something more precise like the
word hypocrisy, I would be declared unparliamentary so I will not
use that word.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I realize that the
hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia would not use
it, but he will not use it through the back door if he cannot
bring it in the front door either.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the
contradictions.
The member for Prince George—Peace River has found conditional
sentencing wanting. He is basically saying that judges and all
the officials of the courts cannot be trusted with this tool of
flexibility. According to the Reform Party member, since the
courts cannot be trusted, the judges cannot be trusted, the
prosecutors cannot be trusted, the defence lawyers cannot be
trusted, this matter has to be returned to the legislators in
Ottawa.
According to the Reform Party member, it is up to the
legislators who will have the responsibility of getting it right.
But, and this is where I get to the contradiction, who is more
denigrated by the Reform Party? Who is more mistrusted by the
Reform Party than legislators?
We cannot win with the Reform Party. The Reform Party does not
trust the judges. It does not trust the prosecutors. It does
not trust the defence lawyers. It does not trust the law makers.
It does not trust the politicians.
1225
It might be worthy to ask this particular Reform Party member
whom do the Reform members trust? Whom will they turn to? In all
their presentations they denigrate everyone in every part of the
chain. They denigrate everyone. It does not matter what one
does in this country, they will denigrate, they will show their
absolute disdain for officers of any political institution.
Canadians understand this talk from the Reform Party. It really
is grating on members of the governing party. We have a
responsibility not only to the justice system, but to the whole
country. Yet all we hear from the Reform Party is let us see if
we can denigrate one more Canadian citizen.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not fail
us again did he? He can always be counted upon to get up and
launch into some outrageous diatribe instead of addressing the
questions that we have today.
Mr. John Harvard: Why does the hon. member not address
the question?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, now he is intent on heckling
when I try to address his ridiculous comments.
Yes, we do not trust certain legislators. We do not trust this
Liberal government. That is obvious.
In this particular case we do not trust the judges to use
conditional sentencing properly because they have proven
themselves time and time again unworthy of that trust. That is
part of the reason our justice system is falling into such
serious disrepute with the general public.
If the hon. member would care to get out of this hallowed hall
and go to where he is supposed to be, out west trying to rebuild
the shattered shreds of his party's support in western Canada, he
certainly would find out what the general public is thinking
about the justice system.
Mr. John Harvard: Who do you trust?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps
hollering at the top of his lungs “Who do you trust?” We trust
the wisdom of the general public, because they know that the
justice system is failing.
I very calmly tried to bring forward during this debate today
the very important issue of conditional sentencing and the abuse
by the courts in the cases of applying it to violent offenders.
One statement the hon. member made which I will agree with, is
he said that my comments were grating, that comments of Reformers
were grating on him. We are the official opposition. I would
hope that our comments are grating on the Liberal government. We
are trying our very best on behalf of the Canadian public to hold
this bloody government accountable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before we get
to the hon. secretary of state, we remind all hon. members to
keep the tone of the debate respectful to the institution of
parliament.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
When this government was re-elected nearly two years ago, we
pledged as elected officials “to work tirelessly to ensure
Canada remains a place where Canadians feel secure in their homes
and on the streets of their communities”. We will protect the
right of all Canadians to live in healthy, safe communities. We
have kept this commitment and continue every single day to keep
it in co-operation with our partners, the provinces, the
territories and the communities.
A number of people have forgotten that the federal government
enacts laws. It is the provinces and the territories with their
communities and the various programs that administer and indeed
enforce those laws.
Perhaps during the day there will be a focus on some of the
exchange that has occurred here. Are we saying that the laws are
all wrong, or are we saying that there is a need to improve a
number of aspects of the system?
1230
The focus thus far has been on the federal government. The
federal government is not alone. It has partners. My colleague
mentioned the courts, the judges, the prosecutors, the officials
of the court, the police officers. Is the Reform Party actually
saying that the only problem is the laws the Government of Canada
enacts?
I would like Reformers to get up from their chairs and confirm
that. Are they saying other things? I am not sure they are
clear. I think they are trying to frighten people, to suggest
that all of the malaise for those who commit crimes rests with
the federal government. If that is the case, what nonsense. It
simplifies the shallow thinking that often goes into these kinds
of debates. There is no thinking it through. It is a little
more complex than laws.
[Translation]
The government fully understands the importance of providing
Canadians with an environment in which they feel safe. We have
taken steps to improve the system and will continue to work
toward enhancing the quality of life of all Canadians. The
following are but a few examples of the initiatives we have
taken to that end.
[English]
Just yesterday the solicitor general introduced reforms to the
Criminal Records Act that will make the criminal records of
pardoned sex offenders available for background checks by
agencies serving children and other vulnerable groups. This
change is about children and we have to be particularly sensitive
to it. We are committed to protecting them. I hear heckling on
that point. I take it there is disagreement from the Reform
Party.
[Translation]
Last week, the Minister of Justice tabled an in-depth review of
the criminal justice system for youth, the most detailed one in
15 years, I might add.
[English]
The Minister of Justice introduced a balanced package, a
comprehensive overhaul of the youth justice system that meets the
needs of Canadians by clearly distinguishing between violent and
non-violent crime and by ensuring meaningful consequences for
both. As one part of this broad strategy for renewal of youth
justice in Canada, the new criminal youth justice act will
replace the Young Offenders Act.
Another initiative to help communities prevent crime in the
first place is $32 million a year for the national strategy on
community safety and crime prevention. To improve the situation
of Canadians who unfortunately become victims of crime this
government has taken action.
[Translation]
In the ten 10 minutes I have, I could not do justice to all of
this government's initiatives.
[English]
Let me highlight a few. The Government of Canada is committed
to combating organized crime.
[Translation]
Organized crime is not a new phenomenon, but it can take a
number of forms. That is why this government has been vigilant
in changing the tools needed by the forces of order in the fight
against this scourge.
The present government has given those bodies responsible for
enforcing the law easier access to electronic surveillance in
order to catch the leaders of organized crime.
Canadians have seen the scope of the violence caused by
organized crime, which strikes indiscriminately. The present
government has established new offences making involvement in
criminal organizations a crime.
One of the main ways of attacking this type of crime is to
ensure that the crimes involved do not pay. While criminal
organizations cannot be imprisoned, as we all know, they do have
a character vital to their existence. This character is
reflected in their collective wealth.
1235
When we go after the wealth of an organization, we also go after
the ties that bind its members to it. Let us seize the proceeds
of crime and all organized crime is destabilized.
[English]
Experience has demonstrated that co-ordinated enforcement
efforts are the best way to achieve this goal. It has expanded
its integrated proceeds of crime units in the past two years from
three units to thirteen units in every part of the country.
These units bring together under one roof the talents of all
those involved in the law enforcement continuum, including the
RCMP and provincial police, forensic accounting experts, customs
officers and federal justice lawyers.
The efforts made by the government do not stop at our borders
but include working closely with our foreign partners for the
purpose of dealing with organized crime in a comprehensive
fashion.
Let me now speak about victims of crime. Since 1999 this
government has undertaken countless legislative initiatives that
improve the justice system to benefit victims of crime directly
and indirectly.
These include the enactment of provisions to enhance the
protection of children victimized by sexual abuse, provisions to
facilitate the provision of testimony by young victims,
elimination of the defence of intoxication in crimes of violence
such as assault and sexual assault, and provisions to restrict
the production of personal records of sexual offence victims to
the accused.
We all know that is not enough. In its recent report, the
Commons justice committee confirmed that victims of crime are not
asking for tough laws, tough penalties, for vengeance or for
rights to be taken away from the accused. They want a voice,
respect, information and help to participate in an often
demanding criminal justice system. We will give them just that.
In the next few weeks the Minister of Justice will table a series
of Criminal Code amendments.
[Translation]
The amendments the minister will introduce in the coming weeks
will ensure a source of information for victims.
[English]
These will ensure that victims receive more information about
their role in the criminal justice system, services available and
about the case in which they are involved.
[Translation]
I will conclude with these comments.
[English]
What have the results been thus far? The Canadian Centre for
Justice Statistics reports that in 1997 the rate of police
reported crime decreased for the sixth year in a row, falling 5%.
The rate of violent crimes declined for the fifth consecutive
year, down 1.1% in 1997.
Rates decreased for almost all violent offences, including
sexual assault, robbery and homicide. The strength of the
justice system is its ability to constantly evolve and to
improve. We are looking at measures in which we must do that.
I simply want to encourage all colleagues to address the issues
in a comprehensive way. It is not sufficient to say the laws are
inadequate. Some are, no doubt. Some need to be changed, but
clearly there are other components of the system we need to study
and where changes are required.
To simply say the federal government is responsible for all this
is an irresponsible statement.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of the hon.
member. He has quite correctly pointed out that this is not
about simplistic approaches. He listed some of the beneficial
changes that have occurred under this government's
administration.
There should not be the usual sanctimonious tone that we are
becoming so accustomed to in suggesting this Liberal government
is the only government that has ever enacted anything positive to
the Criminal Code or anything that had a beneficial impact on
Canadians.
1240
With respect to one element of his speech concerning
organized crime, organized crime is becoming a growing problem on
the streets and in the communities throughout the country,
particularly in coastal areas in places like Nova Scotia
where I come from which has a very vulnerable coast line with
contraband material and drugs coming into the country.
The hon. member is being a bit economical with the truth when he
suggested this government has somehow done a great deal to combat
organized crime considering the $74 million that was taken out of
last year's organized crime budget.
I would like to hear a little more detail as to what is actually
being done by this Liberal government to combat increasing
organized crime in Canada.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there
is no sanctimony on my part nor have I heard sanctimony on the
part of my colleagues. We acknowledge that other governments
have made contributions. Clearly what we have today is as a
result of this government, previous governments and provincial
and territorial governments. We have no difficulty in saying
that.
My colleagues and I believe that if people put their minds to
it, whether they be from my party or another, we can improve a
law, a process and a number of other initiatives that might be
undertaken. I guess my plea was to do exactly that, not to
simply batter the government for the sake of doing it.
I appreciate that my colleague from the other side has indicated
that there have been serious and responsible initiatives
undertaken by this government that have been implemented. I
applaud that because we do not often hear that. We hear
selective picking here and there to try to pretend that
particular incident can be generalized to the whole of Canada. We
know that is nonsense, that is not accurate and it is not the way
to conduct oneself.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the member said earlier, I was not heckling. I
was just trying to make a point. The member speaks in such
glowing terms of the legislation put forward by the solicitor
general dealing with pedophiles and pardons, which I agree has to
come forward because we need it. I might remind the House that
the hon. member for Calgary Centre has private member's Bill
C-284 in front of a committee right now which is virtually
identical to what the solicitor general is proposing.
I was wondering if he would care to give the hon. member for
Calgary Centre a bit of credit for this. Could he also explain
why his government does not deal with the private member's bill
and bring it in rather than bringing in its own legislation?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, that is my point.
Does it really matter, if a good piece of legislation comes
forth, who brought it forth? Is it not intended to benefit
Canadians? Should that not be the first goal or is my colleague
simply asking for an acknowledgement of his colleague? We will
bring forth good, strong legislation. It will respond to the
needs of Canadians.
My goal is not to say I did it, you did it. My goal is to bring
forth and support legislation that will be useful, significant,
sensitive and helpful to Canadians.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
coming from the same place as the hon. secretary of state, the
province of Manitoba, I know he will agree that one of the
biggest shortcomings that we see in the criminal justice system
is its treatment of aboriginal people.
I read an alarming statistic that in 1969-70 the percentage of
aboriginal people in the women's penitentiary in Kingston was
100%. To this day it is hugely disproportional to the rest of
the population.
Having gone through and watched the aboriginal justice inquiry
in Manitoba and given the recommendations of the royal commission
on aboriginal people, would the member care to elaborate on how
the justice system can better serve the aboriginal population,
especially in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a
disproportionately large number of aboriginal peoples in our
prisons which begs the question why. Is it because the laws do
not favour them? Is it because police officers treat them
differently? Is it because the judges or prosecutors treat them
differently?
I do not have an answer to that question. It is a question that
needs to be studied in a responsible way. It is not a simple
answer that is required.
1245
Because of a number of variables such as poverty, people coming
to the cities unprepared to make the integration and sometimes
getting into what one might call slight difficulties, the
situation has become more serious and more and more people have
been incarcerated. There has been a repeat way of approaching
aboriginal peoples in many instances which does a disservice to
the aboriginal population. It does not deal with them well. In
fact it deals with them inappropriately.
It is something we ought to debate in the House. It is
something that should be corrected and needs to be corrected. It
uses too many resources inappropriately. Obviously those who
commit serious crimes need to be treated as any other Canadian
citizen is.
[Translation]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against the
opposition motion.
[English]
First and foremost we have a very broad sweeping motion which
would have us believe that no initiative has ever been taken in
the past few years, not only by this government but by
governments that went before, which has made a difference to many
initiatives that reflect on the justice system or that deal with
the issues of justice. That is what that sweeping motion would
have us believe.
Let us look at some facts. In 1997 Canada's police reported
crimes dropped 5%. In fact the police reported crimes dropped
19% over six years. In 1997 it was the lowest rate since 1980.
The rates for all violent crimes were down this year. There were
54 fewer homicides than in the previous year.
Why am putting forward these statistics? I do not mean to say
that we have nothing to worry about. What I am saying is that
when we cry chicken little we better make sure the sky is indeed
falling. I want to be clear that this tendency to create anxiety
and a sense of fear in the public is what is at the root of this
kind of opposition motion.
Anyone who understands the issue of justice and the issue of
creating a safe and secure society knows that creating a safe and
security society, or creating any kind of society where there is
social cohesion and where everyone has a sense of belonging, is
not only done by legislation. It is not only done by
enforcement.
We need to look at the root causes of all societal problems. We
need preventive measures to deal with those root causes. We need
to look at the fact that poverty, alienation, and anger at the
lack of ability to become a participant in society, to get a
sense of belonging in society, are at the root of some of the
reasons persons commit crimes. That same political party, by not
recognizing this, has said that if it had its way it would take
$2.5 billion out of transfers to provinces for social assistance.
That same opposition party said that if it had the opportunity it
would cut aboriginal community programs by $800 million.
We want to talk about crime and we want to talk about justice,
and that political party is not even interested in dealing with
the root causes of crime.
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River talked about how
much he cared about impaired driving and about how concerned he
was with the carnage that it creates. In the blue sheets of 1998
it was the Reform Party that said it would cut funding for all
special interest groups. This is a wonderful word that political
party likes to use. Community organizations that are seeking to
partner with government to change society from the very bottom
level are considered special interest groups.
If we cut funding for all special interest groups, what would
happen to MADD, a significant organization in helping to deal
with and bringing forward to governments policy initiatives and
concerns about drinking and driving?
1250
That party mentioned one of the things it was concerned about
was drug trafficking. Let us talk about the fact that
legislation enforcement is not all that is needed to deal with
the issue. That party said that it would cut from fisheries and
oceans $640 million. Our coast guard is there to ensure that
illegal drug shipments are not passed along our coast and into
the country. There is an issue of prevention. There is an issue
of ensuring that safety and enforcement of our shores is
carefully taken care of.
The member for St. Albert called it waste in volume 1, issue 4,
of the blue sheets when the Canadian government decided to fund
the United Nations fund for drug abuse controls. Let us not do
that.
Am I to believe what we are talking about here is that the only
way to deal with justice is to lock up offenders, throw away the
key, hang them high and hang them long? Am I to believe that we
should simply deal with punishment and enforcement and not look
at the reality of people's lives?
Everyone who understands societal problems and the way to deal
with them would be able to look at prevention, which I just spoke
about; at good legislation; at enforcement of that legislation;
and at the fact that many criminals can be rehabilitated,
especially young offenders. How do we rehabilitate young
offenders? How do we assist them to re-enter society so that
they can contribute as good citizens to societal growth in all
its social, political, economic and cultural ways?
That does not factor into anything I have heard across the House
today. We are talking about isolationist policy here and just
talking about legislation. So let us just talk about
legislation.
The issue of child pornography was raised by hon. members
opposite. That political party would have us use the
notwithstanding clause to deal with the issue of child
pornography when there is a process in place. I think one of my
colleagues on this side of the House mentioned that the group
across the way does not trust anyone and anything. The case is
being taken by the Attorney General of British Columbia to the
Supreme Court of Canada. That is part of the process. That is
part of our legal system. That is how it works.
The Canadian government and the Minister of Justice are
assisting the Attorney General of British Columbia in taking this
case to the supreme court. Let us see what the supreme court
says. If the supreme court says that existing laws dealing with
possession of child pornography are in contravention of the
charter then the House, which is a band of legislators, can do
its job. It can look at the legislation. It can find the faults
and the loopholes. It can amend it, deal with it, not believe
that we must ignore the judges of the land and make this
political place define what judges must do.
This is not what the country is about. It is not about
political interference in the courts. It is about allowing the
court to do its work and allowing legislators to do what they are
meant to do if our legislation does not work.
On another component of child pornography, it is as if suddenly
a month ago that political party woke up one day and realized
there was such a thing called child pornography. I had never
heard members of that party speak about it for all the while they
sat in the House over the last five years. It was not something
that concerned them. It was not something they discussed. Yet
all of us know it is an issue that this government and
governments before have been trying to deal with.
In 1996 we brought a bill to the House in which we increased the
penalty to a maximum of five years for any pimp who in fact
commercially exploits children. The very first world conference
on the commercial sexual exploitation of children occurred in
Sweden in September 1996. Prior to that the government had not
only brought about a change in the laws to deal with pimps and to
increase the minimum sentence to five years. It had also brought
about some changes that would ensure that Canadians who go abroad
to indulge in exploiting children in other countries would be
tried in this country just as if they did it here.
At the same time we allowed for young people who were being
commercially sexually exploited to be able to tell their story in
court about their pimps and the people who were exploiting them,
and to do so with the safety of being behind a screen so that
they could not be identified.
1255
The Department of Status of Women Canada is now working in
partnership with a special interest group called Kids Friendly
that is very concerned about the issue of commercial exploitation
of children and with the tourism industry to start a pilot
project in British Columbia and to educate Canadians to know that
commercial sexual exploitation of children occurs in this
country. We must be aware of it and do something about it. This
is what good policy is all about. This is what a good justice
system does. It looks at prevention, public education,
legislation and enforcement.
A great deal of selective caring goes on across the floor of the
House in the Reform Party. That party said it cares but it voted
against gun control legislation, which is one of the major causes
of violence, especially violence against women. I guess women
are also considered to be a special interest group by the members
across the way, so they would not care about violence against
women. Does it really matter who that group trusts?
That group would only trust the laws it makes and those laws
would not take into consideration justice. Many of the
initiatives it voted against in the House were initiatives
dealing with strengthening the justice system, and that party
voted no.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague across the floor. Before
I ask her a question I would say that we agree with the concept
there has to be rehabilitation, and that is where the government
cut money.
We also understand that a message has to be sent. The
government has had tons of opportunity to bring forward good
legislation. Even the Minister of Justice has said that the
Young Offenders Act was legislation in need of an overhaul, and
it took a long time.
You talk about special interest groups and you talk about
giving—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will
please address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I agree that some of the
interest groups to which she has been giving money are fine, but
she has also been wasting money on other interest groups like
EGALE.
My question is quite simple. We agree with her that there has
to be rehabilitation. The justice committee said that under the
new act the age should be reduced to 10. Why did her government
ignore that?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have me
believe that if there was good legislation they would have voted
for it. Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code, high risk
offenders, implements new measures to toughen sentencing and—
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Since I was interrupted so many times by the government
about being in order, Bill C-55 has nothing to do with this bill
whatsoever.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. minister was
referring to Bill C-55 in a previous parliament from the sound of
the title, but perhaps the minister can clear that matter up when
she resumes the floor.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, in a previous parliament. I
was trying to say that bill was a good bill because it included
the introduction of indeterminate sentencing for dangerous
offenders, up to 10 years of community supervision for sex
offenders following their release from prison, and an extension
of the earliest date for dangerous offenders initial full parole
review. The party across the way voted against it.
The hon. member further told me that he thought I wasted money
by funding certain interest groups like EGALE. I know members
across the way tend to moralize about the groups they would
support and not support. EGALE's questionnaire had to do with the
amount of hate crime against gays in the country, which we know
is increasing, but I guess violence against gays is not of
interest to the hon. member across the House.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this debate we have to recognize that there is perception of
reality and evidence based reality that Canadians will look at.
Canadians have a great understanding.
1300
I look at this motion and the only justice issue that seems to
be absent from it is gun control. I would put to the minister
that maybe this is finally an admission by the Reform Party that
gun control is supported by the majority of Canadians. I think
of the number of lines of print and speeches made in this House
that centred against this particular piece of legislation when it
was introduced by the government, even though public opinion
polls supported it. Of particular interest would be the issues
respecting women surrounding the issue, but that is one of the
areas in this hodgepodge motion that seems to be missing.
Perhaps I should be applauding this as it may be a recognition
finally that gun control is supported by members of the
opposition. If that is the case, I am certainly very happy.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for her comments. I think she raises a very important
point. We see nothing in the motion from the hon. member across
the way that deals with the issue of violence against women or
hate crimes. Why should it? In the last session that party
voted against legislation which would increase sentencing for
crimes committed because of hate, because of sexual orientation,
religion and so on, and which would increase sentencing for
persons who abuse authority or power to commit violence against
women.
I have to wonder if this is not of interest to that group
because it is selective about the people it cares about in our
society.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about being selective. It was
her party which voted against our motion that would have changed
the pedophile situation in British Columbia. If we want to be
selective, we can do that.
When the bill was originally introduced the government was
supposed to fund 50% of the Young Offenders Act. It has never
funded more than 30%. It has underfunded the prevention aspect
of crime ever since it took office. The Liberals promised to do
it in the red book and they have never done it. Prevention is
underfunded. Only 30% of the YOA has been funded. When are
they—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of State for the
Status of Women for a very short response.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member
to look at the fact that there has recently been a crime
prevention initiative which is a partnership initiative that
works with communities, municipalities and other groups. There
will be $32 million per year over five years to deal with the
issues of crime prevention.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the last speaker that I consider one victim
of crime just as important as the next victim of crime,
regardless of who they are.
I am pleased to speak to the Reform Party supply day motion,
which can be referred to as justice day. There has been precious
little in the way of justice coming from the government. I will
be speaking primarily in the area of young offenders.
The young offenders legislation is a prime example of misplaced
priorities by this government. In June of 1997, almost two years
ago, the Minister of Justice made amending the Young Offenders
Act one of her top priorities. She is on record as acknowledging
that the Young Offenders Act is easily the most unpopular piece
of legislation.
One would think that recognition of this sort would impress upon
the government the importance of bringing forth proper
legislation without delay. But did this government appreciate
the demands of Canadians? No, it did not.
We all have vivid memories of the minister's continued promises,
week by week and month by month, that legislation was coming. She
continued to promise that it would come in a timely manner, that
she was dealing with it in a timely fashion, that the legislation
was complicated and should not be brought forward with a
simplistic answer just to appease the citizens of this country.
It was painfully obvious that the minister was just making
excuses for not having the legislation ready.
We have seen how disorganized the government has been with the
new youth criminal justice legislation. We have seen how the
government pretends to listen to Canadians but then proceeds in
the same manner as it always has. We have seen how the
government continues to believe that it knows best about what
Canadians should have.
I will not be dealing very extensively with the legislation
introduced last week by the Minister of Justice. I anticipate
that we will have sufficient opportunity to debate the failings
of that legislation, hopefully in the near future. Today we are
talking about the failures of this government in a whole host of
justice issues.
I would like to provide a little history to the long overdue
amendments to our young offenders legislation.
In 1996 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
conducted an extensive review of the Young Offenders Act. Nearly
$500,000 was spent. Meetings were held right across the country.
The provinces had ample opportunity for input. The message as
to what changes were necessary was absolutely clear.
The standing committee submitted an extensive report with a
number of recommendations. The Bloc submitted a dissenting
report.
My hon. colleague from Crowfoot attempted to submit an extensive
report in dissent. Instead of receiving his report and studying
it to determine whether there was anything left out or anything
of value from another perspective, this government played a
purely political game and refused to accept his report. It said
that it was too long.
1305
The member for Crowfoot participated in the committee hearings
as much as anyone. He handled almost the entire workload on the
young offenders legislation for the Reform Party. He took the
effort to properly critique the legislation and propose practical
and positive changes for the benefit of all Canadians, but the
government refused to accept his contribution. Only in Canada.
The hon. member for Crowfoot is a very determined individual.
He did not give up. He instead introduced private member's Bill
C-210 in which he proposed formalizing the power of police
officers to use discretion in resolving minor incidents without
laying charges. He personally knew about this problem in the
legislation as he is a former police officer. He listened to
what the witnesses had to say in this regard. He proposed that
the legislation differentiate between non-violent and violent
crimes.
He understood the value of dealing with first time non-violent
young offenders in a more informal manner. He understood that
there is neither necessity nor practicality in sending these
minor offenders to court and possibly to jail.
He was not playing the political game; he was doing what was
right on behalf of Canadians. Of course, he had the full support
of the Reform Party with his initiative. However, the government
refused to listen to him. It refused to even allow him to submit
his report. Unfortunately, his private member's bill was never
drawn for debate.
In my previous comments I mentioned that the minister
continually promised to bring forth the youth legislation in a
timely fashion. She spoke of having to consult with her
provincial counterparts. They had ample opportunity to present
their views and concerns to the justice committee. They clearly
indicated their interest.
One example was in the area of funding. It was made known that
the federal government was shortchanging the provinces in the
area of funding for youth justice. The funding formula was to be
on the basis of 50% federal dollars and 50% from the provinces.
Things were getting so bad that Manitoba was threatening to
withdraw from the administration of youth justice because its
costs were too high and because the federal government was not
holding up its end of the bargain. Remember, this was back in
1997.
Did the minister even attempt to restore funding for youth
justice in the 1998 budget? No, she did not. Were funds
available in that budget? Of course they were. We will remember
that the government spent $2.5 billion on the millennium
scholarship fund in that budget. The whole $2.5 billion was
written off as an expense, even though the funds were not to be
spent until future years. It was just a way for the government
to claim that it had a balanced budget and that there was no
surplus for other things. It just shows the misplaced priorities
of the government. It just shows how the minister was unable or
unwilling to deal with youth justice legislation on a priority
basis. The wheels of justice were grinding slowly.
The government was not even on track. I believe the government
was hoping the controversy over the Young Offenders Act would go
away. It is to the credit of Canadians that they did not let
this happen. They kept up the pressure for change, but the
procrastination continued and the excuses for delays continued.
The minister kept promising that the legislation would be
introduced last fall, but then she realized that she did not have
the necessary funding. She had to wait until the February
budget. She said that her delays were because the legislation
was so complex, that it would not be a simplistic approach.
Last week Canadians finally saw the long awaited legislation.
What did they get? They got a new name for the young offenders
legislation. It is now to be called the youth criminal justice
act. What else did they get? They got legislation that promises
to introduce a different system of justice from province to
province to province. They got a system whereby very violent
young offenders will continue to be protected from identification
in many situations. They got a system whereby these violent
young offenders will continue to be returned to our communities,
where citizens will be unaware of their background and the
potential danger some of them may pose. They got a system
whereby violent and repeat young offenders will be subject to
what the government calls extra-judicial measures, but what is in
effect nothing more than conditional sentencing.
The government continues to believe that it and only it knows
what is best for Canadians. The justice committee of the last
parliament, a committee dominated by Liberals, a committee
chaired by our late colleague Shaughnessy Cohen, on the testimony
of its own expert witness, recommended that 10 and 11 year old
violent offenders be subject to criminal proceedings, and the
government refused to listen.
Instead, government members portray members on this side of the
House as being monsters who would jail children. The minister
claims that child welfare and mental illness programs will look
after these unfortunate children. She refuses to acknowledge
that those programs are already failing.
1310
These young people are not properly dealt with. They are merely
accommodated, when in fact they require immediate assistance to
reform and rehabilitate before they venture into more violent and
dangerous activities.
The government does these 10 and 11 year olds a serious
disservice by merely ignoring them and hoping that other less
practical measures can handle the problem. It is just more
offloading on to the provinces.
As I have stated, the government is not to be admired when it
comes to its handling of the youth justice platform. It has
delayed, broken promises and made excuses. It has refused to
listen to Canadians and to fellow members of parliament. It has
let the provinces down. It does not have an enviable record.
In the upcoming debates on the new legislation we will see many
further instances of the failures of the government in the area
of youth justice.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I noted with some interest the way in which there were sections
of legislation that were of some concern to my colleague in the
Reform Party that were taken by the justice minister when she
came forward with the new Young Offenders Act. However, I am
sure he must have noticed yesterday the solicitor general
deciding that he was going to come forward with legislation,
amendments to the Criminal Code, which would red flag people who
have received pardons for their offences if those pardons related
to sexual offences.
I would imagine hon. members also probably noted that our Reform
colleague from Calgary Centre has already had that legislation in
its basic form go through the House of Commons. As a matter of
fact, there is an argument to be made that the legislation by my
colleague from Calgary Centre, in its own way, in many details is
superior to the legislation that the solicitor general brought
forward yesterday.
It strikes me as being strange, and I ask him if it also strikes
him as being strange, that we have legislation that has gone
through second reading in the House and which will be before the
justice committee this week. Any amendments that the government
wants to make to get it into a form that is more to its
liking—although the similarities are so close that I can only
imagine some tinkering around the edges—could be made and this
bill could be reported back to the House of Commons for third
reading and passed by the will of the people who represent
Canadians in the House.
I wondered if my colleague has any idea why in the world the
solicitor general would have simply lifted the Reform Party
private member's legislation and put it into the situation where
it will likely be delayed. The reporting requirement of sexual
offenders who have received pardons will again be delayed, so
that Big Brothers, Scouts and other organizations like that will
not have this legislation. I wonder if he has any insight into
why in the world the Liberals would be ripping off Reform
legislation and, in effect, delaying its ability to be passed.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question. I was wondering about that myself yesterday
when I heard the legislation come forward.
I refer to my own private member's bill which is before the
House now and which deals with parental accountability under the
Young Offenders Act. The minister saw fit to include my ideas,
word for word, into the new legislation. For that I am grateful
because I firmly believe that if there is a good idea that comes
from this place, then it deserves to be implemented, regardless
of where it comes from.
I certainly have questions about the issue that the hon. member
raised. The member for Calgary Centre has Bill C-284 before the
committee right now. It is a lot further along in the system
than that which was proposed by the solicitor general. For the
life of me, I cannot figure out why the government would not just
go ahead and deal with the bill of the hon. member for Calgary
Centre and amend it if requires amending.
It is quite possible that the solicitor general's image needs a
bit of a boost right now. Maybe that is why the government is
doing it. That could be my only answer.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon.
friend's presentation and found it to be, as usual, thoughtful.
It provided a number of useful suggestions.
1315
One of the areas which I believe is currently being pursued by
members from all parties in this House is the whole issue of
consecutive sentencing for people who have committed a number of
multiple crimes like murder, rape and violent assault. Is my
friend one of the people supporting this initiative? Does he
believe this is a step in the right direction in terms of sending
a signal that there are people which society needs to be
protected from, that in no way ought we ever to consider people
who have committed a number of terrible crimes be released into
the general public again?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, yes, I firmly support
consecutive sentencing, especially in the area of serious violent
offences and multiple violent offences. I would remind the hon.
member that it is available now for judges to use at their
discretion but it is never used. It is due time for this place
to mandate its use in certain cases.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise very proudly as a member of the Reform Party because it
seems as though we are the one party in Canada that keeps on
forcing the issue on making streets safe for Canadians and for
all of the people in Canada who are concerned—
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I realize this looks a little funny since I am standing right
beside the person making the presentation, but it is the only way
I can make an intervention. I know my friend did not mean to be
misrepresentative when he said that the Reform Party is the only
party in the House of Commons that is concerned about safety in
the streets. I wonder if I could ask my friend to clarify that
for me.
The Deputy Speaker: This clearly is not a point of order.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Reform
Party is very proud of being at the forefront of bringing these
issues to the House of Commons.
We start with the police officer on the street. The RCMP cover
most areas of Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, Quebec
and Ontario. The RCMP budget is $1.9 billion. Even in those
other jurisdictions I just mentioned they have some jurisdiction
which relates to national policing interests.
The government has trimmed $174 million from the budget in which
there was no fat in the first place. We believe that spending
must be prioritized to ensure only those operations proven
effective in fighting the war on crime continue to receive
funding. My point was that it had already reached that point when
the government chose to cut a further $174 million.
The RCMP fundamentally are handcuffed at a time of fiscal
restraint. It had a tremendously devastating effect not only on
the morale of the RCMP officers in the province of British
Columbia but also particularly on their ability to get their job
done.
There were assignments shut down last fall, assignments where
there had already been time and resources invested, particularly
overtime. Believe it or not, it reached a point where undercover
operators were told they could not even use their cell phones.
There were patrol vehicles that did not have tires to get out on
the highway. There were other patrol vehicles for which there
was not even gasoline.
What kind of planning is this? What kind of priority is it that
this Liberal government has that it would permit a situation, not
just in British Columbia but very acutely in British Columbia,
where even the police on the street are not given the tools to be
on the street.
Reform agrees that the RCMP and all governments must be
accountable. However, there cannot be this gratuitous cutting
every time it runs into a situation. I have been told that in
many situations the RCMP are no longer able to provide an
adequate level of service to the public.
I have already released to the public a confidential RCMP
report. It was originally released by the RCMP. It calls B.C. a
major centre for the importation of child porn.
1320
We know as a result of the inaction on the part of this
government that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction where
the simple possession of child pornography is a statute that
currently cannot be enforced. It is going through a long
process, as one of the junior ministers said earlier. It is
going through a long process but in the meantime the clock is
ticking for people who are caught in this web. The clock is
ticking, their cases are being put off and we are going to reach
a point where the justice system is going to say their cases have
been put off for too long.
On the RCMP commercial crime unit, in December 1998 a consulting
firm recommended doubling the economic crime branch's budget to
$100 million because the RCMP white collar crime branch was
unable to do its job.
It is the Liberal government which is tying the hands by
constraining the resources available to the police on the street
to be able to get their job done.
We have had promises, promises and promises. Ever since I was
elected in 1993 I can recall promises about money laundering.
When there is illegal and illicit activity, particularly as it
relates to prostitution, drugs or any of those illegal efforts,
they have to find some way of getting the money they get in from
that effort back into the system so that they can reclaim it so
the money is of some value. The key to organized crime is to
have effective workable money laundering legislation.
The person who is currently the Deputy Prime Minister was the
solicitor general. The member for Fredericton was the solicitor
general. Now the member from Prince Edward Island is the
solicitor general. Again he is promising on behalf of this
government that we are going to have money laundering
legislation. Promises, promises, promises.
The head of criminal intelligence at Interpol has said that
police are losing the fight against criminals in cyberspace and
will have to take giant strides to catch up on the information
highway. He stated: “Drug traffickers, pedophiles and money
launderers have found the Internet to be an increasingly
effective tool as the number of users hits 100 million”. In my
office I have an intelligence report to the RCMP about
information technology and just how far ahead of the RCMP and
other law enforcement agencies are those who use the system
illegally and illicitly for their own purposes.
The government also saw fit to see the Regina training centre
for new police officers temporarily closed. What happened to the
people who were in the system, to the men and women who had
decided they were going to join the RCMP and were already in the
system and then boom they were out the door? That is the end of
them. Now there is a fresh start.
Meanwhile a tremendous number of people in the RCMP, because of
this lack of funding and the lack of ability to get the job done,
are becoming increasingly frustrated. They are also reaching a
voluntary retirement age.
What was the government doing in permitting the Regina training
centre to be shut down? Of course it did not permit it; it
simply squeezed off the resources so that the Regina training
centre could not be funded.
I have been involved with the APEC inquiry by the public
complaints commission in Vancouver. To date it has spent $1.3
million. That is just the money for the public complaints
commission, let alone all of the lawyers who are there to protect
the Prime Minister's interests. Millions and millions of dollars
will go into the APEC inquiry. If the Prime Minister would simply
agree to turn up and tell his version of the story, we would save
millions of dollars just for that one event alone.
One other issue of particular interest to me is the Canadian
Police Information Centre, CPIC. It is operated through a
national police service.
CPIC allows the police forces across the country to have access
to criminal records.
1325
The Canadian Police Association says “This priceless tool is in
desperate need of resources to update the system”. It points
out that CPIC is a 20 year old technology. The sharing of
information back and forth across the country by police forces as
they roll up behind a vehicle or as they accost an individual is
absolutely invaluable, yet CPIC is on the verge of total
collapse.
CPIC is completely bulging at the seams with information. It
needs approximately $200 million to upgrade the system. Where
have I heard $200 million before? I remember, $200 million is
the amount of money the government is spending registering the
guns of law-abiding gun owners. The irony in this is that if the
government in its meagre effort were to put that information into
CPIC, it would destroy CPIC by overloading it.
What is better? Do we spend $200 million to go after
law-abiding citizens to register their weapons, or do we spend
$200 million on a system that will track vehicles, track AWOL
prisoners, track people with criminal records, track all sorts of
criminal elements? Where is the best place to spend resources?
Considering the way in which this government strangles the
ability of our police forces to do their jobs, I suggest that the
$200 million could be more intelligently reallocated.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too met with the RCMP and
the railway police when they were here last week.
It is important to note that Reform members do not have a
monopoly on justice in Canada. They do not have a monopoly on
being sympathetic with the police when Reform says the police
need more money. Let me also say there is hardly a group that
does not come here that in their opinion does not need or require
more money. It is very difficult as a government.
My father-in-law often said to me that it is easy to be in
opposition. Opposition members can say anything. They do not
have to prove anything. They simply open their mouths and
anything can come out and when it does, they never have to prove
it. To a degree and in fairness, the opposition's job is to try
to poke holes.
I sometimes get saddened that we do not talk about the good
things in Canada. We do have a low crime rate. There is no
doubt about it. Reform members want Canada to be like the U.S.
with a gun behind every door. They want to have health care like
in the U.S. The reality is that is not what Canadians want. This
government has put money into health care and education. Yes, it
has tried to put money toward tax cuts. Yes, it has a zero
deficit. Yes, it has started to pay down the debt. We have done
a lot of good things.
When I met with the police officers last week, they told me they
understood and accepted that. And yes, they said they required
more money and I believe they probably do. One of the things they
pointed out was that if they had more money, particularly for
some of the special projects, and perhaps this is what my hon.
colleague across the way was referring to, they would be able to
have those proceeds go into the community. The Liberals were the
ones who allowed that to happen.
I support more money in that direction also, but in correlation
and in a rational and responsible way with everything else we
have to do.
My hon. colleague did not make any mention of the fact that our
colleague from Kamloops talked about poverty being a major cause
of crime. Could my hon. colleague talk about poverty within the
nation?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would sooner speak about
the fact that this government has decided one way it can save
money is to go to a 50:50 release program by Correctional
Services Canada and the National Parole Board.
1330
The statistics are these. There are 14,000 inmates incarcerated
in federal institutions. There are 8,000 federal offenders on
conditional release, 753 of whom are now missing. That is 1 in
10, not too good a statistic. Forty five convicted rapists remain
missing. Fifty per cent have been missing for more than a year.
Now the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada has a quota
system asking for the elimination of 50% of the inmates who are
presently incarcerated. That is a good way to cut down on
expenses but all the more need for us to have a CPIC system that
would work and be able to keep track of the people they are
deciding to shoo out the door presumably to cut down on their
costs.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.
I am pleased to enter this debate today on behalf of the people
of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington who feel strongly about our
criminal justice system. Certainly as the former chairman of the
Waterloo regional police, I too have a strong and keen interest
in justice matters as they relate to Canada.
I note with great dismay that the opposition motion is proposing
to criticize the government for, among other things, failing to
deliver youth justice programs and legislation that reflect the
concern of Canadians.
Let me remind the House that our government launched a strategy
for the renewal of youth justice on May 12, 1998 that will be
effective in dealing with the complex problem of youth crime. I
point out that it is complex and not a simplistic matter as the
Reform Party would paint it.
Moreover, last week this government tabled a bill that is a key
component of the youth justice strategy, the youth criminal
justice act. The recent federal budget included $206 million
over the next three years to ensure that programs are put in
place to help achieve the objectives of the legislation. This is
but a recent example of a long list of initiatives we as a
government have undertaken over the years to protect Canadians
wherever they may live in this great land of ours.
The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice
recognizes the foremost objectives of public protection. It
distinguishes between legislation and programs appropriate for
the small group of violent young offenders and those appropriate
for the vast majority of non-violent young offenders. It takes a
much broader, more integrated approach and emphasizes prevention
and rehabilitation. This is precisely what Canadians want us to
do.
The issue facing us and those interested in the youth justice
system is not whether the system should be tough or lenient but
whether to be made to deal with crime in a sensible way. The
proposals as outlined indicate clearly that youth crime should be
met with meaningful consequences. What is meaningful depends in
large part on what the young offender has done.
For example, most of us believe that youths who commit minor
thefts or who are found to be in possession of stolen property
should be held accountable for their actions. Last year we sent
4,355 of them into custody where the most serious offence was one
of minor property offences. Another 4,332 youths were put in
custody for the offence of failure to comply with a disposition,
typically violating a term of probation order.
These are both offences and those who are found to have
committed these offences should be held accountable. We know that
and we think that is appropriate. These two groups of offences
constitute over one-third of the custodial sentences handed down
to youth last year. Being the lead jailer of children in the
western world is surely not a preferred answer to our problems
with youth crime.
The median custodial sentence for youth is 45 days. This will
cost us as taxpayers as much as $9,000. Let me be clear here. No
one is saying these youths should not be held accountable for
their actions. They should and they will. Their offences should
result in meaningful consequences. We must ask ourselves whether
taking these youths to court and sending them to prison is
invariably the best way to accomplish this. We need to ask
ourselves whether it makes more sense to spend $9,000 locking up
a minor thief or someone who has violated curfew or if there are
other ways to spend that money.
The choice is not one of doing nothing or putting a young person
in prison. There are programs in all parts of Canada for holding
young people accountable for what they have done so they do not
involve courts and jails but which do involve the victims.
1335
The youth criminal justice act recognizes extrajudicial
non-court measures as being important and the most effective way
to deal with less serious youth crime. The act supports the use
of such measures wherever they would be capable of holding the
young person accountable, and this we must do.
The act clearly provides that these measures should encourage
the repair of harm caused to the victim and to the community.
They should also promote the involvement of families, victims and
the community in ensuring an appropriate meaningful consequence
for that young person. In order to encourage the use of creative
and effective consequences for our young people, the act supports
the appropriate exercise of discretion by police officers and
prosecutors. The act recognizes a range of approaches that can
provide meaningful consequences, including police warnings,
formal cautions, referrals to community programs, cautions by
prosecutors and other sanctions.
When the formal court process is required many sentences other
than custody can provide meaningful consequences for youth crime.
Community based alternatives are often more effective than
custody and they are encouraged by this new legislation,
particularly for low risk, non-violent offenders. Alternatives
that require young people to repay victims and society for the
harm done teach responsibility and respect for others and
reinforce our shared social values. When these front end measures
and non-custodial sentences are used effectively the provinces
can reinvest the money that is saved into crime prevention
strategies that will address the legitimate concerns Canadians
have about crime.
As part of its strategy for the renewal of youth justice, the
federal government has committed itself to a wide range of
prevention programs, which is important.
In this context I was not surprised to learn recently that
public opinion polls show that over 85% of Ontario residents
would prefer money to be invested in crime prevention, which is
much more than would want additional prisons for youth. This
reflects the thinking of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.
Almost as many people, 79%, would prefer us to invest in
alternatives to prison for youth rather than in prison
construction. That is very telling and underscores the
commitment of Canadians in this very important area.
The other side of the coin is that by dealing sensibly with
minor crime we can refocus the system on the serious crime
Canadians have legitimate concerns about. The new act's
sentencing principles make it very clear that youth sentences
should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of
responsibility of the young person. Custody will be targeted to
youth who commit violent and serious repeat offences.
In the new legislation judges will be required to impose a
period of supervision in the community following custody that is
equal to half the period of the custody. This will allow
authorities to closely monitor and control the young person and
to ensure he or she receives the necessary treatment and programs
to return successfully to the community. The period of
supervision administered by the provinces will include stringent
mandatory and optional conditions tailored to the individual.
If a youth's sentence is not adequate to hold the young person
accountable, the court may impose an adult sentence. The new
legislation will make it easier to impose adult sentences for the
most serious violent offenders. We are expanding both the list
of offences and lowering the age at which youth can receive an
adult sentence. When the legislation is passed, youth 14 and
older who are convicted of murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, et cetera, will receive
an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.
We are creating a fifth presumptive category for repeat violent
offenders where young offenders 14 and older who demonstrate a
pattern of violent behaviour will receive an adult sentence
unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise. This repeat offender
presumption is in addition to the fact that even one serious
offence can result in an adult sentence if the prosecutor
requests it and the court is satisfied it is appropriate.
The proposed legislation provides for a new sentencing option
for the most violent high risk young offenders. The intensive
rehabilitative custody and supervision order provides greater
control and guaranteed treatment to address the causes of the
young person's violent behaviour. An individualized plan of
treatment and intensive supervision must be approved by the
court. Additional federal resources have been allocated for the
costs of this new sentencing option.
Accomplishing the objectives of the new legislation will not be
easy. Clearly much of the work needs to be done by the provinces
which administer Canada's criminal law. We know that.
1340
Thus it is important that there be adequate time for discussion
and implementation planning with the provinces and others
involved in the administration of our youth justice system in
order to ensure that we have the best possible youth justice
system that can respond appropriately to the wide range of
problems brought to it.
Youth crime cannot be legislated away. We can, however, deal
with it more appropriately than we are doing at the moment. We
can set up effective programs outside the youth justice system
and custodial and non-custodial rehabilitation programs within it
that will reduce crime. I think it is important that we move in
that manner.
The government has and will continue to deliver on criminal
justice programs. The youth criminal justice act is the most
recent example of our ability to deal effectively and
compassionately with these kinds of very complex issues. As a
result we have enhanced the safety and security of Canadians no
matter where they live in this great country. All Canadians are
well served by the actions of our government when it comes to
these kinds of matters.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague for his speech. It was a very statesman-like
speech and he addressed the issues, I thought, in a commendable
way.
He mentioned there are too many young offenders who are
incarcerated and who ought not to be, non-violent offenders. It
is his government that has been here for six years and it is his
government that has the power to change that.
At least a year and a half ago I introduced a private member's
bill that would address that very issue as well as a number of
others. The contents of that private member's bill which is still
sitting to be drawn yet, flow directly from the testimony placed
before the standing committee as we went about this country on
the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act.
I wonder if the member has read that private member's bill. I
am sure he must have, showing his interest as he has today on
that topic, as the majority of his speech was based on the young
offenders situation, which I find commendable. If he has, he can
see there is support for those principles, certainly within the
official opposition.
It is quite clear the hon. member has no greater power than we
in moving the government forward in a timely fashion to rectify
some of the weaknesses within the justice system that he has
recognized place young people in custody who ought not to be
there. There are better ways of dealing with them.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment as to whether he is
aware of the expression of support for those very principles by
the official opposition as contained within my private member's
bill still sitting to be drawn. I wonder if he recognizes that
awareness, that there is support for these kinds of initiatives.
Yet it is his government that has taken six years and we still
have not seen the type of legislative initiative that would
correct these matters.
It is an anomaly I would certainly like the hon. member to touch
on because, as I said earlier, he seems to have a sincere
interest in this area.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question.
Certainly in terms of young offenders and the fact that we have
a number of people in jail right now, there are other ways to
treat them and deal with them in a more effective manner. I
think it is certainly a strong point and one that needs to be
recognized.
I am aware of the private member's bill to which the hon. member
refers. We as a government with our recent legislation have
acted in a very meaningful way in this whole area with the youth
criminal justice act.
It underscores the ability of the government to recognize a
strong movement in this area. It underscores the commitment of
the government to move in a way that is consistent with the
thinking of Canadians in this all important youth justice area.
It underscores our commitment on this side of the House to do
something that we know is in the best interest of Canadians
wherever they live.
1345
The government has moved in very meaningful and very purposeful
ways that will in fact correct these problems and will assist in
making communities safe and secure for all Canadians and by
extension for the country as a whole.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member on his speech and his thoughtful
consideration.
I have a short question on the presumptive transfer aspects.
Could the member provide some rationale as to why we have a
presumptive transfer for murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual
assault and attempted murder, and yet nowhere do we see anything
on the presumptive transfer side for sexual assault with a weapon
or any firearms related offences which are very serious crimes?
Would the member care to comment on the rationale for not
including those more serious offences?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that we on
the government side gave careful consideration to all those
factors. At the end of the day it was determined that we should
proceed in the manner that has been outlined, knowing that it is
the best way in which to proceed in the interest of safety and
security for all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the House is considering an opposition motion to the effect
that the government has failed to deliver criminal justice
programs and laws which reflect the will and concerns of the
majority of Canadians and as a consequence has put individual
safety and in some case cases national security in jeopardy.
This is a useful and constructive motion to put before the
House. It provides an opportunity for all sides to comment on
various aspects of the criminal justice system. Some referred to
specific cases where they felt the laws had allowed certain
judgments to occur which were not in the best interest of
Canadians, and others highlighted some of the initiatives taken
on behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of the
Parliament of Canada to continue to be vigilant with regard to
issues related to criminal justice and to strengthening it over
time.
Many issues have been raised by members. I want to concentrate
my comments on the issue of child pornography which seized the
House not so long ago with regard to a B.C. court decision. The
case against the defendant involving the possession of child
pornography was not successful and the judge ruled in favour of
the defendant.
That issue is one of the reasons we continue to hear statements
or phrases like judge-made law. Members will know that decision
affected the laws of Canada as they apply in B.C. It is a
decision, however, that the House unanimously concurs was a bad
decision. The possession of child pornography and child
pornography in its essence are wrong because they must involve
child abuse to exist. There was no disagreement in this place.
The debate had to do with how the Government of Canada
approaches situations like this one. The opposition put forth a
motion in which it suggested that the government should initiate
legislation which would reinstate the law. In essence that is
what Canadians want. They wanted that decision to be reversed
and for the law to be in place and unaffected by that decision.
One critical issue has to do with the mechanisms or the means by
which reinstating the law would be effected. The opposition
motion suggested a legislative process including enacting section
33(1) of the charter, the so-called notwithstanding clause.
I am not a lawyer. I am not on the justice committee. Therefore
I have to rely on others for briefings on information relevant to
issues before the House.
I had a specific question with regard to the notwithstanding
clause which was very important to me in terms of the way I dealt
with the issue with my constituents and how I voted in the House.
1350
The media had spun the story that the government basically voted
not to do anything. It was alarming to Canadians that somehow
the government would not take action when in fact the government
did do something.
The options available to the government certainly were to invoke
the notwithstanding clause, and there is a debate on when it
should be invoked. There was also the option of appealing it
directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. Another option was that
the government could appeal it to the appeal court of B.C.
When I asked about some of these options it became very clear to
me that the notwithstanding clause was not available to be
applied retroactively. That was very important for me. If we
invoked the notwithstanding clause it would mean that the case
which gave rise to the debate in the first place would be
unaffected by the decision of parliament. I was concerned that
we had this powerful tool but it would not deal with that case,
and I assume other cases that were before the courts, and
therefore people would slip through the cracks.
The issue of going to the Supreme Court of Canada was another
option, which is generally the approach that the Government of
Canada through the Parliament of Canada would take.
From discussions I had with the Minister of Justice I understood
the supreme court docket had been filled up for some six months
and that it would take more than six months at a minimum before
the matter could even be considered by that court. To me that
would not be swift and strong action on the part of the
government.
One thing I asked about, which ultimately came to pass, was the
Attorney General of B.C. appealing that decision. The Government
of Canada, in a very rare show of support and I guess action,
actually announced that it would join in that appeal. Not only
was it to join in that appeal in B.C. It was to co-operate in
terms of seeking adjournments of any other cases before the
courts. It was to continue to support the police in terms of
continuing their investigations and the laying of charges as if
that decision had not taken place. It was also to support the
request that the appeal with regard to the Sharpe case would be
heard on a very timely basis.
Canadians should know, if they have not read about it, that the
appeal is being heard on April 26 and April 27. It is my view
that because of the swiftness in the judicial system it will be
dealt with in an appropriate fashion.
With regard to the decision that was made, it concerned me a bit
that the defendant went before the trial division and represented
himself without a lawyer and won the case against the Attorney
General of B.C. I inquired of the people who were in a position
to know about how such a thing could happen how the force of the
laws of Canada and the strength of our laws with regard to
protecting the rights of children could fail when someone is
simply defending his right to possess child pornography. It just
did not make sense.
It was quite clear to me that somehow or other the case provided
on behalf of the office of the attorney general was clearly
flawed in some way. The judgment of the court has to be based on
the evidence provided to the judge. Although there was some
latitude, it would appear that the case was not well argued. For
that reason alone it is extremely important to go right back to
the appeal of that original case.
As a result of this process I believe the outcome will be that
the ruling will be overturned, that Sharpe will be found guilty
of possession of child pornography, and that not one case will
have slipped through the cracks.
I wanted to raise that case because from the information I got
from my constituents and the media reports on what actually
happened in the House of Commons in the debate and in the
government actions did not fairly reflect the reality that the
notwithstanding clause is not retroactively applied and could not
have dealt with the situation.
I also want to touch very briefly on two other issues. The
first issue concerning impaired driving has been raised by many
members.
I have long worked with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It has
done an excellent job on behalf of Canadians in terms of raising
awareness of this very serious situation in Canada. I fully
support its changes with regard to initiatives such as lowering
the blood alcohol threshold.
1355
The other issue concerns consecutive sentencing. My colleague
and neighbour in Mississauga, the member for Mississauga East,
has worked very diligently on a file to do with consecutive
sentencing. It is a very controversial issue for some, but when
looking at the cases and the circumstances it becomes very clear
that the issue about whether or not Canada should be considering
something like consecutive sentencing as opposed to concurrent
sentencing becomes a very relevant and valid debate for this
place. I hope this place will have the opportunity to fully deal
with the issue. It is an issue Canadians would like to see dealt
with in this place.
I have had many conversations with constituents on the Young
Offenders Act. I am very pleased that the justice minister
brought forward, after extensive consultation with Canadians,
more information and proposals for this place to consider. It is
an important area for us to deal with. I am very confident that
parliament through the House and its committees, et cetera, will
ensure that we make the necessary changes to that law to ensure
it is an appropriate law for all Canadians.
The Speaker: Ordinarily we would go into questions and
comments, but seeing that it is almost 2 o'clock the hon. member
will be recognized at 3 o'clock for five minutes to receive
questions and comments.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, much to the government's embarrassment in the last few
days, the issue of unfair taxation has risen in the public
consciousness to push over the Liberal's weak agenda and give a
voice to 17 million frustrated Canadian taxpayers.
While the parties in the House put forward their competing
visions and arm themselves with reams of stats, a curious
phenomenon appeared. It seems that no one can be completely
wrong on this issue. The fact is that the tax system has become
so convoluted, archaic, out of touch and incomprehensible that it
has become the Liberal government's model for its new firearms
registry.
Let us be clear. The best tax system for the country is one
that seeks to lighten the burden of all citizens and businesses.
That system must be understandable, accountable and neutral,
allowing Canadians to make their own choices by keeping the
greater part of their earnings.
It is time to reject the Liberal obsession with growing revenues
to pay for bigger governments and refocus the government to fit
its revenues.
* * *
[Translation]
GRATIEN GÉLINAS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of
Quebec is saddened by the death of Gratien Gélinas, an actor,
author and composer, who gave theatre in Quebec a momentum it
has never lost.
Gratien Gélinas had the talent of being a writer and an actor
simultaneously. He was particularly careful in anything he wrote
or said to maintain a certain standard of French. He leaves
behind a legacy we will treasure forever.
We will remember Gratien Gélinas as an energetic man who brought
enthusiasm to his artistic endeavours and who was a pillar of
theatre in Quebec.
As an author, he will be remembered for Ti-Coq and Bousille et
les Justes, two epic descriptions of Quebec as it was after the
war and on the eve of the Quiet Revolution.
We extend our deepest condolences to Mr. Gélinas' family.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to pay tribute today to the recipients of the 1999
National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. The awards program was
founded by John Kim Bell in 1993 to recognize extraordinary
career achievements by Canadians of first nations, Inuit and
Métis ancestry.
The 14 outstanding achievers of 1999 come from all walks of life
and have chosen a variety of different career paths. They are
leaders, innovators, educators, scholars, scientists and
artisans. The awards recognize them for their ingenuity,
creativity and tenacity, and provide positive role models for all
Canadians.
These awards serve to remind us of the important contributions
that aboriginal people have made to the country.
1400
As John Kim Bell once said, build a bridge of understanding
between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.
This year's winners received their awards last Friday at a gala
ceremony in Regina at the Saskatchewan Centre of the Arts. The
event will be televised on a CBC network special later this
month. I encourage all the members of this House and all
Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
* * *
CANADIAN CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Manitobans, I take this
opportunity to extend sincere congratulations to Manitoba's very
own Jeff Stoughton rink on winning the 1999 Canadian Curling
Championship on Sunday. They were crowned Canadian champs after
defeating Quebec by a score of 9 to 5 at the Labatt Brier in
Edmonton.
The Manitoba rink hails from the Charleswood Curling Club in my
riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. It is composed of
skip Jeff Stoughton, third Jonathon Mead, second Gerry Van Den
Berghe, lead Doug Armstrong and fifth member Steve Gould.
Not only was this the second Brier victory for Jeff Stoughton,
it was also the 26th time that a Manitoba rink has won this
prestigious event, far more than any other province. The
Stoughton victory again shows that Manitoba is the curling
capital of Canada.
All Manitobans are very proud of the accomplishments of Jeff
Stoughton and his teammates and wish them the very best in their
quest for the world crown in Scotland next month.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is an important day for women's health research in Canada.
At a ceremony on Parliament Hill this morning, the first
professional clinical research chairs in women's health were
announced.
These research chairs, which will be among the most significant
clinical research chairs in Canada, will be funded by
Wyeth-Ayerst, Canadian universities and the Medical Research
Council. A total of $4.4 million will be invested in women's
health over the next five years.
The four researchers chosen by their peers to fill these chairs
will be conducting research in such important areas as
cardiovascular health, endocrinology and mental health.
On behalf of all members of the House, I extend my
congratulations to these successful researchers who truly are at
the top of their fields.
This is another tremendous example of this government's
commitment to women's health research and working in partnership
with the medical research community to improve the health of
Canadians.
* * *
CANADIAN POLICE INFORMATION CENTRE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, is operated through
the national police service. This system allows police forces
across the country to access criminal records. The Canadian
Police Association says this priceless tool is in desperate need
of resources to update the system. CPIC is 20 year old
technology and it is on the verge of collapse.
Sharing information is vital to ensure accurate and complete
reports on criminal activity and organized crime.
A revitalized and restored CPIC system would ensure tracking of
offenders. An updated national system could include vehicle
identification numbers to track stolen vehicles, escaped convicts
and parolees gone AWOL.
Last week the Canadian Police Association estimated the cost to
upgrade CPIC would be about $200 million. This government can
easily find those dollars with one stroke of a pen.
Cancel the firearms registration program that tracks law-abiding
citizens. Transfer the funds saved over to CPIC that will track
criminals.
* * *
[Translation]
SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
being the Semaine de la Francophonie, I would like to remind the
House about the Sommet de la Francophonie, an important meeting
held every two years and attended by leaders of French speaking
countries.
Every two years, they meet for three days of discussions on
topical issues.
Canada plays a key role in the Francophonie. This role
underscores its commitment to promoting the French fact both at
home and abroad.
As there are over 8.5 million French speaking Canadians,
Canada's membership in this organization provides it with an
international forum for its national views and an opportunity to
promote the French language and culture worldwide.
Long live the Francophonie and long live Canada.
* * *
GRATIEN GÉLINAS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
Quebec lost a great artist, with the death from Alzheimer's
disease of Gratien Gélinas, at the age of 89. With his passing,
Quebec has lost a great pioneer of Quebec theater.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to extend its most sincere sympathies
to Huguette Oligny, and the rest of his family.
This man of great generosity, and an even greater sense of
humour, earned a deserved reputation as a master of his craft.
He was the first to gain full recognition for Quebec theatre by
creating truly Quebecois characters speaking Quebec French.
1405
Many Quebec artists owe their careers to him to this day. His
critical view of society was an integral part of all of his
work. His characters, Fridolin, Ti-Coq and the like, have left
an indelible mark on the history of Quebec.
Yesterday, he made us laugh. Today, his passing makes us weep.
We shall never forget him.
Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.
* * *
[English]
BELL UNITED WAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate three students from my
riding of Parkdale—High Park who have been chosen to participate
as allocation and advisory panellists for the 1998-99 Bell United
Way program.
Aidan Black-Allen, a grade 8 student at Runnymede Junior/Senior
Public School, Kit Fairgrieve, a grade 12 student at Humberside
Collegiate, and Ailen Pavumo, an OAC student at Parkdale
Collegiate, have been selected to serve as advisers on program
operations, reviews and the allocating of funds for project
applications as well as assisting with program promotion and
public relations.
These three students serve as role models for their peers as
they give their time to worthy causes and agencies. Their
involvement with the United Way has enabled them to gain solid
experience in teamwork, decision making, leadership,
organizational and communication skills.
The devotion, support and participation demonstrated by Aidan,
Kit and Ailen are very much appreciated by both the United Way
and our community. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
* * *
STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone knows that under our system standing committees
have no power and only limited influence. Some of them,
especially the Standing Committee on Transport, are becoming
totally irrelevant.
The transport committee has not done anything significant since
completing it passenger rail study in June. On December 1 it
rubber stamped amendments to the Railway Safety Act. Since then
it has met five times and done absolutely nothing.
Twice the committee has winnowed through a long wish list to
come up with study topics acceptable to a majority of members.
Twice that same majority has voted to reverse the previous
decisions.
The first change in direction was due to blatant ministerial
interference. Opposition members suspect that committee
inactivity reflects the minister's wish that nothing
controversial ever be addressed. The committee has not met, not
even in camera, since March 2.
* * *
[Translation]
GINETTE RENO
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations, and those of
all Canadians, to Ginette Reno, who is to be honoured this
afternoon at the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, with a reception
hosted by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Ginette Reno's career is a good illustration of Canadian
cultural richness and diversity. Her success has gone far
beyond the borders of Quebec, to English Canada, Europe and the
United States. Her recently released album in English has
earned her a nomination for the 1999 Juno Awards in the Best
Female Vocalist category.
Canada has a number of good reasons to be proud of the
exceptional accomplishments of Ginette Reno, and to pay her
homage at the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, this week.
Thank you, Madame Reno.
* * *
[English]
OLYMPIC ADVOCATES TOGETHER HONOURABLY
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today in Lausanne, Switzerland, OATH, an organization
which stands for Olympic Advocates Together Honourably, was
established.
OATH is a global coalition of Olympic athletes and advocates
initiated by Canadians committed to restoring and maintaining the
Olympic spirit. The coalition was formed in the context of
allegations of questionable practices involving the IOC. As
trustees of the Olympic spirit, they believe there is a pressing
need for systemic reforms.
The basic principles of OATH are that it be an ethical,
accountable, transparent, inclusive and democratic organization.
We extend congratulations to Belinda Stronach, Keith Stein, Mark
Tweksbury and all the other Olympic athletes and their
associates. As Canadians we are proud of them and we salute
their initiative.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me no pleasure to note that over 5 million of our fellow
Canadians, 1.5 million of them children, are living in poverty.
1410
That means one in six people in the nation is faced daily with
circumstances that generally include insufficient nourishment,
substandard or non-existent housing and an increased
vulnerability to illness.
The PC party of Canada has set up a task force on poverty
co-chaired by my colleague from Shefford. Our first set of
public hearings will be held in Saint John, New Brunswick on
Friday coming. We will be in St. John's, Newfoundland on April
19 as part of a cross-country tour.
There are no easy solutions to this difficult problem. However,
it is necessary to tackle the issue and so I encourage
individuals and groups to attend our meetings. Together we can
make recommendations to government in the hope that policies will
be implemented to close the growing gap between the rich and
poor.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the
steelworkers and aluminum workers union presented its official
response to the federal government's defence in its dispute over
discrimination against youth and women under the Employment
Insurance Act.
What was the government's response? It avoided them saying that
the applicants have no public interest in contesting the law.
It said that the surplus in the employment insurance fund does
not belong to contributors.
It mocks pregnant women saying that its actions are not
discriminatory, because pregnancy is a fact of nature, a
contention contrary to the supreme court's decision in 1989. It
continues to discriminate against young people.
The opposition to the changes to employment insurance comes from
Force Jeunesse, la Coalition action-chômage, the CSN, the Quebec
federation of labour, the Canadian Labour Congress and the
thousands of workers that I met in my tour across Canada.
The consensus is clear. It is time the government assumed its
responsibilities and changed employment insurance.
* * *
GÉRALD LAROSE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Gérald Larose
has announced that he will not be seeking another term as the
head of the CSN.
After 25 years of involvement in and devotion to the cause of
Quebec workers, including 16 as the president of the CSN, he is
and will remain an outstanding figure in Quebec's labour
history.
During his long career, he was a part of every struggle for
social progress: those of workers, of course, but those too of
women, the disadvantaged and society's rejects.
An open and direct man, he always communicated with feeling the
faults of a free market society and the need for a more
equitable distribution of the collective wealth.
He is also an ardent defender of the idea of a sovereign Quebec,
which, for him represents as much the normal democratic and
national course of the people of Quebec as social justice.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes this great man and wishes him good
luck in his next undertaking.
* * *
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, impaired drivers kill over 1,400
Canadians every year and injure over 60,000. The cost to our
health care system each year runs in the billions of dollars.
Millions of Canadians are crying out for us to put a stop to this
senseless and 100% preventable crime.
Members of the House unanimously called on the government to put
an end to impaired driving by instructing the justice committee
to review and amend the Criminal Code to enhance deterrence and
ensure the penalties reflect the seriousness of this 100%
preventable crime.
For the first time in over a decade we have the opportunity to
toughen up impaired driving laws and help stop the carnage on our
highways. I urge my colleagues on the justice committee to
demonstrate leadership and represent the wishes of millions of
Canadians through amendments to the Criminal Code that will truly
reflect Canada's zero tolerance attitude to this senseless and
100% preventable crime.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have to speak up and decide if our public
broadcaster has a future. Considering the billion dollar
expenditure and the historical prominence of this institution, it
does not reflect well on us to stand by and watch which limb of
the pejoratively named corpse will succumb first.
Lawrence Martin in the Montreal Gazette asks why we are
ready to go to the wall with Canadian magazines yet falter at
supporting the CBC that tells more Canadian stories in a week
than magazines do in a year.
Susan Riley in the Ottawa Citizen points out the
debasement of American television news with its persistent
scandal coverage and warns Canadians to beware privatizing the
CBC or it too will fall victim to ratings and dollars.
Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson wrote that CBC
management failed to reshape the corporation after the cuts.
I concur with the Calgary Herald that the CBC must stay
independent of whatever party happens to be running the
government. The CBC is glue to this country.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
* * *
1415
THE EAST COAST FISHERY
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of our people have been forced out of work due to our
declining groundfish resources. Underwater cameras have
uncovered compelling evidence of the destruction of our codfish
stocks by the growing seal herds in our bays and off our coasts.
Tonnes of partly eaten codfish have been discovered on the ocean
floor in the Bonavista Bay area.
Seals only consume part of the fish, leaving the rest on the
ocean floor to decay. It is time the Government of Canada, the
custodian and manager of seal herds and our fish stocks,
immediately increase the seal harvest to give our groundfish
stocks a chance to regenerate.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first it was the Prime Minister's in-law, Paul Desmarais, who
said that high taxes were strangling Canada's economy. Today
Doug Young, his former cabinet minister, chaired a whole
conference on plummeting Canadian productivity. At the
conference the Prime Minister's own pollster admitted that
Canadians are upset with our declining standard of living, and
the weak dollar proves it.
If top Liberals do not buy the Prime Minister's low dollar-high
tax argument, then why should the rest of us?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian people are quite happy with the economic
policies of this government. The Canadian people are very happy
that we have taken unemployment from 11.4% to 7.8%. The Canadian
public is quite happy about the fact that we have reduced the
Conservative's deficit from $42 billion to zero and we are still
going. The Canadian people are pretty happy to see that the
Financial Times of London has called Canada the top dog of
financial managers.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under this government's leadership I would say our economy has
been a bit of a mongrel. High taxes, low dollar. That is the
Prime Minister's plan.
Who else spoke at that conference today? Dr. Sherry Cooper of
Nesbitt Burns. She blasted the Prime Minister for the fact that
Canada has the worst record of productivity among industrialized
nations. The reason? High taxes. What is the proof of this?
Our low dollar.
Is the Prime Minister proud that our standard of living is
declining? Why does he continue to brag about a 65 cent dollar?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 1.6 million more Canadians are working since we took
power. A study mentioned yesterday that Canada ranks number one
among G-7 countries in terms of business costs. It stated that
Canada has the third lowest corporate income tax rate for
manufacturing among the G-7, lower than the United States. It
stated that we have the lowest labour costs of the G-7.
This long list tells everybody that if they want to do good
business the best place to go is Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe that the Prime Minister just stood in this place
to defend the fact that Canadians are willing to work for
peanuts. That is the Liberals' whole argument. They somehow
think it is a good thing that Canadians have lower wages than
those in other countries around the world. Recipients of those
low wages can tell the Prime Minister that it is no fun.
When is the Prime Minister going to wake up and understand that
a falling standard of living is not a good thing, that it hurts
Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem with the Reform Party is that it cannot take
good news as news. The only thing it can do is dampen the
situation in Canada because we are doing quite well. I
understand why Joe Clark does not want to talk with the Reform
Party.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government continues to make light of the fact that our
dollar is declining, our standard of living is declining, our
productivity is declining relative to other industrialized
countries—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We will hear the hon. member.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Sometimes the truth hurts, Mr. Speaker.
How can government members stand in their place to defend a 65
cent loonie? How can they defend giving Canadians a lower
standard of living? When in opposition the finance minister said
that the Canadian dollar should be 78 cents. How can he defend a
65 cent dollar when he is in government?
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts as cited by the Reform Party are just simply
wrong. The fact is that Canada did have declining productivity,
which had begun some 20 years ago.
Let us look at the facts. In 1997 Canada's productivity rose
2.9%, the highest since 1984 and twice that of the United States.
Those are the facts.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us talk about the facts. The OECD says that Canada was the
only G-7 country to see a reduction in its productivity between
1979 and 1997. It said that Canada's productivity performance
used to place it among the top performers, but now it has fallen
significantly.
We are going down while other countries are going up. Our
dollar is at 65 cents, giving Canadians a lower standard of
living.
How does this finance minister defend a bargain basement priced
country when we should be growing and not shrinking our standard
of living?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is caught in a time warp. Take a look.
He started in 1979. He ought to get with it.
Since 1996-97 our productivity has been on the increase,
employment has been on the increase and Canadians have been on
the increase. There is only one thing declining now and that is
the Reform Party's popularity.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL FORUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it comes
to talking about culture internationally, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has made himself very clear: Canada is
a sovereign nation and must, in his view, have only one voice.
At best, Quebec will play a secondary role in any future
delegation.
Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs please be a bit
clearer and tell us very specifically that, if Quebec wants to
play more than just the role of a regional component, the only
course open to it is that of sovereignty?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebeckers are extremely fortunate to belong to a
country that is one of the most influential in the world—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: —and play a major role by sharing in the
sovereign country called Canada.
Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec said a very shocking thing. He
said that a Canadian government official cannot represent the
culture of Quebeckers.
I would like to quote something the Premier of Quebec said in
February 1996 “I have worked in Ottawa at the highest level.
One cannot become an expert in this overnight, and we have not
had an opportunity in Quebec City to develop this expertise”.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would be so
much wiser for the minister and so much simpler for everyone if
he answered the questions.
Le Petit Robert gives the figurative meaning of potiche as
someone given an honorary position but no active role.
Is the role the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has in
mind for the Government of Quebec with respect to its culture
the role of a potiche?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us not confuse two different issues.
The first has to do with improving this federation, which is
already well advanced compared to others, including in its
ability to express its views internationally.
The second concerns how to react to the obviously separatist
ploys of the Bouchard government internationally.
I have here a document released two years ago entitled “Plan
stratégique de ministère des relations internationales”. It
contains the following “Actively promote the various facets of
Quebec society internationally... so as to be able, when the time
is right, to count on support in realizing the government's
political project”.
Let us not confuse these two issues.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
The latest Statistics Canada figures indicate that the
proportion of francophones in Canada dropped from 29% to 24%
between 1951 and 1996. Only in Quebec has the proportion
remained stable.
1425
How can the federal government claim to be in the best position
to represent Quebec culture internationally, when it is not even
capable of stopping the erosion of the francophone communities
outside Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing is certain, we are not about to leave in the
cold the one million francophones outside Quebec who need the
support of Canada if they are to safeguard their language and
culture.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would have preferred an answer to my question rather
than the statement the minister has just made.
We are aware of how courageously the francophones outside Quebec
are defending themselves against assimilation.
Yet, when we see the federal government's dubious success in
supposedly defending Canada's francophones, is it at all
surprising that Quebeckers do not want Ottawa defending their
culture outside Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the hon. member is claiming a
desire to support francophones outside Quebec, while on the
other he is leaving them in the cold with a policy which states
that there is French only for Quebec, and English for the rest
of Canada.
In this party and this country, Canada, we believe in two
founding peoples and two official languages. That is why
francophones outside Quebec can count on us to support the
culture of Canada, the culture of two peoples.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-55
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
heritage minister thinks she now has some wiggle room to
negotiate away Canada's cultural sovereignty. Maybe not so much
wiggle as shake, as in shakedown.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party may continue.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, it is less than 24
hours since the House passed Bill C-55. Will the heritage
minister now tell us which Canadian cultural protections are
being bargained away as we speak?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with the support of 197 members of the House we have
every intention of proceeding with Bill C-55.
The hon. member can rest assured that I have no intention of
wiggling or shaking.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-55 was supposed to be about Canadian cultural values, but it is
looking more and more like a bargaining chip in a dispute with
the Americans.
One thing that we have learned about disputes with the Americans
is that appeasement will not work.
Will the heritage minister commit to the House today that there
will be no appeasement, no backsliding and no cave-in to American
pressures on our magazine bill?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yes.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Industry challenged members to produce a negative
report on Canada's productivity. I would like to quote findings
of such a report.
Over the past 25 years Canada has had the lowest rate of
productivity growth in the G-7.
Canada's overall tax burden is 20% higher than our major
competitor, the U.S.
Canada is losing foreign investment, causing low productivity
that costs jobs and a strong economy.
The report was given February 18 by the Minister of Industry to
the Empire Club in Toronto.
Does the minister stand by his comments about Canada's low
productivity?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the hon. member from the Reform Party claimed
that Canada's productivity had declined, which was patently
wrong.
It is true that we have a productivity challenge and the answer
comes, in part, from the investment in research and development,
and the investment in science and engineering that we have been
making, which those parties tend to vote against.
The biggest burden that lies on the back of Canada's
productivity is the burden of debt that was built up by over nine
years of Progressive Conservative government.
1430
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister's
credibility is about as strong as the Canadian dollar. In
December he said higher taxes were good for productivity. Then he
said he was misquoted. Last month he said Canada's productivity
was the worst in the G-7. Now he says Canada has the best.
Yesterday the minister avoided questions on the impact of
government user fees on the private sector.
I ask the minister a simple question. Why should anyone have
confidence in him when he does not know whether he is sucking or
blowing? Does he think strong productivity can be brought with a
report?
The Speaker: Order. We are getting a little bit close on
the language, so please quiet it down. The hon. Minister of
Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really must apologize to the hon. member for
attempting to raise the debate on productivity to an intellectual
level. It seems to have been above him.
What we do have from the KPMG study that was released a couple
of days ago is an indication that in factor after factor Canada
leads in the G-7. Whether we are talking about the cost of road,
sea or air freight, electricity, leases, telecommunications,
interest costs, depreciation, property taxes, advantage after
advantage is on the side of Canada.
I do not know why the opposition parties feel that they have to
run down this country in order to score some political points.
* * *
THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today convicted Senator Eric Berntson was sentenced to a year in
jail for fraud. That is on top of Senator Michel Cogger
convicted and sentenced for influence peddling. The Senate is so
outdated that the Prime Minister cannot even fire these two.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, what more evidence does
he need for Senate reform and to make that place elected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would have been very useful to have the Reform Party
on side when we decided in the Charlottetown agreement to have an
elected Senate. But again, Reformers put their political
interests ahead of the interests of the nation and they tried to
score political points, so they cannot complain. We wanted to
have an elected Senate and they opposed it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was seven years ago this year. Number one the Charlottetown
accord did not allow for direct Senate elections and he knows it.
Number two, 60% of Canadians—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: He is calling names right now because
they voted against it.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, when he hears a senator
say, “I am doing my time”, does he really believe that that
senator is busy in the chamber next door?
The Speaker: I am going to permit the question. The
right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a tradition that we do not comment on the work
of the other place here in this House, and especially when a
senator is a Conservative senator.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL FORUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage earlier acknowledged something we have not
heard for a very long time in federal parliament—the notion of
two founding peoples.
Does the fact of recognizing Quebec francophones as one of the
two founding peoples of this country end there, or does it not
warrant special status in Canadian delegations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
francophones in Canada are not just from Quebec. There are one
million francophones who are part of that people but are not
living in Quebec. They count on the federal government to
represent them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister will have the opportunity to rise again.
I want to ask him if he will not acknowledge that Quebeckers and
the Government of Quebec have always played a leadership role in
defending the French fact in North America and that, in doing
so, they are fully entitled to be heard in international forums
like the one in Belgium with the Walloons and the Flemings.
We exist and we want to have the right to say so.
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
French Canadians are very well represented here in the House and
throughout Canada, in embassies, and their interests are well
protected.
I would point out, because these days there is a lot of talk
about Catalonia, that the Spanish constitution does not give to
the people of Catalonia the same powers as Quebec enjoys here.
The Spanish constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of
the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible country of all
Spaniards.
When we travel in Spain, we can see that the people of Catalonia
would like to have the powers that the Canadian Constitution
gives the Government of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
few months ago in this House we strongly endorsed a bill. This
bill is now before the justice committee and would give
children's organizations a right to know if a convicted child
molester applies for a position of trust over children.
Yesterday, coincidentally, the solicitor general introduced a
bill that proposes the same thing.
I would be willing to take my name off the bill and the
solicitor general could put his name on it and we would be a lot
further ahead on this whole issue. Will the solicitor general
take my bill now so that children can be better protected rather
than waiting for another year or more?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague should do is read
Bill C-69. It is more inclusive. It has a flagging system to
indicate if anybody was convicted of a sex offence. It is
retroactive. This bill is important for public safety. I
certainly await my hon. colleague's support for this piece of
very important legislation.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am concerned sometimes when I see power and politics going ahead
of the protection of our Canadian children. My bill is exactly
the same as the one the minister has put forward. This week
there are witnesses here who are presenting evidence in support
of our bill.
Why will the solicitor general not do the right thing and
protect Canadian children instead of playing power and politics?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what I am doing. It is the right thing. What I
am doing is putting a piece of legislation in place that protects
the public now. It is also retroactive. It is a piece of
legislation that I can only hope my hon. colleague and his party
will support.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government says that any surplus in the EI
account is part of Canada's consolidated revenue fund and does
not belong to contributors.
Can the Minister of Finance explain why his government is
appropriating EI fund surpluses when it is not paying one red
cent into the plan, when all the money in it comes from workers
and employers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member knows very well that the government rolled the EI fund
into the government's consolidated revenue fund in 1986 at the
request of the auditor general. It was done at his request and
we are following his rules.
At the same time, the member is also well aware that the
Canadian government guarantees the money in this fund.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, either the EI fund's surpluses belong to
contributors, which explains why the government is paying
interest on them, or they belong to the government, as the
government claims.
If so, why is the minister paying interest on a surplus that he
claims belongs to him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
because this was how it was set up at the very beginning.
But I again repeat that the member is well aware that the
Canadian government guarantees these payments and, when the fund
is in the red, as it has been for 11 of the last 17 years, it is
the Canadian government that assumes the load.
* * *
1440
[English]
CUBA
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
saw the effectiveness of this government's soft power foreign
policy. Four Cuban dissidents were sentenced to prison after a
kangaroo court in Havana found them guilty of subversion.
Given his warm relations with Mr. Castro, why was the foreign
affairs minister not able to ensure their right to a fair trial?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in this case the Prime Minister has raised the issue
directly with President Castro. I raised the issue myself. We
expressed our extreme disappointment that the Cuban government
did not react. That in no way questions the importance in the
long haul of continuing to try to help change Cuban society to
move toward a more democratic open society. That is the Canadian
policy.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is too
little too late.
How can the government deny that its 20 years of soft power
policy toward Cuba has been anything but a total failure?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I guess if the member knew the facts then he would
draw a different conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that we have made major changes in
helping broaden the area of religious freedom in Cuba. Last year
a number of political prisoners were released. We have had
agreements signed on anti-terrorism and anti-drug matters. We
have been able to improve the political space for civil groups.
We have been able to help build the capacity in that country to
deal with problems of legislation and human rights.
We are making some progress. There is a setback. It is a long
road. There are some bumps on the road, but this government
continues to be committed to try to bring about democratic change
in that country.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
claims that women are not being discriminated against by the new
eligibility rules for maternity benefits because, by their very
nature, only women can get pregnant.
My question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women.
Since the Minister of Human Resources Development is insensitive
to our objections, what is the reaction of the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women to her government's argument that
there is be no discrimination, because pregnancy is a natural
event?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by
saying yes, pregnancy is a natural course in the lifestyle of a
woman. There is no doubt about that.
I do not agree with the hon. member that there is discrimination
based on some of the initiatives by Human Resources Development
of Canada. We are looking at some of the issues. There is more
that can be done to level that playing field. We are working on
that. But we cannot make changes immediately, in one day. They
are stacked one on top of the other. We have seen this
government make changes that are appropriate to the lives of
women.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canada's aerospace industry is vital to our economy and our
international competitiveness. The minister has had four days to
examine the WTO decision on Brazil's decision to challenge our
industry.
Can the minister comment on the fact that the Reform Party was
not exactly helpful to Canada's case?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, last July when the leader of the
Reform Party travelled to Asia, he publicly and deliberately
undermined our interests on trade and investment.
Second, yesterday and today Reform members continue to try to
undermine the independent KPMG report that shows that Canada is
number one. Now, in the WTO report that was just released on the
aircraft dispute between Brazil and Canada, it cites seven
different references where the Reform Party has given information
to the Brazilian government to help it with its case. This is
absolutely shocking and borders on sabotage of our national
interests. Which side of the case is the Reform Party on?
* * *
1445
GRAIN
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, because of the strike by 70 PSAC grain weighers the
railways are not moving grain. The ports are completely shut
down today.
Another 24 hours have passed. What has the treasury board
minister personally done in the past day to ensure that this
strike will end?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have negotiated with the blue collar union. We have made it
offers that we judge to be extremely generous. We have in fact
offered it more than we have offered to 80% of public servants.
I am sorry the union considers at present that it has to carry
out these acts. I hope it will come back to the negotiation
table, see the light, become reasonable and agree to a
settlement.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, exports of $5 million per day are not leaving port.
Sixteen vessels are waiting for grain to be loaded, with seven
more due this week. Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier
is being destroyed.
How long will the treasury board minister let this go on, or
does he even care about the situation?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Once again,
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to the last moment to make concessions
that would make the strikers go back to work. Unfortunately they
are asking for unreasonable demands at present. We are
considering all possible options.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio
Canada as we know it may go off the air on the Friday.
I was on the picket line this morning with Dean Haywood. His
father was a technical director and his brother directed
Hockey Night in Canada for 15 years. Dean has worked at
the parliamentary bureau for 25 years.
Generations of committed public broadcasters have been keeping a
dream alive, but it may all fade to black on Friday because
government funding cuts have pushed the corporation into crisis.
Will the minister of heritage give assurances to the Haywoods
and the millions of Canadians who support public broadcasting
that she will find money to prevent the CBC from fading to black
on Friday?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have good news on the CBC front. The technicians have
been meeting with a mediator since last Monday and are still
talking. The media guild has now asked for a mediator and one
has been provided.
I would ask the hon. member to accept the procedure that is in
place. Both parties are speaking and we hope they will go back
to work soon. It is not only a funding issue. There are other
issues on the table that are more than just funding.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
known the government has been involved with various kinds of
interference with the CBC for a long time. There was a $400
million cut to funding. It has told CBC what logo to have. It
censored Terry Milewski for his reporting. It has made CBC
interference an art form.
I find it ironic that at this point in time the minister would
be saying that they are trying to stay out of this and let
business take its course. I think the CBC has to be dealt with
quickly and the government has to have some hand in it.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not what I said. I said that there were issues
on the table other than funding.
The mediators are speaking to both groups. Let us allow the
process to work in the hope that a new collective agreement will
be negotiated sooner rather than later.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, it came out
during oral question period that the defence budget included
some $600 million in additional unexpected funds.
In the minister's response, he claimed that this was for use in
disaster relief operations. Yet the land forces have received
$184 million in additional funding.
Was this additional amount meant to be used to meet the land
force's operating budget deficit? Is that why National Defence
was unable to pay its bills on time, because it had no more
money?
1450
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the defence department pays for its
bills. Its procedures have improved over the years to make sure
that they are paid on time.
What additional money we do have in the budget this year will go
to pay for improvements to the quality of life of our troops. Our
troops have given fine dedicated service to the country and they
deserve our support in that regard.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
seems to have been an increase of approximately $337 million in
the air force budget for this year, without any announcement of
this by the minister.
Can the minister confirm whether any of this $337 million, which
came from provincial transfer payments or military pensions
funds, will be used to replace the Sea King helicopter fleet,
especially since another one experienced problems this very
morning at Shearwater?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no funds relevant to the
replacement of the Sea King fleet in this budget, but the
government has had a long commitment, going back to the 1994
white paper, to proceed with a change in aircraft from the Sea
King to a new helicopter.
A procurement strategy is now in the stages of being finalized
and will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.
Meanwhile we will make sure that our Sea King helicopters are
safe to fly.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are growing labour unrest and work disruptions among
federal correctional officers which may put Canadians at risk.
Could the solicitor general assure Canadians that their safety
and security will be protected during these labour disruptions?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
concern. I can assure my colleague and Canadians that public
safety is a number one issue.
Because of public safety, Correctional Service Canada has
contingency plans in place but these contingency plans are quite
expensive.
* * *
GRAIN
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has done its very best to convince us that changes
made to part 1 of the Canada Labour Code would ensure the
unimpeded flow of Canadian grain to port on time. We have had
people come before the committee. The Reform Party has said that
this will not happen. Now we have a case where we have the grain
stopped at port.
What exactly does the Minister of Labour have in mind to do
about this problem and when will she fix it?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is more a problem of the picket lines that have been
established by the blue collar workers. We are monitoring the
effects of their strikes. We want the movement of grain to be
unimpeded because it is in the interest of our farmers in the
west.
At present we are taking all the possible measures. We will
look at all the options in front of us to settle these strikes.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Department of Industry suddenly cut off its program of
internships with export businesses across Canada, it did a real
disservice to 14 young Quebeckers, who were dumped, some of whom
had given up their jobs, and to 22 businesses in Quebec.
Does the minister intend to compensate the young people and the
businesses for the costs incurred in the pilot program?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
program was initiated in April 1997 and was intended to give
work experience to young graduates, by twinning them with SMBs
in Canada or abroad to support export development.
The alliance of manufacturers managed the implementation of the
program. It was cancelled in June 1998 following an independent
evaluation and audit, which concluded that the low level of
business participation did not justify the continuation of the
program. It was a necessary but difficult decision.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister about his
constitutional responsibility to appoint senators.
1455
Later on this afternoon the government will use its majority in
the House to approve an 11.7% cost overrun in the Senate's
budget. Last week the Prime Minister said that when there was a
large consensus on the Senate he would act.
In light of the fact that over 90% of Canadian people do not
support the existing Senate in any way at all, I want to ask the
Prime Minister whether or not he will acknowledge that consensus,
listen to the people, put a freeze on appointments and agree to
an all-party committee to look at the whole process of what we do
with the Senate.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody knows that to change the rules for the Upper
House in Canada we need an amendment to the Canadian
Constitution. We have debated this issue for years and years.
I am reporting to the House that there is no pressure by any
government, and every government has an obligation to concur in
the changes before we can proceed. I do not think we can do that
at this time.
I do not think it would be useful to open debate on the
Constitution. I do not think Canadians are ready for it at this
time. They have had enough debate on the Constitution over the
last 10 years.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In its ongoing
efforts to build a richer government within a poorer country, the
government has now decided to deduct employment insurance
premiums from volunteer firefighters who receive honorariums.
Volunteer firefighters risk their lives to protect and serve
their fellow citizens and they receive small honorariums in
return. The government is rewarding their brave service with a
cowardly tax grab.
Will the Minister of National Revenue stop this deplorable tax
grab now?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have stood and
applauded the Minister of Finance who increased the $500 to
$1,000 for volunteer firefighters in the last budget.
In terms of deductions for the amount paid, this is something I
am looking at right now because of the representations made by
many of my colleagues. I will report back on what we will do. It
is a very important issue and we are reviewing it right now.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Public service retirees and employees are saying that the
government wants to use the surplus in the public service, RCMP
and National Defence pension funds without being entitled to.
[English]
What makes the Government of Canada think that it has the right
to this surplus but the employees and the pensioners do not?
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are two main reasons. The first is that the government
guarantees the benefits of employees past and present. The
second is that the government absorbs all the pension fund
deficits and takes all the risks.
The retirees association is itself in agreement that, legally
the surpluses belong to the government, and I quote their
website:
[English]
The association does not believe that it has any legal grounds
to pursue a court case. A legal decision would not be in favour
of the association since the legal advice provided to the
association by independent experts in the pension field has been
that the employer can decide on the disposition of the surplus.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
Decision makers in the Haute-Mauricie and Abitibi regions are
worried about what the Minister of Transport will decide with
respect to the subdivision trunk line between La Tuque and
Senneterre.
Can the minister assure us that the decision makers of the
Haute-Mauricie and Abitibi regions will be consulted before the
minister takes a decision regarding franchises?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had occasion to make the trip from La Tuque to
Senneterre a few months ago and I met many local inhabitants as
well as travellers on the VIA Rail train.
As the hon. member well knows, we approved most of the Standing
Committee on Transport's recommendations with respect to VIA
Rail, including the recommendation to protect remote lines such
as those in his riding.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the answer of the President of the Treasury Board. I
think farmers will not take any comfort from his remarks.
He can wring his hands and tell us he is working on this, but
the fact of the matter is that farmers are strapped for cash.
Their bins are full of grain. They have to get this stuff on to
the railroad before the road bans come on. What in the world
will he do to solve this problem?
1500
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I agree that damage is being caused to the economy and to the
farmers by the tactics that are being used by the blue collar
workers. We have negotiated with them. We have offered them
whatever we could.
Unfortunately, the union has the right to strike and it is using
that right. We are at present considering all the possible
options open to us to get them back to work.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Michael Woods, Minister for
the Marine and Natural Resources of Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the Minister for International Trade
quoted from a document which referred to the relationship between
Canada and Brazil and an aerospace ruling of the WTO.
For the benefit of all members, I wonder if he could table a
copy of that information so that all members could have access to
it.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during question period I gave a copy of
the excerpts which show eight times in the report that the Reform
Party provided information to the Brazilian government.
It is with pleasure that I table this document for the House of
Commons.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during oral question period the Minister for International Trade
indicated that the official opposition had no evidence to
indicate that Canadian productivity had declined.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to table an annex from an
OECD economic outlook, dated December 1998, which indicates that
our total productivity factor has decreased by—
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate
suspended for question period there were five minutes left for
questions and comments on the speech of the hon. member for
Mississauga South.
1505
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the member for Mississauga South was talking about
the Reform opposition day motion he spoke at some length about
Justice Shaw's pornography decision in British Columbia on the
Sharpe case. I would like to make a few comments about that
because I have some information and then I will have a question
for the member for Mississauga South.
The member talked about media reports from that trial and he
also talked about the fact that Mr. Sharpe was not represented by
legal counsel.
There was only one member of the media at the trial, who is a
radio reporter from my community. There were several UBC law
students at court that day. There were other media who popped
in, heard what they thought was a poorly presented case and left
because they thought there was no way this individual could win.
Why did the law students stay? Because they knew he was going to
win. The radio reporter from my community talked to those
students and therefore decided to stay.
The member for Mississauga South indicated that he is of the
opinion that the case was not well argued. I beg to differ. It
was not well presented, but it was well argued.
I do not believe that Justice Shaw made an error in judgment.
His judgment was the culmination of a series of earlier decisions
by judges because of the way in which our laws are written and
earlier jurisprudence on the child pornography issue related to
the Constitution.
I will make the same admission as the member for Mississauga
South: I am not a lawyer, but this is my belief.
The message that I think I am hearing out of those court
proceedings is that under the current legislative framework it
does not matter what happens with the appeal. In the short run
that may work, but in the long run the current legislative
framework will be found lacking and will require a legislative
solution or a notwithstanding solution.
Why is the member so quick to sign a letter to the Prime
Minister and so slow to stand in the House of Commons to vote for
a motion to support the very same issue?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, the media
reports I was referring to were not the media reports on the
hearing. They were, in fact, media reports on the opposition day
motion which we voted on in the House. The media reports
indicated that government members had decided they were voting to
do nothing, and that is not the case.
I am glad the member raised the issue about why I signed a
letter to the Prime Minister on behalf of a number of caucus
colleagues asking for attention. The reason I signed the letter
was because at the time the letter was written—and the case had
happened a week earlier—the position of the government was that
we would defend the laws of Canada before the Supreme Court of
Canada. The letter that I signed, together with a large number
of my caucus colleagues, was to ask the Prime Minister and the
justice minister to consider stronger, more direct action because
of the importance of the issue.
Indeed, to the credit of the caucus members who spoke up in
caucus and who signed that letter, the justice minister did
announce that the federal government was going to participate in
the B.C. appeal hearing along with the attorney general of B.C.
to deal with it right then and there, the swiftest, most
effective way to deal with a very bad court decision.
I thank the member for his question. I wrote the letter because
it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to direct my comments in this debate today on our supply day
motion to the whole issue of the proliferation of drugs, what it
means to organized crime and what it means to our young people.
I attended a conference last weekend in Montreal. The
conference title was “Injection Drug Use and Societal Changes”.
The primary focus of this convention was on implementing more
effective measures to reduce the harm associated with injection
drug use, in particular the spread of HIV and AIDS.
1510
A number of speakers recommended the continuation of the needle
exchange program. Some recommended allowing for and establishing
safe injection houses or sites. Some recommended the medically
controlled injection of heroine addicts and some even recommended
legalization of drugs.
The conference focused primarily on harm reduction. Therefore,
presentations did not provide recommendations or solutions to
prevent our youth from becoming addicts in the first place.
There were absolutely no statistics based on comparative studies
or experiences such as those in Switzerland demonstrating how, if
at all, harm reduction ultimately results in fewer drug addicts.
I did not recognize any other members of this House in
attendance at this very worthwhile conference which gathered
together many experts in the field of harm reduction.
The most important revelation that emerged from this conference
was that we need a balanced approach or what the RCMP
spokesperson termed “a whole meal deal in dealing with illegal
drugs in this country”.
To date, the war on drugs by this government and previous
governments has not been successful as evidenced by the growing
number of drug addicts living and using drugs on Canadian
streets, particularly in downtown east side Vancouver.
Inspector Richard Barszczewski, the RCMP officer in charge of
operations of the drug section and the drug awareness program,
began his address at the conference by stating “Canada has no
war on drugs”. There is no war on drugs because successive
governments have failed to introduce a balanced approach to deal
with the issue of illicit drugs.
Inspector Barszczewski revealed that the illicit drug trade
remains the principal source of revenue for most organized crime
groups. The combined annual supply estimates for all drug types
has the potential to generate criminal proceeds in excess of $4
billion at the wholesale level and $18 billion at the street
level. It is estimated that 15 tonnes of cocaine are smuggled
into Canada each year. Additionally, one to two tonnes of
heroine are required annually to meet the needs of Canadian
heroine users.
One presenter at the conference, Eric Single, a professor with
the University of Toronto, estimated that the total cost for
illicit drug use for 1992 was $1.4 billion. This cost included
but is not limited to police, courts, corrections, customs and
excise and health care.
The RCMP revealed that in B.C. alone there were 310 drug
overdose deaths in 1996 and again in 1997. Eighty per cent of
all property crimes committed by individuals were directly or
indirectly related to substance abuse. I am referring to the
province of Alberta now. Fifty per cent of those accused of
homicide and thirty-eight per cent of homicide victims were
intoxicated or under the influence of illegal drugs or both.
Forty per cent of all motor vehicle accident victims were under
the influence of drugs.
What are we to do? What would be the ingredients of a balanced
approach to the problem we have within Canadian society? There
are a number of points I would like to touch on.
First, we should strengthen social policies and programs as a
means of prevention.
Second, there should be more education and drug awareness in
schools. My province of Alberta has the DARE program, a very
effective program administered by the police forces which
operates with schoolchildren. I have been privileged to attend
some of the graduation exercises of those groups of young people.
It is heartening and hopeful to see this occurring and what it
means for the future.
We need stricter law enforcement of trafficking charges and
penalties.
We need to extend such programs as the Toronto drug court to
divert addicts and street level drug traffickers away from the
traditional judicial system, allowing for treatment rather than
imprisonment.
We need to increase penalties for high level drug trafficking.
We need better organized crime legislation, including proceeds
of crime legislation which would allow the authorities in this
country to seize the proceeds of drug crimes and turn them over
to the state.
We need to increase substantially the RCMP's budget to allow for
the hiring of additional officers to be utilized both
domestically and abroad.
There is a need to stop the flow or supply of drugs through
better interdiction.
1515
Last, effectively implement means to stop the flow of drugs in
prisons in Canada. The hon. Justice William Vancise of the court
of appeal for Saskatchewan stated during his presentation at the
Montreal conference: “It is easier to get drugs in prison than
on the streets. They are only more expensive within prison”.
There are numerous flaws in the federal prison service program
and for detecting illegal drugs. An 80 page report released by
the Quebec provincial ombudsman estimated that between $40
million and $60 million in drugs flow through the prisons of that
province annually. There is a commercial enterprise of drug
dealing within our prisons.
Justice Vancise revealed an appalling fact that many offenders
go into prison without a drug problem and come out as drug
addicts. That is unacceptable. The government has failed
dismally to introduce the whole meal deal or a balanced approach
to dealing with illicit drugs and it is our children and
grandchildren who will pay the price.
I will touch on the whole business of the government's attitude
toward the use of illegal drugs, particularly hard drugs within
our prisons and society. If we want to determine the attitude of
the government over the last six years toward the drug problem in
Canada, that attitude is best displayed when we examine what is
happening within our prisons.
If there is any place that we should be able to reduce if not
eliminate the use of drugs, it ought to be within our prisons and
yet, as Judge Vancise told us at the Montreal conference, it is
as easy to get drugs inside our prisons as it is on the streets.
The only difference is that it costs more in our prisons.
The Government of Canada's attitude toward this whole problem is
reflected in what is happening within our prisons. It is in
complete control of who and what goes into the prison and yet we
have this type of unacceptable, reprehensible situation within
our prisons where people who are arrested and sent into prison
without any type of drug habit are coming out as drug addicts, as
the judge said.
We have seen where inmates of our correctional centres have sued
the government for various reasons. I predict the day when we
will see some inmate suing the government for placing them in an
environment that is unsafe because of the uncontrolled
trafficking of drugs that occurs within the prison system. It is
unacceptable and the government's attitude toward not just the
drug situation but crime in general is most vividly reflected in
what is happening within our prisons today. It is unacceptable.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, a former RCMP officer, for
his very eloquent dissertation. I have four points to make and I
would like my hon. colleague to answer them.
A person convicted for an offence can be eligible for parole
after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. This appalled me
when I was in jail as a correctional officer and as a physician.
I thought it was ridiculous.
Does the hon. member feel that people caught trafficking or
using illicit drugs while in jail should actually have more of
their sentence to be served in jail rather than being eligible
for parole after one-sixth, have that pushed to two-thirds of
their sentence which would have a very clear punitive action
against those who are wilfully using drugs while in jail?
Persons caught trafficking drugs outside have to pay the price.
Does he feel our judicial system right now is enforcing the
penalties that are there?
1520
In terms of dealing with hard core drug addicts, the Geneva
post-needle park experiment is perhaps the best in the world.
Half these drug addicts have become integrated and productive
members of society. It is the best model in the world.
There are two ways of dealing with the use of drugs in society.
The first is management of the problem and the second is
prevention.
I would like to know how my hon. colleague feels about calling
for a national head start program that deals with children in the
first eight years of life to make sure they have those basic
needs met. It has been proven that it has a profound impact on
decreasing child abuse and ensuring that children are in school
longer, commit less crime and become integrated members of
society. This motion passed in the House last year. I would
like to know the member's opinion on those points.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have time to get
to all the member's questions because each one requires an
indepth analysis. I do not know if I will have the time to do
justice to these questions.
As far as serving one-sixth of a sentence, I simply go back to
what we have been crying out for, truth in sentencing. We do not
have it in this country. I think my hon. colleague has brought
this very important matter up and it is on the record. We
emphasize again that we do not have truth in sentencing.
We hear some criticism even from our party about the way judges
handle things. How in the world can judges do their job when
their sentencing is overruled by a parole system that puts the
lie to their original assessment of the seriousness of the
offence by way of the sentence they imposed?
There is no question that our government should take a serious
look at increasing the penalty for the top flight traffickers in
this country. They should pay a very serious price. What we
heard over and over again at the Montreal forum was that these
people do not care what they do to the young people, to the
addicts, to the people who get hooked on drugs. They are only
worried about profits. That is what we should be looking at.
That is what the RCMP was talking about when it said a full meal
deal.
Let us take a full, broad, balanced approach to this where we go
after the traffickers and start to treat those who have
addictions as they are being treated through the drug court in
Toronto where there are options for them to receive the treatment
and care they need. We must also put in the effort required in
order to rehabilitate them.
There is no question the head start program, this kind of
education at the earliest age, is extremely important in
preventing our young people from getting involved in drugs. There
are drugs within the schools throughout the country. What we
must do is encourage the government, which we are doing in this
debate today, to take a serious look at this and help those young
people through a broad and balanced approach to this drug
situation in Canada.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
listened to the speech I noted that the member mentioned some
inmates had sued the government because of their exposure to
drugs in the prison system.
I am sure the member is familiar with the fact that in downtown
Vancouver and on the Vancouver east side the government is also,
by its actions, exposing its own citizens to this sort of thing
through allowing these criminal drug dealing refugees to come
into the country. I am sure everyone in the House has heard
about the Honduran drug dealing problem in Vancouver. We have it
with Iranian and Chinese refugee claimants as well.
There is frustration among the police trying to deal with up to
half of the people arrested every night in Vancouver being
illegals trafficking drugs. It is a major problem and certainly
places the citizens of Canada at risk.
1525
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP officers at the
Montreal forum expressed their dismay over the lack of funding.
Their budgets are being cut, particularly in this area.
What we have to do is focus on this very broad question. What
my hon. colleague has brought up with regard to the drug issue
and immigration is there. It has to be looked at. It has to be
dealt with. Otherwise the east side situation in Vancouver will
get worse and will spread to other parts of the country.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in debate on a criminal justice motion
placed before the House by the official opposition. It raises
the need for greater focus on reform of our criminal justice laws
to make Canadians feel safer in their homes and in their
neighbourhoods.
At the outset let me say how very disappointed I was to hear the
shrill and extreme remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the
attorney general. This morning she suggested that if the
official opposition had its way Canada would be a country
governed by vigilante justice where every individual would own a
firearm.
I understand partisan differences and differences of opinions
between members of this place. That is what serious democratic
deliberation is all about. I find that kind of shrill, extreme
demagogic rhetoric from a member beyond the pale of reasonable
debate.
The member cackles across. She does herself a gross disservice
by engaging in that kind of over the top, demagogic rhetoric by
grossly mischaracterizing the legitimate and heartfelt concern of
the members of the official opposition and the millions of
Canadians we represent when it comes to the need for criminal
justice reform.
I can have a disagreement with the parliamentary secretary and
members of her party about how to weigh victims rights versus the
rights of criminals, due process, sentencing and so forth. We
can have legitimate arguments about these matters. That is what
this parliament is for. I will not ascribe motives to that
member and suggest she does not care about criminal justice. I
know she does. I will not castigate this government as not
caring about victims. I know it does. We have different
approaches about how to defend the rights of victims. I will not
countenance any member from any side of the House using that kind
of extremist and shrill rhetoric we heard from that member this
morning.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do believe using the word shrill is unparliamentary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Mr. Speaker, that is
not a point of order. That is a point of debate depending on
your perspective.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I guess she resembles that
comment. I rise because, unlike the noisy and gutter raking,
guttersniping parliamentary secretary opposite—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Shrill was not but
guttersniping is. I ask the hon. member for Calgary Southeast to
withdraw those words.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any
unparliamentary remarks. I hope members across will try to
engage in a more serious and substantive debate.
I recall, running in the last election in my constituency, that
one of the most obvious concerns of my constituents, as I went
door to door to thousands of homes in the southeast part of
Calgary, was crime, particularly violent crime by young
offenders. One issue raised with me frequently was the growing
trend in home invasions. It is something I would like to
address.
When I look at the overall statistics that Statistics Canada
reported in 1995, 27% of urban residents of Canada had been
victims of crime. About one quarter of Canadians were afraid to
walk alone after hours in their neighbourhoods.
1530
It is a shame that in what we often regard as such a peaceful
country, so many of our fellow citizens should feel afraid to
walk in their own neighbourhoods at night. We cannot rest as
legislators as long as the kind of fear founded on crime disturbs
the normal and peaceable lives of Canadian citizens.
I look at the situation in an otherwise stable and peaceful
suburb of my constituency, the Sundance community. There was a
gang fight in September 1997. A 17 year old whose name has been
withheld by virtue of the Young Offenders Act stabbed and
assaulted three 16 year olds. One of them had lost 10 litres of
blood. He was stabbed in the heart, coronary artery and liver.
An autopsy was scheduled for one of the three victims of the
young offender's crime.
The 17 year old, who was nicknamed Baby Gangster, was sentenced
to one year. His name was not released. The judge in that case
said “he has a propensity for violence but it is more attitude
than anger”. The judge cited a psychological report urging
social and anger managing counselling. With all due respect,
attitude was not the problem. The lack of social management
counselling was not the problem. The problem was that there was a
violent thug who nearly took a child's life.
We as legislators need to take more seriously the justice part
of the justice system when it comes to imposing appropriate
sanctions on individuals like this young so-called gangster.
I also raise the tragic case of young Clayton McGloan of the
northeast part of Calgary. Later this month I will be hosting a
town hall meeting with his parents. Clayton McGloan was a 17 year
old who was viciously attacked by a gang of youths in the Coral
Springs community of Calgary on October 31, 1998. He was hit over
the head with a bottle, knocked unconscious and stabbed 12 times
in the back. This was not an attitude problem on the part of the
person who attacked him. It was a vicious murder, attempted and
executed.
Clayton fought hard to stay alive. However life support was
removed two days later after he was declared clinically brain
dead. Close to 2,000 people attended his funeral.
Two juveniles, 15 and 17 years old, were charged but again they
cannot be identified under the Young Offenders Act. They will
not be identifiable under the bill recently introduced by the
Minister of Justice. Both these juveniles stand a good chance of
re-entering society in a couple of years.
This is the backdrop we see as members of parliament in
representing our constituents. I find it unfortunate that after
years and years of advocacy and hard work on the part of victims
and their families to establish more meaningful sanctions for
violent crime, particularly violent youth crime, that Bill C-68
placed before this House by the Minister of Justice does not come
anywhere close to addressing the very real concerns of Canadians
on this issue.
I now turn to a growing trend which really is very disturbing,
the trend of home invasions. This is a situation where criminals
invade a home as a random act if they know the occupants are
there. This is not just a simple break and enter for the purpose
of robbery. This is an aggravated form of assault on the
property and home of residents.
In Kitchener—Waterloo a 71 year old woman was terrorized.
Teenage thugs broke into her home, bound her, blindfolded her and
threatened her with assault. I read of a case on Saltspring
Island, British Columbia where residents were dismayed after
their home had been invaded twice in five weeks by separate
groups of young offenders.
In my own riding I recall going door to door in the election. I
knocked on a door and an elderly lady came to the door after
several minutes.
She was petrified to open the door. She kept the chain on. She
asked me what I wanted. I said I was running for parliament. She
said she would not open the door because two young teenagers had
tried to break down her door the previous week while she was
there. She broke down in tears. She could not sleep at night.
She was concerned that they were going to come back. The police
were called but the boys ran off. The police said that even if
they had been arrested they would be back out on the street in a
day or so.
1535
I have seen the very real faces of people concerned by this. It
is not just the Reform Party who are concerned about this. I
read the comments of the Attorney General of British Columbia
from the New Democratic Party who says that home invasion is a
serious problem across the country and the federal government
needs to take some leadership on it. He proposes, as do we, that
there be a minimum Criminal Code offence for home invasion above
and beyond the offence for breaking and entering, and that this
be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There would
be a higher sentence if this kind of home invasion is a factor in
a crime that is committed.
I call on the government to listen to Canadians who are
suffering from the growing number of home invasions. I urge
government members to listen to the official opposition, listen
to the provincial attorneys general. Bring in the kind of
sentencing guidelines which would more seriously punish those who
violate the privacy of innocent law-abiding Canadian citizens in
their homes.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my first
choice would have been for a Liberal member to get up and ask a
question and get into the debate. Let us talk about what can be
done to solve these problems.
I appreciated the examples my hon. colleague used. I guess we
all have stories and anecdotes which underline the need to
improve our justice system and our dealings with people who so
blatantly walk over the rights of other people.
The most serious one that has happened in the Edmonton area in
the last little while involved three young people whose names
could not be released. They invaded a house one night looking
for money. The lady of the house went down to see about the
noise thinking it was her dog. It was the three young people who
stabbed her to death. A young mother's life was taken. Under the
protection of the law, their names cannot be released. How can we
justify having this lack of accountability for people and their
actions?
Beyond publicizing their names thereby holding them accountable
for what they have done, has the member given any thought to what
kind of sentences and how long those sentences should be for
things such as home invasions especially if weapons are used? Has
the member given any thought as to how we treat these youths in
terms of giving justice to the people whose rights are seriously
violated?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an
expert on sentencing guidelines, but I do know that the current
Criminal Code does not have a minimum sentence provision for
simple robbery as an example. I am proposing that home invasion
be treated along the same lines as committing a crime with a
firearm, which I gather carries a minimum sentence of four years.
The member is absolutely right when he says that this is a
serious problem.
I read a story of a different home invasion which occurred in
Edmonton this year. Two young people invaded a home, attacked
the occupants and ran off when the police appeared. A reporter
who covered the story interviewed some neighbours who said that
these types of invasions had been going on for some time. These
young people will check mailboxes, look in windows and when
chased away say what are the cops going to do.
It is comments like that which reflect the growing lack of
confidence Canadians have in our criminal justice system. I think
it is atrocious that ordinary law-abiding lay people feel that
the police do not have the criminal sanctions they need to ensure
these kinds of violent invasions of people's homes do not occur.
I do not propose a particular guideline, but I do think there
should be some kind of minimum sentence for cases which involve
this aggravating factor of home invasion.
1540
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the
member tell the House, when he looks at all the countries in the
world and all the criminal justice systems, which country does he
think should be the model that Canada might look at? Which
country's model is closest in its thinking and philosophy? I
would like to hear that from the member.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am no expert on the
criminal laws of other jurisdictions, so I would not propose any
single model. I suggest that a made in Canada solution is
probably the best. We have different conditions, different
circumstances which we should consider in framing our own
criminal justice laws. I think that question probably is not
relevant.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
speaking to different parts of the motion, but I am first going
to make some general comments.
The member said that he does not know much about criminal
justice models around the world. I suggest that the member is
correct. I suggest that the Reform Party knows little about
criminal justice models around the world and if Reform members
do, we would like to have them stand in the House and tell us
which system they would like to see us model our system on. Would
it be Europe? Would it be the United States? Would it be South
Africa? Would it be Texas? Which?
One of the problems when we enter into this type of debate is
that members of the official opposition ends up trafficking in a
lot of fiction. By saying that I mean they would misrepresent a
situation of crime and the number of victims in this country as
to how we compare to other countries.
The Reform Party would have us believe that our Young Offenders
Act is the most lenient act around. For the record, our Young
Offenders Act incarcerates 15 times as many young people as
similar acts in New Zealand and Australia, 10 times as many young
people as in western Europe and even twice as many young people
as in the United States. Our Young Offenders Act is more punitive
to young people than an adult charged with the same kind of
crime. Young offenders spend more time in jail for a crime than
adults do in the adult system.
When I say that the official opposition is trafficking in
fiction, that is exactly what I mean.
It is nice for the Reform Party to go around and say there is a
fear of crime in this country and that people should not be
afraid. Every one of us in the House would agree that one victim
is one victim too many, that one crime is one crime too many.
The reality is that the crime rate has been dropping over the
years. It has been progressively going down. Compared to the
United States, our crime rate is much lower. Canadians feel much
safer in this country than they do in the United States. Every
example calling for tougher sentencing and dealing more toughly
with law breakers always points to the American model.
One of the biggest fears people have of crime involves the use
of guns. That is why the government put in place gun
registration, which I must say is being ignored and was not
supported by the Reform Party.
I want to touch on immigration. Immigration has certainly been
a greatly exploited topic by the folks on the other side.
1545
The safety and security of Canadians are a concern of the
government. Through the immigration program numerous measures
have been undertaken to ensure that criminals do not enter and
that those who have entered have no right to remain and are
removed.
This undesirable group, however, represents a small fraction of
the total number of visitors and immigrants that come to Canada.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada strives to ensure public
safety while facilitating the entry of legitimate travellers. It
is difficult to balance.
Last year alone 110 million people crossed our borders to enter
Canada. Many of them were Canadian citizens returning home, as
well as visitors, immigrants, foreign students and refugees.
Security screening is used for all those who are entering Canada.
Toward the goal of public safety there are three screens in place
to guard against illegal entry and to identify those who should
not be here.
Before I continue, I will be splitting my time with the member
for Erie—Lincoln and I look forward to his contribution.
At the international level a screening occurs. Those wishing to
come to Canada as visitors or immigrants are scrutinized when
they apply for a visa. Immigration control officers working in
Canadian embassies and missions abroad ensure that security and
health checks are done. It is at the international level that we
have formed partnerships with foreign governments to help confirm
the identities of foreign criminals and to prevent them from
coming to Canada. The problem of illegal migration is a global
one with crime rings operating beyond national borders. It is
therefore necessary to work toward solutions at the international
level.
A second screen is conducted at the Canadian border where
Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials and those of Revenue
Canada deal with incoming travellers. The use of computer
databases has helped greatly in establishing identification,
ensuring that those seeking to enter Canada have not been
previously arrested or removed. The work at these border
crossings and airports is a key element in our defence against
illegal entry.
The third type of screening goes on within Canada with the
co-operative work of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the
RCMP, and all Canadian police forces. This inland screening is
an ongoing process that makes use of shared databases and
immigration warrants. Often something as routine as a traffic
stop allows an officer to determine immigrant status and possibly
the existence of warrants.
It is this information sharing with police forces across the
country that has allowed Citizenship and Immigration Canada to
identify and remove criminals and those without status in Canada.
I remind members opposite that the removal of foreign criminals
and failed refugee claimants has increased steadily over the last
four years.
In 1998, 8,012 people were removed from Canada. This represents
an increase of 67% from 1995 when citizenship and immigration
effected 4,798 removals.
While there is much to commend in the current Immigration Act
there are avenues for improvement. Changes are now being
considered. On January 6 this year the minister proposed new
directions for immigration legislation and policy. Under these
proposals the system would be improved by clearly defining who is
admissible to Canada, by creating new inadmissible classes, and
by enhancing the capacity of government to remove people who have
no right to establish themselves in Canada. Also among the
proposals is the removal of a level of appeal for serious
criminals as well as those people who obtain permanent resident
status through misrepresentation.
As we advance with these proposed changes I look forward to the
contributions of members opposite so that we might recognize the
efficiencies and improve the Immigration Act.
There is no question that we have problems in enforcement in
terms of having people who come to the country that commit
offences.
1550
When we look at our immigration policies over the years we have
to recognize that we have a country with a population of 30
million. Something like six million people were not born here.
We have a generous acceptance of refugees which is both humane
and generous. Beyond that, the number of people who involve
themselves in criminal activity compared to the whole is very
small.
People look at Canada overall as being a nation of immigrants. I
can look around the House and say there are 47 members who were
born outside Canada. A number of people were refugees and are
represented pretty well in all parties.
Canada is a nation that was built on immigration. If we look at
the status we occupy in the world because of this reality, we
have to say that our policies overall, which will get some
improvement, have served the country very well.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member talked about crime decreasing, but youth violent crime has
been rising, as I am sure the member knows, particularly among
young women. If he doubts that, he can get on the Internet and
look up the website for North Shore News. He will find an
article within the last two weeks with plenty of statistics for
the Vancouver area.
In addition, the member talked about how Citizenship and
Immigration Canada strives to protect Canada's borders and to do
screening during entry. Yesterday afternoon on Vancouver's top
radio station, CKNW, a Mr. Johnston from Citizenship and
Immigration Canada was on the line for an hour. I invite the
member to call in and get a transcript of the program. He will
find out that it is just not so.
Certainly fingerprints of refugee claimants are taken at the
port of entry. What happens is that those fingerprints are sent
to Ottawa where they are hardly ever checked. During a recent
drug arrest in downtown Vancouver when 80 Honduran refugee
claimants were arrested for drug trafficking, a local policeman
from the Vancouver area took it upon himself to check the
criminal records of these claimants. He found that 20% of them
had criminal records in the United States. Yet here they were
coming into Canada. It is absolute bunkum.
The member would have us believe that things are getting better
by talking about how the number of deportations has risen 67%. I
am not the least bit surprised. Probably the number of criminals
getting into Canada has gone up by at least 67%. If the member
doubts it, he needs only to come out west, take a little visit to
the Vancouver area and find a dose of reality, what is really
happening out there.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member
opposite that I go out west twice a year. I stay for about a
week at a time. When we first came to Canada we lived in
Vancouver, including North Vancouver. I have returned there on
many occasions.
If the member does not believe that the crime rates are
dropping, there is not a whole lot I can do about it. I can only
suggest to him that he read the facts.
People abusing our immigration system is a problem at times. The
member continually refers to the Honduran claimants. Whether or
not those people are kept in custody when they are apprehended or
charged is a decision made by the local courts. It is important
for the member to understand that. If the local courts believe
that the person will commit another offence or not show up for
the next hearing, the person will be kept in custody.
I implore the member to read the statistics so that he
understands that the crime rate has been dropping not just in
Canada but in the United States and in western Europe as well.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my hon. friend from
the Reform Party was suggesting that while overall crime has
certainly decreased in Canada—thank goodness for that—violent
crime involving young people appears not to have decreased.
As a matter of fact it appears to have been somewhat on the
increase. I think that is the point my friend was making about
young people and violent crime which make the headlines.
1555
There is unquestionably a problem with current immigration
policies. He reminded us how generous Canada is. Indeed we are
possibly the most generous country in the world in terms of
welcoming folks into our country, in particular refugees.
I am concerned about two issues. One is about the number of
people who come to Canada allegedly on a temporary visa and are
guaranteed by a sponsor, or someone sponsors them, and then
decide to go underground or abandon that process. We are left
holding the tab and the sponsor is left not knowing where his
colleague or relative is. Also there are people who sponsor
people to come into the country and then essentially abandon that
sponsorship.
When persons sponsor an individual, or guarantee that an
individual is coming for a wedding, for a visit or whatever, has
the hon. member given any thought to their posting a bond so that
in the event the visitor chooses not to be a visitor the bond
would be forfeited to help cover some of the costs that accrue to
Canadian citizens? If a—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but we are out of time for questions
and comments.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon.
member that we will be reviewing the act. What he suggests in
terms of bonds, in terms of sponsoring visitors, is certainly one
area that will be discussed and actually has been discussed by
some people. That is working in the criminal justice system as
far as sureties and posting of bonds are concerned, which will be
worthwhile looking at when we review the act.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to what I would call an omnibus
resolution which certainly covers a plethora of criminal items.
However I would like to concentrate my remarks on the subject of
correctional facilities. It is after all perhaps the most high
profile, most expensive and in many ways most important feature
of our correctional system today.
As hon. members know, we have a great variety of correctional
facilities operated by both levels of government, the provinces
and the federal government, and in some cases by the voluntary
sector. At the federal level we have institutions varied by
security level: maximum, medium and minimum security levels. In
addition Correctional Service Canada operates halfway houses
called community correctional centres and contracts with the
voluntary sector to operate other halfway houses called community
residential facilities.
This was not always the case. Until about 1960 the system
consisted of nine Gothic maximum security institutions built
decades ago. Some of those structures are still with us today.
However it was realized that the vast array of individual
differences among offenders required an array of correctional
approaches if the system was to achieve its fundamental principal
purpose, that of protecting the public.
Public protection requires safe and secure custody which I can
assure hon. members is well achieved by today's system of
institutions and inmate classifications. It also requires
programming that prepares offenders for their eventual release
back into society and conducts that release in a careful and
gradual manner. This too is achieved very successfully today.
The variety of institutional styles that exist allow for
placement of offenders at the security level and with access to
the correctional programs they require. By providing programs
such as anger management, substance abuse reduction, psychiatric
treatment and counselling, offenders can be helped to overcome
the factors that caused them to adapt criminal patterns in the
first place. They can be tested and observed to ensure that they
are overcoming these factors. They can be carefully supervised
as they move from prison back into the community.
We often hear about initiatives in other countries to privatize
correctional institutions. This is not a course of action that
has been adopted by the federal government. Nor does available
evidence about the experience in other countries justify doing
so. However it is often not realized to what extent we already
have partnerships with the private voluntary sector.
1600
Through arrangements with organizations such as the Salvation
Army, the John Howard Society, the St. Leonard's Society and many
others a network of halfway houses is operated to supervise and
assist offenders as they make their first important steps back
into the community.
Some may say we should not be releasing offenders into the
community as freely as they allege we do. I ask them if it would
be better to hold those offenders until the very last day of
their sentences and then thrust them back on the community
anonymously, without supervision, support or controls. I submit
that we in Canada have chosen a better way, gradual release with
conditions, supervision and assistance after a careful assessment
of risk.
Almost all offenders will return to the community. Our system
of justice demands it. After serving prescribed sentences most
offenders must be returned to the community. We have little
choice about that. The choice we have is how that release will
take place and how it can be made as safe as possible, not just
for the immediate future but for the long term. Treatment, risk
assessment, careful release planning and graduated movement
through several security levels and then into the community is
the way to achieve the goal of public safety.
The record demonstrates the validity of this approach. Of all
the 5,000 offenders released each year on some form of
conditional release, 90% complete the balance of the sentence
without committing a new offence. This record of a successful
completion of conditional release has improved steadily during
recent years. This is strong support for the approach we have
adopted.
There are those who would measure the criminal justice system by
only one test, how much punishment it dispenses and whether it is
constantly being made tougher on offenders. Obviously those who
break the law can and should expect to pay a price and to receive
an appropriate sanction. If the purpose of the criminal justice
system is to uphold society's values it must be seen to give
appropriate weight to the offender's transgression.
Is our penal system perfect? No. Can it be improved? Surely
it can. The government is responding. As we speak here today an
all-party subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights is studying this issue. It is reviewing the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It is inspecting
custodial facilities across this land. It is hearing from all
the stakeholders, the prison population, the frontline
corrections officers, the guards, prison administration, victims
groups, prosecutors and members of the general public, among
others. It is seeking the opinion and the advice of these people.
It is drawing on the experience of these individuals who deal on
a daily basis with Correctional Service Canada.
After the subcommittee completes its investigation and studies
it will prepare a report for the House and the solicitor general.
If necessary, legislative change will be proposed and debated in
the House. I am confident this nationwide consultation on the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act will improve the overall
effectiveness of Canada's correctional system.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member spent a lot of time telling us about how the government is
consulting with this group, that group and the other group. All
I can say from my observation of almost six years here in the
House is that the Liberal government for all the consultation it
has ever done has never taken the slightest bit of notice of the
input it receives from ordinary Canadians.
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I would strongly disagree
with that suggestion. I was a member of the justice committee,
as was the member for Crowfoot. We did a comprehensive study of
the Young Offenders Act. As a result of that a report was
prepared, filed in the House and given to the Minister of Justice
who responded to it. We have recently seen a new youth justice
criminal act which has considered many of the points we put
forward in that report.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, has the
government looked at the reasons we have such a problem these
days with our young people? I get really worried when I hear
there is to be a debate on whether we might legalize marijuana if
only for health care use.
1605
Once we do that we also send a message to young people that
marijuana is all right for them to use as well. We have to look
at the drug situation which is terrible. It is the worst I have
ever seen in Canada.
When they took out the port police in my riding of Saint John,
New Brunswick I told them we would have cocaine like never
before. We have cocaine houses all over the city. They were
never there before. Because of the drug situation we have the
break-up of families.
We have to look at what is causing this problem with youth
crime. It comes from drugs and break-up of families. We have to
see how we can solidify that family unit. Have they looked at
this? What steps will they take to correct this terrible ailment
we have in society today?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on
her question as well as on her dress today. It is very
appropriate as we lead into St. Patrick's Day. I think the
question was what are we doing to prevent these matters.
Last year the Minister of Justice announced a crime prevention
initiative directed toward children whereby we set aside 1% of
the justice department budget, which would amount to roughly $32
million, for crime protection initiatives. These programs are
now starting to come to fruition.
I agree with the member that drugs are a horrendous problem with
our youth. Something must be done about it. There must be
stricter enforcement. We must get to the suppliers of these
illicit items. That is not only within Canada but beyond our
borders. We must cut off the flow from these countries. We are
working together with many of our international partners to cut
off the flow of drugs to this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague, the
member for Erie—Lincoln.
He says that 10% of the 5,000 inmates released each year
reoffend. There are therefore 500 of them who will commit an
offence in the months or years following their release.
If our communities are not affected by these 500 individuals, we
can easily turn a blind eye. But when we see the terrible
crimes they commit, we would be entitled to ask the following
question, which I am going to put to the member for Erie—Lincoln:
Could he tell us what specifically his government is doing to
prepare inmates who will be released before serving their full
sentence?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Even 1% would be too much. There is no
question about that.
While these inmates are in prison they receive treatment. There
is a careful release planning. They move from maximum security
to medium security to minimum security, then to a half-way house.
They are supervised and observed at all stages. If the
individual is known to be at risk or thought to be at risk they
are not released. That is an important factor to take into
consideration. It is a graduated movement through various
security levels into the community.
It is eminently better than having them serve their full
sentence and then bang, out on the street, like a caged animal
most likely to behave in a much more serious manner than perhaps
the 10% who do manage to reoffend. It may be a small offence or
whatever but they are very strict on them.
I have heard from some of these offenders today in our
committee. For a very slight offence they are back in. They may
have consumed a glass of alcohol and they are back in prison.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion today. We have heard members from
the official opposition and other parties present their case in
several areas.
1610
What I want to talk about today is the problem we have with
crime and how it relates to problems in the immigration system.
When we look at the warnings and the variety of people who have
commented on the problem, we will see it is quite a wide problem.
Ward Elcock, director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence
Service, CSIS, and the attorney general for British Columbia have
made some very strong statements on the problems with criminals
finding their way into our country through our immigration and
refugee system. We also have statements from several previous
officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I
will use some quotes from some of these people.
We have statements by law enforcement officers about the
problems they have in dealing with the crime that is caused by
bogus refugee claimants who come into our country under less than
honourable terms. We even have Liberal members of parliament who
have made some very strong statements on the weaknesses in our
immigration system and how that leads to crime. I will quote
from one or two Liberal members later.
Who pays the price for the problems in our immigration system
and for the crime that comes to our country as a result of a
broken system? Canadians pay the price. It is Canadians who are
having their lives destroyed due to drug abuse. They can find a
ready supply of drugs from, for example, bogus Honduran refugee
claimants on the streets of Vancouver.
Many times it is new Canadians who are intimidated and forced to
pay protection from the criminal element that finds its way into
their communities from their country of origin. These are the
very people from whom new Canadians have escaped by leaving
their homelands.
These people are now here in our country and the same type
of organized crime has followed them.
New immigrant communities pay a price in another way. We have
all read story after story about problems with our immigration
and refugee system which allow criminals to get into our country
so easily. As we hear, read and see those stories on television,
we know that it reflects negatively on the new immigrant
population as a whole. I think that is sad. The new immigrant
population is tarnished because of a small percentage of
criminals who find their way into our country so easily through
our immigration system. Canadians right across this country are
victims of this problem and it must be dealt with.
I mentioned the problem with the drug trade in Vancouver, in
particular the problem with Honduran people who come to Canada
claiming refugee status which are bogus claims. That they are in
our country is a problem in itself. How did they get to our
country? We do not have proper resources up front to
screen and so on, but I will talk a bit about some of the
solutions at the end of my presentation. However, there is no
doubt this is a problem.
I quote the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam who stated recently
that refugee claimants convicted of dealing drugs should be
deported immediately with no review or appeal allowed to drag
things out.
That is from a Liberal member who has recognized the problem.
1615
We do not have the proper resources upfront. Therefore, people
are finding their way into our country who should not be here.
They should be screened by the process.
Our process is lenient and dragged out, and we allow so
many appeals that we cannot get people who have been targeted and
named as undesirables by the immigration department out of the
country. That is what led the Liberal member to make the
statement that they should be deported immediately, with no
review or appeal allowed to drag things out.
The attorney general for British Columbia has stated “If you
are abusing the hospitality of Canada by committing crimes, you
should be deported forthwith”. He is very frustrated with this
problem, in particular, but he is also frustrated with other
problems, some of which I will touch on later.
A Vancouver staff sergeant stated recently that people who come
in, flaunt our refugee system and sell poison to our children
should be deported immediately. This again is frustration
speaking. He goes on to say “I am disgusted that the system did
not take action long ago”. Many of us have heard quotes like
this. It is not really a quote that stands alone. This is a
problem that we should not ignore.
When it is narrowed down, the most visible drug problem is that
of the Honduran drug dealers in Vancouver. However, there are
many others involved in organized crime which I will touch on a
bit later.
Members have to be even more concerned when they find that the
immigration minister and her department came down on a member of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who made statements that are
completely honest on this issue.
What happened a couple of weeks ago was that RCMP Constable Mark
Applejohn suggested that refugee claimants be fingerprinted and
detained until their prints are run through police databases for
criminal checks. He stated that immigration laws are lax and
cumbersome, allowing claimants who have broken the law to stay in
Canada while their claims continue.
How does the immigration department respond? Chris Taylor, who
is head of western services for the immigration department, said
“I consider these comments to reflect breaches of the code of
conduct and the oath of allegiance of the RCMP”.
Instead of the department attacking the problem, it attacks RCMP
officers who are frustrated. They do not have the tools they
need to deal with the problem. The immigration department and
the immigration minister are too weak to do something about it.
In five years we have had no legislation whatsoever to deal with
the problem.
The frustration is bound to show. This RCMP officer should not
be criticized and attacked by the head of western services,
backed up by the minister in the House and in committee. Instead
of attacking the police for making statements that are completely
correct, the government should attack the problem. I think it is
sad that has not been done.
Another issue that has become huge is people smuggling. The
former solicitor general spoke at a chiefs of police conference a
couple of months ago. He said “This study estimates that
between 8,000 and 16,000 people arrive in Canada each year with
the assistance of people smugglers”. This estimate is probably
very low. He said “The human costs are staggering when we
consider that these people are vulnerable, often exploited,
socially isolated and sometimes forced to engage in criminal
activity just to survive”. This is a problem which not only
causes severe harm to this country, but also to the people who
are exploited.
Often people smuggling is done by organized crime groups such as
the triads and most recently Russian organized crime that has
found its way to this country.
There are some common solutions to the problem. Some of them
have been set out by police. For example, when all refugee
claimants are fingerprinted, why do we not simply cross-check
these fingerprints with our internal police forces first and then
with the police forces from other countries, including the
country of origin.
1620
Many other solutions have been proposed and I would be happy to
talk about those at some future time. I appreciate the time I
was given to make a few comments on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the speaker who came before my hon. colleague from
Lakeland, the member for Erie—Lincoln, 10 out of 100 prisoners
obtaining early release could commit a repeat offence afterward.
On the other hand, my colleague from Lakeland focussed mainly on
immigrants.
There are very few immigrants in my rural riding, in the eastern
townships, in Beauce, in the area around Quebec City. Among
those we have welcomed is Dominico Staniscia, an Italian
gentleman who has been responsible for creating twenty or so
jobs, and who is known pretty well all over Quebec.
Then there is Catherine Ballas, who employs more than 30 people.
In Milan, there is Jacques Benoît, a VIP in that municipality.
Disraëli owes a number of jobs to Denis Spiratos.
In Lac-Mégantic, there are 18 Serbian families helping out their
community. They are putting their culture and training to use,
at minimum wage, to help others and to help themselves adapt to
life here.
All of these people have managed to master French, while
retaining their mother tongue.
I would ask the hon. member for Lakeland if he is not getting a
bit carried away. Is he not laying too much blame at the feet
of the immigrants, when he refers to the trade in illegal
immigrants to this country? He has even suggested a figure of
16,000. It is all very fine to bandy numbers about, but there
is no need for scaremongering.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the
question because it gives me a chance to clear up what I did say.
I want to make it very clear that the problem is not immigrants,
nor is the problem legitimate refugee claimants. This government
and this minister have allowed our system to continue to be
completely ineffective. In five years there has not been a bit
of legislation to help solve the problem.
It is a few. We do not know how many because no stats are kept,
or at least they are not allowed to be released to the public.
The 15,000 or 16,000 that I mentioned are only a small part of
the problem. It is not the immigrants or refugees generally; it
is bogus refugee claimants, the people who abuse our system, who
come here with less than honourable intentions in mind.
The problem is that the system is so lax that it allows in too
many people who come here to commit crimes. I am not only
talking about local crime, I am also talking about organized
crime. It has become a huge problem. I am talking about
terrorism which is growing in this country to the point that the
head of CSIS says that Canada is a country which harbours more
terrorists than any other country except the United States. It
is a big problem.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
believe one of the biggest shortcomings that I have viewed in our
justice system is the treatment of aboriginal people or the
disproportionate representation of aboriginal people within the
system.
I noted a startling figure recently. In 1969, in the Kingston
Penitentiary for women, 100% of the population was aboriginal.
Recommendations were made by the aboriginal justice inquiry that
came out of Manitoba and recommendations were made by the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which deal with aboriginal
involvement in the justice system.
Would the Reform member and his party agree that we should be
pushing for the implementation of the recommendations of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as they pertain to the
disproportionate representation in our penal system and in the
justice system?
1625
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the question does not
relate to the presentation I gave, but I am all too happy to
respond to it.
What I would like to say is that the Reform Party for five years
now has been proposing solutions to this problem. We are not
going to solve the problem with more programs which may help to
deal with the problem after it has developed. We are going to
solve the problem by allowing aboriginal people to give
themselves more control over their own destiny. Until that
happens this problem will never be solved.
It starts with proper accountability, on the reserves in
particular; proper accountability by chiefs and councils on the
reserves, some of whom are abusing the trust given to them by
people on the reserves. We have a list of well over 100 reserves
across the country that have very serious problems with
accountability. The money that goes to the aboriginal people is
not going to the people who desperately need it. There is very
little being done to help develop the economy, for example, so
that these people can dig themselves out of this problem which
has gotten worse and worse over the last 30 to 40 years.
Until we deal with the cause of the problem we are not going to
be able to do anything in an effective way to deal with the
problem of too many aboriginal people finding their way into our
prisons.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, DEVCO; the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the
hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canada Port
Authorities; the hon. member for Davenport, Housing.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the Reform supply day
motion.
There are two ways we can deal with crime. We can manage it or
we can prevent it. Inevitably, it is a combination of both
within the context of our justice system. However, I would
submit that what we have done over the past several decades is
placed our focus on the management of the problem and we have
utterly failed in our ability to prevent it.
If we look at what has been taking place not only within Canada
but around the world, we see that there have been some innovative
programs which have been developed to prevent crime. One of
those programs is in Moncton.
Last spring this House passed a private member's motion that I
put forth calling for a national head start program. This
program would take the best from programs found in Moncton,
Hawaii, Michigan, the United States; programs which have been
proven to decrease child abuse by 99%, which keep kids in school
longer, which have dropped youth crime by 50%, which have
decreased teen pregnancies by 40% and which have saved the
taxpayer $30,000 per child.
New scientific data shows very clearly that when a child is
subjected in the first eight years of life to issues such as drug
abuse, sexual abuse, violence, or even to more subtle things such
as improper parenting or the absence of parenting, it has a
dramatic negative impact upon the development of that child's
brain. The neurological development of that child's brain is
impeded, which has a dramatic negative effect when the child
becomes a teenager and later an adult.
When we look at prison populations we find that large chunks of
the prison populations were subjected to violent sexual abuse and
such in the course of their childhood. While that does not
exonerate them from the crimes they committed, therein lies
perhaps some truths and perhaps some answers as to how we can
prevent these people from becoming criminals.
Work that was done by the minister of labour and her husband in
Moncton shows very clearly that when we enable children and
parents to come together, when parents learn how to be good
parents and ensure that children in the first eight years of life
have the basic building blocks to enable them to have their basic
needs met, they have a much greater chance of becoming
productive, integrated members of society.
Remove those or destroy the ability of that child to develop and
we have the problems that I mentioned before such as criminal
abuse.
1630
The Moncton head start program was focused on having parents
involved in children's behaviour, teaching proper nutrition,
proper discipline and what it means to be a loving, caring
parent. One would be surprised to know that in some communities
parents do not know that because they were never taught it or
brought up in that environment. Where that is lacking in a
child's development the impact can be dramatic and profoundly
tragic at times. Not all children who are subjected to that wind
up with deleterious effects, but it happens all too often.
The Perry preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, has been in
existence for some 30 years. It shows very carefully that when
children's basic needs are met we save $30,000 per child. There
was also a 50% reduction in teen pregnancies which we know is a
route to poverty for many young women and their children.
The Hawaii head start program uses a very innovative tool which
I think we could employ in our country. It uses trained
volunteers, primarily women in their fifties who have had
children. These women were actually integrated with families at
risk. They developed a co-operative integrated relationship with
those families.
What was the outcome? There was a 99% drop in child abuse among
those children. We see a dramatic benefit at the level of child
abuse. At the level of society now, with a large number of
babies boomers in the fifties and sixties age groups, maybe there
is a way of utilizing their valuable experience in parenting to
help those in our community who are less able to do it.
If we are able to integrate that group of people in the way that
has been done in Hawaii it would be very cheap and the profound,
dramatic and positive effects on children would be amazing. We
would have a paradigm shift in our thinking on social programs
from one of the management of problems to the prevention of
problems.
Through the head start motion I am not asking for the feds to
take on the responsibility of having a national program with lots
of money being poured into it, but that the ministers merely ask
their provincial counterparts beforehand to come together at a
meeting to find out what works in their provinces and what does
not. By asking them to come to the table it will force the
provinces to rationalize their programs, in which case they can
remove what is not working and keep what is.
There are many programs in provinces that are done in a
hodgepodge fashion that work very well for families at risk.
There are also some programs that are not working well. It
behoves all of us as legislators to find out what is working well
and what is not. It is our responsibility to the taxpayer to do
that.
By calling their provincial counterparts together the federal
ministers can sit down at a table, work together and have an
integrated approach with cost sharing between the feds and the
provinces. The amount of money required for this would be
minimum.
At point zero we could use the medical community. In the middle
we could use trained volunteers. At the age of four through
eight we could use the education system. By working with the
provinces and the feds we could have an integrated approach which
would help not only families at risk but families that are doing
financially well with children who are not doing well.
One of the more subtle elements that we are not taking into
consideration in our communities is latch-key children. Those
children, despite coming from backgrounds that are privileged,
have subtle psychological changes taking place within them
because they do not have parenting.
Money is not the most important thing in the development of a
child. It is good parenting. Children have their basic needs
met in a loving, caring and secure environment. Perhaps the
proof is in the pudding. Let us look at the number of immigrant
families that come to our country with very little from a
monetary perspective but have strong parenting skills. Their
children are privileged to have such parents.
1635
I grew up in environment in which there was very little money. I
was very lucky to have parents with strong parenting skills. All
of us who were privileged to have such parents know the value of
what they gave us. They may not have given much in terms of
monetary goods but they gave us a loving and caring environment
and society in which to live. For that we are grateful.
Many colleagues on the other side have a great deal of expertise
and experience. Many ministers and members of parliament on the
other side have worked very hard on this issue. The Minister of
Labour has worked very hard and has been a leader with her
husband in this regard. The Secretary of State for Children and
Youth has worked very hard in her aboriginal community to make
this a reality as many members have done.
I challenge us to work together on the issue and make a national
head start program a reality. If we were to do this, it would
probably be the greatest thing we could do for children and for
Canadian society in the future. By doing so we would radically
change the way we think from the management of these problems to
their prevention. No longer would we see half the people in jail
suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects,
the leading cause of preventable birth defects.
These individuals are suffering from irreversible brain damage.
Their average IQ is 68. They cannot integrate and function
properly. When they go to school they are at a loss. They are
often marginalized, picked on and left in the periphery. As a
result their problems are merely compounded as time passes. While
not all of them will become criminals by any stretch of the
imagination, a disproportionate number of them have an enormous
amount of difficulty becoming integrated productive members of
society.
I know my time is up. There is much more to say not only on
this issue but on the RCMP and truth in sentencing. I will close
with a plug for the RCMP. For Heaven's sake, please fund them.
They are not getting the resources they need. The CPIC computer
is ready to fall apart. My colleagues have mentioned many
constructive solutions which the RCMP need to enable them to do
their job. If we do not give them the support they require, they
will not be able to support our community.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech. He puts many of
these issues back into a realm where reality reigns. He talks
about the true nature of many of the problems and the
predeterminants of some of the situations, especially of young
people with different disadvantages which lead them to a later
involvement in a system of justice that perhaps is not the best
suited to the correction of problems at that stage.
Many members of the official opposition constantly cry out for
longer sentences and what would appear to be much harsher
penalties. Would the hon. member agree that perhaps not only tax
dollars would be saved but real results could be obtained if
instead of lengthier sentences some efforts went toward better
use of money, behaviour modification and wrap-around systems with
productive results for the child and society as a whole?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know the member who asks
the question has had a long interest in this issue. Many of my
colleagues are dividing children who commit crimes into two
sections. There are those who are violent criminals and have
been proven to repeat violent offences against innocent
civilians. Those people have demonstrated their wilful neglect
of innocent Canadians. We want harsher penalties for them
because we feel the primary role of the justice system is the
protection of society, not rehabilitation. We put protection
first and rehabilitation second.
That is not to say we are not interested in rehabilitation. In
fact we are. The member for Surrey North introduced a private
member's bill which the Minister of Justice integrated into her
young offenders bill.
1640
That bill provided for younger children between the ages of 10
and 11 to be tried under the Young Offenders Act. The reason was
not to have punitive measures enacted against individuals. The
reason was to ensure that children at 10 and 11 years of age
would have the benefits of our judicial system in terms of what
the hon. member mentioned.
How do we treat these problems? The sooner we can treat the
problems, the better chance we will have of the child not
becoming a lifetime criminal and prevent a lot of problems in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague in the Reform Party would like, and this is legendary
in this party, extremely harsh and long sentences, which, as my
colleague in the party opposite so nicely put it, cost society a
bundle.
I have two suggestions for my colleague. Would it not be a good
idea first to consider full employment? Having each Canadian
working? Work gets the brain going.
Second, education is a virtue. Unfortunately, our government is
hanging on to significant sums that should be going toward
education. We should start educating people when they are very
young to get them used to working and living honourably.
Would my colleague in the Reform Party not consider these two
solutions rather than invest huge sums to put people in prison
for crimes often starting with petty larceny? Success at it
leads to greater and greater crimes, and after 10 or 12 years in
crime, an individual becomes a powerful criminal and heads into
violent crime.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Quebecois
colleague for his question.
[English]
I want to correct the hon. member on one pervasive myth about
the Reform Party. Many of our members have been in the forefront
of being advocates for the prevention of criminal activity and
for using innovative methods of dealing with non-violent crime.
However, for individuals who have participated in violent
criminal activity and have proven to be a danger to society, the
Reform Party says that the primary objective of the justice
system is to protect innocent civilians. That is why we believe
pedophiles should be locked up. We believe people who are repeat
violent offenders should be locked up for a long time.
We also believe that for individuals committing petty crimes we
should find alternative, non-custodial ways of dealing with them.
We also feel there should be innovative ways of dealing with drug
problems. For example, instead of incarcerating individuals we
should do what was done in Scandinavia.
The post-needle park Geneva experiment is perhaps the most
effective and successful method of getting hard core drug abusers
off the street. In a one year period of time there was at least
a 50% or 60% success rate in terms of having hard core drug
abusers out of jail, in society, working, and off drugs. There
is no other program like it in the world. That is what the
Reform Party is pushing for, along with many other innovative
ways of dealing with crime.
We very much support the aboriginal initiatives and some of the
methods that aboriginal communities use to deal with non-violent
crime. It is something that we could all learn from.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I wish to point
out that I will be sharing my time with the member for London
West.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to debate
justice issues. Before solutions can be found to certain
problems, we must first ensure that the problems are correctly
identified. It happens that there are a number of myths about
justice, and these myths get in the way of solutions.
1645
Obviously, one of these myths is that parole is a very bad thing
because of recidivism. This is a widespread myth, but a myth
nonetheless, for it is not true.
I will give a very simple example. The success rate of
supervised or unsupervised temporary absences is 98%; this is
not a failure. The success rate for paroles is 89.2%. I think
that one would be relatively satisfied with a mark of 89.2% on a
school exam.
These myths are detrimental to the entire justice debate. Over
the last five years, the number of violent offences committed by
inmates released on parole dropped by 70%.
I repeat: the number of violent offences committed by inmates
released on parole dropped by 70%.
Because of these myths, suggestions are very often made, and
unfortunately I must point out that they come primarily from
certain members of the Reform Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party. These proposals are very simplistic: lock
the criminals up for as long as possible and everything will be
fine.
This is a simplistic solution. If offenders are locked up, they
are not hurting the public and the public will therefore be
safe. With all due respect, this is absolutely not the case,
and I will explain why.
When a person commits a criminal offence and is sentenced to
jail, if the jail term is used to prepare that person to better
understand the world and to reintegrate it, when that individual
will regain his freedom, he will behave like a law-abiding
citizen. This is the best guarantee for public safety.
An inmate who is released without any preparation after spending
10 or 15 years in jail, is not at all prepared to deal with the
outside world. In these cases, the chance that the individual
will reoffend is understandably greater, which means the risk is
also greater.
Whether the issue is impaired driving, which we are discussing
right now, whether it is Bill C-251 on cumulative sentences,
whether it is the bill that we just tabled regarding young
offenders, the reaction of some people in this House is
invariably the same, namely that we must take harsher measures,
provide more penalties, impose stiffer sentences.
I submit that these are very primary reactions, which are based
on myths and perceptions, not on reality. There is no doubt that
there are some erroneous perceptions among the public, and that
we have to correct them. However, it would be a fundamental
mistake to want to use the justice system to correct such
perceptions. If the perceptions are wrong, then we have to
change these perceptions, not the justice system.
In this connection, I would just like to point out that I have
had a number of interesting experiences since becoming the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. In
particular, I asked to sit in on a parole board hearing. This
was at Laval. As it happened, the person who was entitled to
apply for eligibility for parole was someone who had been given
a life sentence for murder.
I listened to the deliberations, and everything was more or less
predictable, except for a reference made at one point to an
event that had occurred several weeks or months before, when the
inmate in question had made a section 745 request to appear
before the board.
1650
A member of the victim's family was in attendance. This person
turned to the inmate and said “You hurt me very much, but I
forgive you”. The 42-year old inmate, a tough and hardened man,
burst into tears. He wanted just one thing, to discover how to
try to begin to make amends for the harm he had done.
This morning, in committee, where we are working on Bill C-251,
we had a similar experience.
Someone who had been found guilty of murder and has been on
parole for 9 years now works with young people in order to
prevent them from repeating the same serious mistakes. Is this
not an initiative with the greatest chance of successfully
ensuring public safety?
There are two ways of looking at things: one can take the
populist approach, and then when public concern starts to build,
put more people in jail, increase penalties and jail time; or
one can look at the true nature of things, which is that human
beings change and evolve, that they are capable of change and
the more they are helped to make changes, the more they are
helped to understand the constraints of society, the more they
will be brought to contribute to changing our society, and the
more they themselves will be in a position to help contribute to
public safety.
That is our position as government. It is not an easy one in
political terms. I am well aware that it is easier to say to
someone “Do not worry, the criminals are behind bars. There is
no problem”. Criminals do indeed have to pay for their crimes,
and they must serve time in jail, and prisons are necessary
because there must be retribution.
But this is not the only way. There is a combination of
approaches. Prison, detention, is one, reintegration through
community programs combines with that, as does awareness of
community needs and the role of victims too.
Is there anything more instructive for a criminal than to face
their victim? When I say face, I do not mean aggressively, but
face to face.
Previously, the victim had just been a number, someone they did
not know. Suddenly they meet and they talk.
The criminal gets a sense of the wrong he caused his victim, a
wrong in the victim's daily life and sometimes an irreparable
wrong. It allows the criminal to become so much more aware and
to contribute so much more or at least to have the opportunity
to contribute so much more to public security.
These are not easy problems. I would really hope that we do not
fall into simplistic solutions. There are no easy solutions.
But if I have to choose, I believe in human nature.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commence by saying how much I enjoyed the logic of my colleague
in his remarks just prior to this. There is logic to be utilized
when we are talking about a system of justice in Canada which
really is a pillar of our democracy, the justice system itself
and the way we deter those people going against the social values
of our communities.
There is logic to be utilized in the way that our justice system
relies on a due process of law so that evidence based reality
will prevail, the way that we have juries, our peer groups, to
make decisions and the way we have an independent judiciary
functioning every day across the country in court rooms helping
to ensure just results occur based on evidence.
That is a very difficult job. Over the last year it has
disturbed me greatly the number of occasions where more and more
in the press and in public discussion there has been something I
will term judge bashing.
1655
I think this is a serious situation. It does not help our
society. The judiciary is an arm of our system of government
that is doing what many of us in the House attempt to do by way
of public service to our communities.
The reason I have raised this is that if someone disagrees with
my views as a politician, be it in my community or during an
election campaign, it is fair game for them to target me and to
voice an opposite and sometime very harsh opinion of my views.
However, at the end of the day I have the ability to stand up
and defend myself by voicing my side of the same arguments. That
is something that is not available to justices and judges across
this land. Occasionally we will have, coming to their defence,
some of the organizations such as the bar or the attorneys
general. Historically it has been the attorneys general who take
on this role.
That position inside the judiciary to my mind is not a position
that is there for popularity. There is a service also to be done
if a judge points out a piece of legislation that in their view
is ambiguous or needs redefinition.
Some of us may agree that the view one is getting through a
newspaper article, which obviously does not have all the facts,
may be a situation that seems dead wrong. In that case,
thankfully in this country we have a system of appeal. It is
possible, in a very civilized and due process manner, to get a
further interpretation or, if necessary, our judicial system
provides us in this Chamber with the opportunity to change the
laws.
Unfortunately I have not had a chance all day to hear what has
been going on, but I want to stress that in Canada it is a shared
jurisdiction in areas that affect justice. Here in the Chamber
we can change the Criminal Code. We can put in a new act
concerning youth . We can do many things with respect to the
detail of the law.
However, when it touches the ground it has to be provincial or
territorial jurisdictions that take the administration of those
laws into the courtrooms.
We heard the Minister of Justice addressing the situation of
divergent groups and divergent positions across this country. I
believe that in reality the Canadian public in all the
communities across the land want the best for the safety of their
children and their families.
I therefore think we can all agree with the goals. I do not
think there is any party in the House that can take ownership of
feelings for victims as is often done by parties opposite and the
official opposition. All of us are concerned about our
constituents and their lives.
When one is addressing solutions in a justice situation, it is
very important to not only look at the back end, the enforcement
end, which often does not solve situations. What really has to
be there in full force and with a lot of resources is the crime
prevention end, the determinants of situations.
I know there are colleagues among in all parties who are singing
from the same songbook on crime prevention. If we dig a little
deeper we see situations where talk is cheap.
I just heard my hon. colleague across talking about the needs of
the aboriginal communities. I know these communities have great
needs. There are systemic problems in a system that would place
so many aboriginal youths in jail.
1700
The Reform Party taxpayers budget was going to remove $800
million from the resources going to aboriginal populations. It is
easy to say we support, we support, but when push comes to shove,
the support realistically has to be implemented with budgets that
are real and for a goal that has as its desired outcome a change
of behaviour or support for existing conditions.
I think specifically about fetal alcohol syndrome. More
resources need to be directed to the mother of the youth rather
than directed to the youth. Some of the contraindications of
partaking in alcohol affects taxpayers and communities and
particularly the affected child who pays throughout his or her
life. This is preventable. It is not going to be fixed by
enforcement. Never.
That is why we talk about the difference between a real solution
and the simplistic sound bite “Well, I am really going to fix
this because I am going to be tougher”.
In my city experiments are going on with sentencing circles,
youth justice circles. It is a new way of diverting youth from
the formalized court system especially with minor property
offences. It takes the example from the aboriginal community.
The aboriginal community started sentencing circles. They are
effectively working in London, Ontario today and they are being
expanded.
The circles involve the victim, community players, volunteers
from the community and the offender. In our case we are using it
for youth. There has to be an admission of a wrongdoing. There
has to be some sort of restitution. The committee itself in less
than a couple of hours has to come up with some sort of support
to wrap around the individual to help change his or her behaviour
or address the deficiencies in his or her life.
I have talked with many people who have sat on these sentencing
circles, including youth who are participating in them. They see
this as something that will work. They see the possibility of
rehabilitation.
There are many such examples. We have a crime prevention
initiative with $32 million ongoing. The resources that are
available to communities and their groups are not only those
enforcement resources. Yes, they are important and they serve a
function and there is a time and a place for them. Generally
speaking we want to modify unacceptable behaviour.
I have personal experience as a member of the Ontario Criminal
Code review board for six years. I dealt in a quasi-judicial
role with people who had very bad behaviour who through no fault
of their own but because of a mental incapacity were involved in
horrible acts against society. They needed to be there to
address some of the underlying forces.
I know that with my colleagues we will start addressing root
causes.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the member mentioned how pleased she was that we have an
independent judiciary. The fact is that many of our judiciary
are political patronage appointees, especially at the higher
levels. They are clearly setting out to accomplish a social
engineering agenda and the public does not like it.
As the member mentioned, she can be held accountable by the
voters. She has the opportunity to defend her record and to ask
her constituents to return her to this place. That is exactly
why Reform has suggested a more transparent and open process of
appointing judges. There really should be a system that more
publicly examines a person who is going to be in a judiciary
position so the public can have confidence in that person's
ability to be totally independent.
1705
Frankly I think perhaps a lot of the judges like the rule where
they cannot defend themselves because they cannot defend
themselves. They cannot defend the decisions they make, as being
completely out of touch with the community standards.
I have sat in the courts in North Vancouver and I have seen
plenty of decisions made that are completely out of touch with
the community standards. The people in the court have almost
booed at what has been done there. This is a problem that needs
to be addressed. It is as if the judges have become desensitized
over time because they have seen so much crime in their courts.
I refer the member to the case of New York which had a zero
tolerance policy. Taking care of the small things automatically
takes care of the big things. If there is a zero tolerance for
small crimes, the big crimes do not happen.
Finally, with respect to the aboriginal affairs situation,
around 250 Squamish band members have contacted me in relation to
Bill C-49. As part of that process a number of them submitted to
me budgets of the Squamish band. In one social services part of
that band budget which is supposed to look after children, the
budget is $1.5 million and almost $900,000 of it is used on
administration. The band members are complaining about it
because it is not flowing to the people who should be getting the
help.
That is the point Reform is making. There is plenty of money in
Indian and northern affairs. It is just not getting to the right
places.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, on those comments I would
not know where to start. There are so many issues that could be
addressed.
Suffice it to say that in every situation there are difficult
decisions for our judiciary. Unlike many people who have spoken
and the comments I have heard over the last year, I have respect
for the judiciary. I am very grateful that in Canada we have due
process of law.
Many I would call moves to shortcuts to make life easier. If
someone was charged in our household we would want full due
process of law and every opportunity for a proper defence. At the
end of the system we would want proper sanctioning.
Proper sanctioning has nothing to do with length of sentence. It
has to do with obtaining a result that will be better for the
safety of the community and which will work toward a
rehabilitation of the individual.
Public safety and security is of utmost importance. One of the
ways this is accomplished is through rehabilitation. The reality
is that most offenders will get out of the system. At the end of
the day as a society, do we want them better functioning when
they leave than when they went in, or do we just want them
hardened and bitter and without hope? At the end of the day they
are going to be members of our society.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General commented
earlier about how useful the parole system is in having some
limitation on whom people can engage with, where they must report
to, where they live. These are safeguards that are in the
system. If we checked the recidivism rates, we would actually
see that where there are no parole systems in place, the small
percentage of people where there is no parole provision, they are
the ones who are more likely to reoffend.
The hon. member has asked something about which I could talk for
hours addressing all of those situations. Suffice it to say that
I have a lot of faith in our democratic judicial system, a
democracy supporting an independent judicial system. I certainly
would never want to see elections for judges. I believe that
there is not a justice in this country appointed to the bench who
was not qualified.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
appears that I am lucky enough to be the last speaker for the
last few minutes on this debate. It is like being the hammer
rock in curling; hopefully if one is witty enough maybe one can
just clear house.
It has been far too broad and expansive a debate to even try to
summarize things. I would like to use these last few moments to
add a couple of points to what has already been put on the table.
1710
Everybody here will agree that crime, punishment, safety and
justice are issues we hear about in our ridings all the time. It
does not matter what our political stripe is. Canadians are
talking about them and Canadians want to talk about them.
I am always amazed at how with the same set of circumstances we
can come up with two so different sets of conclusions.
What we have heard for most of the day from the majority of the
Reform Party speakers is an ongoing barrage about tougher
enforcement, more boot camps, more prisons, lock them up and hang
them high. It hearkens back to the day when Spanky wanted to go
to Singapore, buy a stick and learn how to beat children better.
We really have not heard anything innovative from the Reform
Party, with the exception of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca who actually brought a very balanced approach to the whole
day. I am glad he spoke toward the end because there are many
parts of his remarks which I can certainly work with. The Reform
Party has one view of the world by and large. The member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is clearly in contrast with most of his
political party. He smiles in front of it intellectually.
The Reform Party says one thing. The NDP would much rather talk
about victims rights than increased levels of punishment. We
have tabled documents in the province of Manitoba. The NDP was
very well received in terms of taking care of victims rights but
also in taking care of the root causes of crime.
I mentioned the aboriginal community when I rose for one of my
interventions. There was the shocking, horrifying fact that the
Kingston women's penitentiary was 100% aboriginal population,
that every single woman there was aboriginal for a period of time
in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The figure is still
hugely disproportionate to the population. Three or four per cent
of the population is aboriginal. Seventy or eighty or ninety per
cent of the prison population are aboriginal. Something is
clearly wrong when there are figures like that. This needs to be
addressed.
In the province I come from it is a very real issue. I know
that if I had been walking home instead of J. J. Harper one
winter evening, I may have been stopped by the police but I
probably would not have died that night. I know that if Helen
Betty Osborne had been a white girl rather than an Indian girl,
it would not have taken 16 years to solve her murder. It would
have been a far more pressing issue. People would have seized
themselves of the issue.
Obviously the issue of the aboriginal people and their presence
in our penal institutions and our justice system needs to be
addressed first and foremost. I am surprised that was not one of
the main focuses of the Reform Party's motion today.
We have seen the U.S. model. We heard ideas about boot camps
and other things that are clearly from the U.S. We saw what
happened in the U.S. as it tried to lock up a whole generation of
young black men. That was the solution to crime in the United
States. The U.S. tried to lock up a whole generation.
The U.S. built more prisons and then privatized them, turning
them into for profit ventures. Private prisons, what a concept.
Locking people up for profit. I am surprised this did not come
from the camp to my left because it is clearly in keeping with
its ideology.
Prisons are big business in Canada too. The one thing I would
like to use my last moment to comment on is the privatization of
the education system within our Canadian prisons. Former
Correctional Service Canada employees are quitting their jobs and
contracting out the education of inmates on a for profit basis,
and they are not the low bidder. In the prairie region, the
contracting company's bid was millions of dollars higher than
that of Evergreen School Division which used to deliver the
service, quality service at a lower cost.
It makes one wonder. If we care about this kind of thing at
all, why would we pay more money for less service? When I say
less service, the contracting company owned by former
Correctional Service Canada employees is not even licensed to
give any kind of credit for the high school training given. More
money is being paid for less service and the graduates do not
even get any kind of credentials when they leave the system.
Penal institutions for profit and the privatization of the
education system within the jails are things I wanted to point
out.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the
motion have expired.
1715
This being the final supply day in the period ending March 26,
1999, it is my duty to interrupt the proceeding and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
* * *
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1998-1999
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C—PARLIAMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That
Vote 1c, in the amount of $1,975,500, under PARLIAMENT—Program
Expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1999, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1750
[English]
(The House divided Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 89
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, there may have been some
confusion earlier because I rose at the same time as the
Progressive Conservative members. I made a mistake. I wished
to vote the same as the Bloc Quebecois.
The Speaker: There may have been a small mistake over there, but
not over here.
[English]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C—JUSTICE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1c, in the amount of $12,551,750,
under JUSTICE—Program Expenditures, in the Supplementary
Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be
concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I 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.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion. It is a bad motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members
are in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
on this motion, with the exception of the member for
Burnaby—Douglas who votes yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, those members of our party
present, including my colleague, the member for St. John's West,
vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I would vote no to this motion.
1755
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 173
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 77
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1c, in the amount of $2,740,846,
under PRIVY COUNCIL—Program Expenditures, in the Supplementary
Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be
concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you would find unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, all members present in the
New Democratic Party today vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the privy council does
not do much to my constituency, so I vote against this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999, except any vote disposed of earlier today, be
concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
question now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-73, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999,
be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
1800
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-73, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999,
be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion now
before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
(On clause 2)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that
this bill is in the usual form?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous
years.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I
am sure I cannot challenge your rulings, but it seems to me the
noes are quite a bit louder than the yeses and you should be
ruling that it is defeated.
The Chairman: If members wish to rise and force a vote,
the Chair is the servant of House and will of course comply.
Everyone seems happy that we carry these on division. If members
are unhappy we will do something else. Shall I rise and report
the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
1805
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote at second reading to the
question now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, on this motion and on
subsequent motions we would like to add to the no column the NDP
member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 106
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall
the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion now
before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: It was, Mr. Speaker, to ask you to add the
name of my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, to the
entire voting procedure.
The Chairman: On this vote? That is agreed.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
INTERIM SUPPLY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That
this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $13,825,965,402.19, being composed
of:
(1) three-twelfths ($7,905,805,057.50) of the total of the
amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, which were laid upon the Table
Monday, March 1, 1999, and except for those items below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian
Heritage Vote 120, Finance Vote L15, Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Vote 15, and Treasury Board Vote 5
(Schedule 1) of the said Estimates, $533,508,250.00;
(3) ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of Fisheries and
Oceans Vote 10 (Schedule 2) of the said Estimates,
$227,395,833.33;
(4) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Parliament
Vote 10 (Schedule 3) of the said Estimates, $13,432,500.00;
(5) seven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian
Heritage Vote 70, Finance Vote 20, and Human Resources
Development Vote 35 (Schedule 4) of the said Estimates,
$763,144,083.33;
(6) six-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian
Heritage Votes 20 and 135, Industry Vote 50, and Justice Vote 15
(Schedule 5) of the said Estimates, $64,698,500.00;
(7) five-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian
Heritage Vote 65, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Vote 5,
Health Vote 10, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 15,
Industry Vote 40, Justice Vote 1, Public Works and Government
Services Vote 10, Solicitor General Vote 5 and Transport Vote 1
(Schedule 6) of the said Estimates, $1,848,579,250.00;
(8) four-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian
Heritage Votes 25, 40, and 50, Citizenship and Immigration Vote
10, Environment Vote 1, Health Votes 1 and 5, Human Resources
Development Votes 10 and 25, Indian Affairs and Northern
Development Votes 35 and 40, Industry Votes 30, 35 90, 95, 100
and 110, Natural Resources Vote L10, Privy Council Votes 15 and
35, Public Works and Government Services Votes 1 and 15, Treasury
Board Vote 15 (Schedule 7) of the said Estimates,
$2,469,401,928.03;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2000.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
question now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-74, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000,
be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion now
before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
1810
The Chairman: The House is in committee of the whole on
Bill C-74.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On Clause 5)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I
rise on a point of order. I do not know how this happened. Can
the President of the Treasury Board give the House his assurance
that this bill is in the usual form?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the proportions requested in the bill are intended to provide for
all necessary requirements of the Public Service of Canada up to
the second supply period of 1999-2000. In no instance is the
total amount of an item being released by the bill.
The form of the supply bill is the usual one for interim supply
bills.
[Translation]
Passage of the present bill shall not prejudice either the
rights or the privileges of members to criticize any item in the
estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee. The
usual undertaking is hereby given that these rights and
privileges shall be respected and shall be neither abolished nor
limited in any way as a result of the passage of the present
bill.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 4 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 6 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
[English]
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would first ask your co-operation
to withdraw the member for Kingston and the Islands from this
vote and all subsequent votes.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the
vote at second reading to the motion currently before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1815
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
question now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| DeVillers
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gallaway
| Grose
| Hubbard
|
Lefebvre
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Ménard
|
Perron
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed
certain bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.
1820
It being 6.20 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP) moved:
That a legislative committee be established to prepare and bring
in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to abolish
the legal defence of provocation contained in section 232 of the
Criminal Code of Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the motion is to abolish
the defence of provocation which makes excuses for murder. If we
as a country hold murder to be abhorrent, so much so that we do
not have the death penalty, why on earth would we incorporate
values that excuse murder on the basis of an insult or a wrongful
act? My intention is to get rid of this defence so that we do
not come out at the end of a trial wondering how on earth someone
could get less than five years for murdering someone.
This happened in my community. I am still wondering how Ralph
Klassen could get a five year sentence for murdering his wife.
How can we say that he did not intend to murder her when he
strangled her by tying a pillow case around her neck? Because he
did not intend to murder her, his sentence was reduced to
manslaughter and he got a very small sentence. I will again
state that it clearly comes down to how we value human life.
There were huge walks in protest against this sentence. I have
been presenting petitions in parliament over the last year and a
half asking for the abolition of the defence of provocation. Our
justice minister put out a discussion paper last fall but there
has been no movement on it.
I will go into more details on this defence. It is a partial
defence for murder. What it does not do is take away the right
of people to defend their family, themselves or their property.
There are specific areas of defence in our laws that look after
that.
This law came out of the 17th century where two men of equal
class were considered able to fight a duel in effect because
someone had been insulted. Since their honour was at stake it
was considered quite normal that they would fight. What we call
that now is a bar room brawl.
At that time there was a death penalty for murder. The idea was
to provide an understanding of a human frailty. Yet we do not
provide a defence for someone who commits a murder out of
compassion or pity. We do not excuse the fact they felt so bad
for the person that they felt it was justified to kill him or
her, but we are saying that if someone gets angry, furious or
enraged it is all right for them to act on that rage and murder
someone.
I will now jump back to Yukon. Within a period of years we had
the Klassen murder case in which he got a five year sentence. He
was a man who had many degrees, studied theology and held himself
to be morally and intellectually above most of his peers or
anyone in his community. He got a very short sentence for the
murder of a woman he said provoked him, taunted him, drove him to
murder.
1825
There was also a young woman who killed her spouse when she came
upon him having sex with another man. She stabbed him. He died.
She got a maximum sentence. She was not even eligible for parole
for a minimum of 10 years.
I am not saying that she should have got Mr. Klassen's sentence.
What I am saying is that the defence is wrong and he should have
got her sentence. We should not be excusing murder because of a
passionate outburst or an angry, rage filled outburst.
The defence of provocation will accept an excuse of something
that is grossly insulting, an attack upon a friend or a man
coming upon his wife in adultery. Those are the foundations of
the defence. It is based on the idea that uncontrollable acts of
anger or passion should be forgiven with a lesser penalty, but
again not acts of compassion. It is also based on the premise
that the victim got what he or she deserved, that somehow he or
she deserved to be murdered and we should then excuse the person
who did it.
In the Klassen case torment and taunt were alleged. We have to
remember that Susan Klassen was dead at that point. The husband
and wife were separated. He drove thousands of miles out the
highway, came to the marriage home, expected to sleep in the
marriage bed, and she said “what is the use?”
To defend this supposed statement he had someone say that a few
years ago she had made an allusion to his low sperm count. That
was the provocation. That was the wrongful act, words, or the
insult which drove this man to murder his wife. There is no way
that we should accept those kinds of excuses within the Criminal
Code.
It goes even further than that because after that sentence was
rendered people who were in anger management programs felt that
they would have been better off if they had murdered their
spouses because then they would not be in anger management
programs and would have been out of jail without having any
further obligations to their community or society.
Provocation basically went unchanged until the 19th century when
some criteria were placed on it. It had to meet the standard of
a reasonable person, someone who identified with you or I or
anyone who had reasonable control over his or her emotions. One
of the criteria is that the person had to have acted suddenly,
that the insult or provocation had to have been sudden and
unexpected.
Someone who suffered long term abuse could never use the defence
of provocation. If a person had been beaten for years then the
provocation of having been beaten was not sudden. Nor was it
unexpected. People who have been beaten, whether a child, a
spouse or an elderly person who sometimes and often sadly are
abused in society, and react in any way to the defend themselves
or to kill someone who routinely beat them could not apply for
the defence of provocation because it was not sudden. They had
been beaten before so they would expect to be beaten more. That
defence is patently not available to those people.
Even in the Ratushny report prepared by that judge for justice
minister she said that four of the approximate 100 women's cases
that she looked at would have been eligible to invoke the defence
of provocation. One of them did and it was rejected in the
court, and the other three refused to do it for very personal
reasons. They felt they were making excuses for what they did
and so they did not invoke that defence.
It is not often used for women because the context of the
defence does not allow for conditions in which, sadly, women
murder. The case in Yukon was a classic case of provocation and
it was not even considered for that young woman. She got a
penalty which I think is accurate and fair for anyone who
murders, especially in a fit of rage, because we are supposedly
brought up to control ourselves, not to let words get to us, and
to act in a manner according to our community's desire for peace
and harmony.
Using the term a wrongful act or an insult widens how this
defence can be used. It has been used over and over. For
example, if someone says she is barren she could not kill her
husband and use that as a justification. Yet if it is turned
around it is being justified.
1830
If a man makes a sexual advance toward another man, it is used
in cases where homosexuals are killed. Is that reason enough to
kill someone? Is that considered an insult? Is that response a
lethal response?
Is killing someone else an acceptable response to a word or an
insult? No matter how dreadful one feels about that insult, can
they retaliate with taking someone's life?
Remember when it comes to using the defence of provocation,
murder is never in question. It is established that it was not
murder. It is firmly entrenched in our cultural ideas of what an
insult is, what honour is.
There was a Witness program which documented honour
killings which we generally associate with the Far East. Women I
talked to who had watched that movie were absolutely horrified.
We have honour killings. That is what the defence of provocation
is all about. It is about justifying honour killing.
It is legal for a person to want to leave a relationship. We
call it divorce. A person can do that. The most dangerous time
for a woman who leaves a relationship is the time period
immediately thereafter. That is when she is most in danger of
being murdered. She has stepped outside the boundaries, outside
of what is considered honourable and outside of the control of
the person she married. Therefore her life is in danger, as
possibly are the lives of her children. Often her life is taken.
Such was the case with Susan Klassen.
What we accept in law is not far from the rule of thumb, where
it was perfectly all right for a husband to beat his wife as long
as he did not use anything thicker than the width of his thumb.
That was the rule of law.
This defence still hinges on those kinds of concepts. They are
based on gender and class. They do not have any room in our
society. We cannot excuse a man or a woman for acting out in a
rage or frenzy. It is not acceptable to say that a person
deserved to be killed and because that person said something that
was not liked, the person who did the killing is given a lesser
sentence.
When a judge reduces a sentence for murder to manslaughter there
is no minimum sentence applied. Moving it down to manslaughter
means that the judge has complete discretion over the sentencing.
Violence in the home and violence between intimate partners
should carry a heavier sentence. It is a position of trust that
has been violated. We should be safe in our home, not in more
danger. Of those women who are killed, most are killed within
the home. Our chief justice says that our law has traditionally
insulated accountability for violence in the home, that it has
made it all right, that we would turn a blind eye to violence in
the home.
It still happens. It happens at the basic level of law
enforcement. RCMP officers and other police officers do not want
to go into those situations. They turn the other way. It does not
matter how many times a woman calls, there is no response to
their situation.
What has been accepted as insults in our law? These actions are
unlawful but have been considered insults concerning the defence
of provocation: articulating one's rights; expressing a
difference of opinion; taking a job; having a relationship with
persons other than one's spouse, partner or lover; selecting
one's friends; maintaining family relationships; striking back
when being battered. They are used to justify battering of
partners and the murder of partners. The nature of insults is
troubling because they can provide and do provide a licence to
kill.
We have to question, are there any words that we would accept as
giving a lethal response?
1835
Other arguments are that this defence would be better if it was
broadened and opened up for women to use as well. I argue against
this because the premise is bad. The idea of being able to kill
for one's honour should not be expanded to include another
gender. It would be broadened on a basis that is wrong, on
values that are wrong, on a principle that is wrong.
Why would we expand something that is essentially wrong and
allow more people access to making excuses? We do not make
excuses in other areas of law. Lesser offences do not have a
built-in provocation defence to make excuses for people. Why when
we hit the most dreadful of crimes in our country, murder, would
we then be willing to make excuses?
Canada does not have a death penalty any more. Nobody is facing
a death penalty when charged and found guilty of murder. Why
would we lessen a sentence to a point where it is almost
meaningless within our community?
If we look at provocation in terms of principles, we should not
have it. It should not exist and we should not be honouring it
in any terms, let alone by entrenching it in our thoughts and in
our courts. If it is looked at in terms of stakeholders and who
benefits from using the defence of provocation, then there are a
lot of problems and questions based on value. We would have a
defence that as it stands is more accessible for men to use when
they kill their spouse or when they kill someone they have gotten
into a fight with. We are making it more accessible in those
terms.
Based on principle and value it is not a defence we should be
promoting, using or having available for a judge to apply in any
manner whether it is justified or unjustified. My point is the
defence of provocation is never justified.
The Minister of Justice put out a discussion paper. I travelled
around the Yukon Territory last year. In the fall I held a town
hall so that I could give a response to the minister and be part
of the discussion.
This is one of the topics that is more difficult to speak about
but it does not mean it should not be discussed. It means we
have to push hard to move forward and to make changes in our
justice system that will bring equality.
I do not believe if we abolish the defence of provocation that
suddenly we will have a far more peaceful and violence free
society. I do not think that will happen but it is a step in
that direction.
We have to address the intent to kill. We cannot accept that
someone did not mean to kill the person, even though they put
their hands around the person's neck and choked the person until
their thumbs broke, even though they tied a pillowcase around the
person's neck, even though they stabbed someone 47 times. We
cannot accept that they did not somehow intend the action to
kill. If they do that and do not claim insanity or any altered
mental state, then they by their actions meant to kill somebody.
Again, I do not think this will change our society dramatically
but it will be a step in that direction. It will be a movement
toward saying you cannot beat somebody up and blame it on them;
you cannot murder somebody and blame it on them. We will not
give a lesser sentence under those circumstances.
I will end with a tribute to Susan Klassen's family, to every
man or woman who has been murdered and their murder excused on
the basis of this defence.
When our country lost a woman like Susan Klassen, it was a
terrible tragedy that will not go away.
She was a kind and generous woman, a storyteller of international
renown. She was generous with her stories which came out of her
like a symphony. She shared them with the young and old,
throughout her day, in her job, in our arts centre. She was a
focal point for the northern storytelling festival which
storytellers from around the world attend.
1840
It was terribly symbolic that she was choked, that her voice was
cut off. If her husband could not have her, nobody could have
her. Nobody would hear from this woman again. She was in the
prime of her life. It was particularly cruel and degrading and
frightening to everybody in the community. I am really proud that
our city stood up, men, women and children protested.
We cannot allow this. We cannot exonerate people for murder. We
certainly cannot do it based on an archaic sense of honour, that
someone should be allowed to take another life on the basis of an
insult.
This is a votable motion. I appeal to have the issue sent to a
committee to be looked at even more closely with the intent to
hopefully abolish it and move what we need into self-defence.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. 265 by the hon. member for Yukon would establish a
legislative committee to prepare a bill abolishing the defence of
provocation as contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code.
The hon. member presented quite a case and I commend her for
paying homage to the reason she brought forth the motion in the
House. The Minister of Justice knows the case very well.
While the minister has indicated that reforming the law of
provocation is one of her priorities, she cannot support this
motion at this time.
[Translation]
Last June, the minister initiated public consultation on the
subject by publishing a consultation document. In our opinion,
it would be premature to strike a legislative committee while
the Department of Justice is still studying public responses on
means of defence based on provocation.
[English]
The law respecting provocation is complex and admittedly
controversial. I think the hon. member referred to that in her
own remarks. The defence of provocation is a partial and limited
defence and I want to stress that. It applies only to a charge
of murder.
Section 232 of the Criminal Code provides that a charge of
murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the offence was
committed by a person in the heat of passion caused by sudden
provocation. Furthermore, the provocation must be caused by a
wrongful act or insult that would be sufficient to deprive an
ordinary person of the power of self-control and it must also be
shown that the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there
was time for his passion to cool.
If the defence is successful, it does not result in acquittal.
Instead it results in the accused being convicted of the crime of
manslaughter which carries a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment.
[Translation]
Historically, the defence of provocation has been of very
limited application; it was used by men defending their honour
during an unpremeditated confrontation, or when their wife had
committed adultery.
Nowadays, the defence of provocation is justified by the fact
that the law must be tolerant toward human frailty, when a
person is subject to a provocation that exceeds his ability to
control himself.
[English]
Some recent cases which received significant media attention
have given rise to concerns over the application of the defence
of provocation. Some have suggested that the criminal law in
this area condones violent behaviour by men against women and
excuses extreme violence provoked by insults or injury relating
to a person's sexuality or masculinity.
1845
[Translation]
The Minister of Justice is well aware of these cases and of the
growing public criticism of the legal rules that govern
provocation, and she is taking a very serious look at these
issues.
A number of groups and individuals, including the former Law
Reform Commission of Canada, have drawn our attention to related
issues and have asked that we restrict the use of that legal
defence.
The criticism primarily has to do with the fact that the
historical origins of this defence still form the basis for its
use before the courts, and that current rules may not reflect
modern values and ideals.
[English]
At the same time it must be stated that support for the
abolition of provocation is not universal at this time. Other
groups have recommended expansion of the defence, such as the
Canadian Bar Association, on the basis that human frailty should
be recognized by criminal law.
It is clear that there is a great deal of disagreement over the
proper scope of the defence of provocation in modern Canadian
society. Any move toward limiting this defence must be done
carefully and with due consideration of all the options and the
potential consequences of each of these actions.
[Translation]
As I mentioned, the Department of Justice is following up on the
requests for a reform and on the change in the public's
perception of the law on provocation, and it has conducted a
careful review of the issues and various options for reform.
The Minister of Justice also met with provincial and territorial
justice ministers to discuss this specific issue, and the
federal and provincial justice officials are working together to
determine the feasibility of the various options for reform.
[English]
In an effort to better understand how Canadians feel about this
issue, the Department of Justice released a discussion paper in
the summer of 1998 which formed the basis of public
consultations. I am glad to hear that the hon. member also did a
consultation in her own riding. The department is currently
reviewing responses submitted by individuals and interested
groups.
The minister is committed to ensuring that the law reflects
modern values and works fairly for all Canadians. The law on
provocation is very complex, as I said earlier, and is also tied
to other areas of criminal law, in particular to the law of
self-defence, adding further complexity to the task of reforming
Criminal Code defences and again highlighting the need for an
in-depth study before making changes.
[Translation]
In my opinion, the hon. member's motion to abolish the legal
defence of provocation is premature.
[English]
Reforming the law on provocation is important, as I said
earlier, to the Minister of Justice. She has taken the steps
necessary at this time to ensure that any amendments will reflect
and respond to the views and values of Canadians. Consultations
have been done. We have finished the consultations and we are
reviewing what options we will take.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while I commend all the members for their work in
representing their constituents and while I commend all members
for their efforts to make Canada's laws better, I really cannot
agree with the motion introduced by the hon. member.
She made the point that this is a women's issue and I
immediately remember reading the paper put out by the justice
department. Here is what the justice department's own figures
show, that this really is not a women's issue. In fact, it is
the opposite.
The Department of Justice's own research shows that in 64% of
the cases where a man killed a woman the defence of being
provoked was rejected. In the cases where men were killed by
women 43% of the cases rejected this defence. Obviously women
benefit more than men from this law.
I too consider carefully what my petitioners are telling me.
Tens of thousands of petitioners have written to me with their
concerns about the government's gun registration bill, the
defunding of abortions, parental rights and property rights. I
have introduced private member's bills and motions on these
issues and I am not as fortunate as the hon. member for Yukon to
have one of my bills or motions made a votable item. Perhaps my
bills and motions are not closely aligned with the agenda of the
Liberal Party. I have personally introduced petitions with more
than 43,000 signatures calling on the government to repeal Bill
C-68, the Firearms Act, but the government continues to ignore
these requests by Canadians.
1850
Why do the Liberals respond to issues from some petitioners and
not others? Maybe the government will listen and act if the
Liberals happen to agree with the petitioners.
Putting politics aside, I am pleased to be given the opportunity
to participate in this debate about the defence of provocation. I
hope to expand the debate about the need to retain self-defence
sections of the Criminal Code as they are currently written.
The first thing I did when I saw this motion was to reread
section 232 of the Criminal Code. The justice department claims
this section has remained virtually unchanged since 1892. My
initial reaction is to reject any demands to abolish a law that
has been serving Canadians for so long. I do not have a closed
mind about this but it makes me very wary. The longer the law has
been in force is directly proportional to the level and
seriousness of the debate the House should have about the
abolition of such an old and fundamental defence.
From the synopsis in the Criminal Code it is clear that the
interpretation and application of the defence of provocation has
not remained static. Many cases before the courts have set legal
precedents to determine the sufficiency of evidence to raise this
defence, the nature of the objective test of the term ordinary
person, the instructions or charging of a jury, the applications
of this defence to attempted murder, the definition of
self-induced provocation, and constitutional considerations. This
section of the Criminal Code has been in a constant state of
change by the judicial process, as it should be.
Let us look at the hon. member's Motion No. 265. It is not
simply a motion to have a legislative committee investigate or
review the defence of provocation. If it were, we might be able
to support it. If the House approves this motion, it directs the
committee to prepare and bring a bill to abolish the legal
defence of provocation contained in section 232 of the Criminal
Code of Canada. I cannot accept that.
Not even the justice department's own consultation paper,
“Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence
and Defence of Property” released last year goes that far. The
justice department's paper asks for public input on a range of
nine options with respect to the defence of provocation.
I will list these nine options so they are on the record for
Hansard: to abolish the defence of provocation; to reform
the defence of provocation by removing the phrase “in the heat
of passion”; to replace the term “wrongful act” with
“unlawful act”; to remove the ordinary person test to reflect
the mixed subjective-objective test; to reform the defence of
expanding the “suddenness” requirement; to reform the defence
so that it is not available in cases of spousal homicides; to
reform the defence so that it is not available in cases where the
victim asserts his or her charter protected rights; to reform the
defence to limit it to situations where excessive force was used
in self-defence; to leave the Criminal Code provisions on the
provocation defence exactly as they are.
Before the House can support this motion, each of these nine
options has to be seriously considered and debated. Eight of the
options proved unworkable beyond any doubt. That is what has to
happen and that is why we cannot pass this motion. The justice
consultation paper even outlined the pros and cons for each of
these options.
The duty of the House before we approve a motion to abolish the
defence of provocation would be to look at each of the arguments
for and against abolition. It would be reform or no change to
section 232. We would have to be convinced that the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages. We would have to examine each of the
arguments against abolition or reform and rule on each.
Look at the justice department's own arguments against abolition
as stated in the department's consultation paper. The defence of
provocation might be useful for women in situations of domestic
violence who kill in self-defence but with excessive force in
response to the provocation of physical or verbal abuse. That is
a very important point. There could be an increase in acquittals
by juries that no longer have the alternative to a murder
condemnation in cases where they view the accused as morally less
worthy of blame. Murder might be considered an inappropriate
term for killing under provocation.
The reasons to abolish the provocation defence put forward by my
hon. colleague from Yukon do not adequately address these
arguments raised by the Justice Department, let alone the
arguments that have yet to be raised by the legal community and
the general public.
1855
Finally, I want to comment about the tendency of some to clamour
for changing or abolishing a law because of the circumstances of
one case. For every case the member raises which seems to
support abolition, I could rebut her position with another court
case that supports the opposite view.
For example, last year in my home province a 29 year old, James
Allan Tomlinson, was sentenced to life imprisonment with no
chance of parole for 10 years for the second degree murder of a
67 year old farmer, Stacey Clark. Mr. Tomlinson alleged that Mr.
Clark grabbed his genitals and that this provoked Mr. Tomlinson
to stomp Mr. Clark to death, breaking most of the bones in his
chest.
Tomlinson claimed that he should be found guilty of the lesser
charge of manslaughter because he did not intentionally kill Mr.
Clark. Justice John Kelbuc shot down the argument, saying the
defence of provocation was not intended to create an open season
on homosexuals who act unlawfully. We have an example of a case
that completely contradicts the examples given by the hon.
member.
I firmly believe the facts of each of these seemingly
contradictory cases are best left in the hands of judges and
juries. If mistakes in the law are made, these individual cases
are best left in the hands of crown prosecutors and provincial
attorneys general to appeal all the way to the supreme court if
necessary. If the supreme court rules contrary to the wishes of
parliament or the people, then we must amend the law. So far
this has not happened.
The Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to review a case
on defence of provocation as recently as 1996. I quote from an
article that appeared in the February 19, 1996 issue of
Western Report:
Chief Justice Cory clarified when it [section 232] can be
invoked. There is an objective and a subjective test. The former
determines whether the insult was severe enough to deprive the
killer of his self-control. The latter requires that his
subsequent response was sudden, before his passion cooled. Prior
to leaving this defence with a jury, the judge must find some
evidence of provocation. It is then up to the jury to determine
if the defence holds up under the facts. The jury must take into
consideration the age, sex, and racial origin of the accused, to
determine whether an “ordinary person” of reasonable
self-control would, under similar circumstances, be provoked by
the act or insult in question. The supreme court also endorsed
for the first time the finding of a lower court that the history
of the relationship between the victim and perpetrator should
also be considered.
Mr. Justice Cory stated in his judgment:
Obviously, events leading to the break-up of the marriage can
never warrant taking the life of another. Affairs cannot justify
murder. Still any recognition of human frailties must take into
account that these very situations may lead to insults that could
give rise to provocation. The good sense of jurors will
undoubtedly lead them to consider all the facts, including the
presence of a loaded gun in the car.
This does not sound like a section of the criminal code that has
outlived its usefulness. I will vigorously oppose this motion. I
hope all members of the House will take these arguments into
consideration that I have presented and make their decisions to
support or oppose this motion.
I compliment the member for Yukon for raising this issue. It
has been very good for me to do the research and to find out the
background about this. We really should have legislation before
the House that can be debated. Some expert witnesses could then
be called and we could spend our time debating the legislation.
As this motion is worded, I cannot support it.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured and pleased to take part in this
debate. I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Yukon
for bringing about this very important matter and giving us in
the Chamber an opportunity to discuss this issue.
The defence of provocation I would not go so far as to call an
obscure section of the Criminal Code but it is one that does not
receive broad application.
1900
It is one that I did come across in my time as a crown
prosecutor in Nova Scotia. It is a section that has a fair bit
of confusion surrounding it. Much like the defence of
self-defence, it is extremely difficult for jury members, in
particular lay persons without legal training. I would even go
so far as to say that many in the legal profession have a great
deal of trouble interpreting sections such as this including
provocation.
The motivation behind the hon. member for Yukon in bringing this
matter forward is certainly laudable. I am also familiar with
the very tragic case of Susan Klassen. I had the pleasure of
meeting her sister when she attended a justice conference here in
Ottawa last summer. Her motivation is beyond question. I note
from her remarks that it is something she feels very passionately
about, and rightly so.
However, as we progress in the law we must be aware that there
is a true danger in taking single cases in isolation and using
that as a motivation to entirely change the law. I am not
suggesting that is entirely what is happening here, but there is
always a danger in holding up one particular case as a means to
entirely revamp or, in this proposed scenario, withdraw a section
of the Criminal Code.
That is not to say that there is not often a great deal of need
and in fact a legitimate desire to change a section of the
Criminal Code to make it operate in a more efficient and just way
for Canadians at large. However, to remove section 232 of the
Criminal Code, I would suggest, would ignore the fact that there
is a real element of human frailty encompassed in that particular
section.
The Criminal Code is a document that is not immune to change.
However, there are certain sections of the code that have been in
place for some period of time. One would make the strong
argument that they have been subject to considerable judicial
interpretation and expression over a long period of time, which
does have some weight when one considers the desire to remove
that section completely from the code.
With respect to Motion No. 265, I would suggest that there is
really a need for change, but perhaps not a need to go as far as
this motion would suggest, which is to withdraw the entire
section completely because of an unpopular or an unjust
interpretation of that section.
All sections of the Criminal Code, however old, are written in
such a way as to allow for judicial interpretation. Upon first
glance, sections of the Criminal Code may seem to be outdated,
yet when subjected to judicial interpretation they are brought up
to speed in a number of ways which allow a judge to ensure that
justice does prevail.
Detractors may argue that problems arise in judicial
interpretation and that allows for decisions such as we saw in
the B.C. court case involving Shaw. That particular case once
again highlights the danger in taking one particular instance of
a judicial interpretation and suggesting that we must then repeal
an entire section of the Criminal Code.
I am a firm believer in change for our system. I am also
confident that the judges of the supreme court will correct the
ruling with respect to child pornography. With that said, the
Criminal Code is a written reference by which Canadians conduct
themselves. It is intended to provide guidelines for our
society, for a safe and orderly environment and it is an
embodiment of a moral standard that is to be upheld by those who
choose to live or visit Canada.
It is true that the Criminal Code is not perfect. How could it
be? It is made by man. Yet to allow the dissolution of an
entire law simply to appease the demands of a special interest
group would set a very dangerous precedent and would lead to
constant band-aid solutions to very specific problems.
The oversimplification of any law would limit judicial
interpretation of the code when dealing with future cases.
Being quick to enact a change each time a particular case
emerges through the courts and is handed down, I suggest, would
be very dangerous and would lead to an eventual dismantling of
our Criminal Code or such disarray or uncertainty amongst the
judiciary, law enforcement agents, lawyers and, most importantly,
the general public that this type of confusion would further
undermine an already very sceptical and cynical public.
1905
The Department of Justice has been asked for commentary on this
particular section, among others, such as self-defence and the
defence of property, but in particular the defence of
provocation. This is an extremely useful exercise.
It is important to say at the outset that provocation is not a
complete defence, as has been mentioned. It mitigates, it brings
a murder charge into a manslaughter situation and denotes a
lesser degree of culpability.
Concern over the issue of the defence of provocation stems from
societal progress. In the early 1990s critics felt that this
section of the Criminal Code promoted outdated values and was
used to defeat modern egalitarian principles. However, it
affords a degree of protection that is legitimate, perhaps
limited at times, and as a blanket statement it does not lower or
lessen the level of accountability in all cases.
Currently the Criminal Code allows for the defence of
provocation. However, in recent years the nature, the use and
the existence of this law has become more narrowly defined. The
objective and the subjective tests that are incorporated into
this section provide some degree of protection.
Moreover, the successful use of the defence of provocation in a
number of well publicized cases raises public concern. However,
there is no suggestion here that this law condones violence in
any way, shape or form. In a legal sense it takes into
consideration the deprivation of a person's reason and ability to
respond rationally and proportionately to a very stressful
situation. Where they might have acted otherwise, the defence of
provocation does particularize and individualize the law.
I do not believe for a moment that the law condones violence.
In fact the law protects those who find themselves in this
condition of mental anguish or distress. This condition could
stem from an extreme situation, such as mental, physical or
emotional abuse. Therefore, persons who found themselves reaching
that point of distress should not be deprived of the ability to
raise this issue at trial, not for the purposes of completely
removing responsibility for their actions, but for the purposes
of putting a particular scenario into a particular circumstantial
scenario before the trier of fact and the jury.
The Criminal Code can protect persons if it remains in its
current form where non-partisan judges are left to interpret the
code and hand down a decision that will address the needs and
concerns of modern society. Specific interpretations or specific
factors, such as age, race, sex or religion, are taken into
account when a judge is faced with weighing the applicability of
provocation. A taunt or the provocative action or remark is also
taken into consideration, so it is very much an individualized
and tailored piece of legislation.
Issues of self-defence and defence of property have also been
singled out for change.
Again, I commend the member because this is a very timely
intervention. It is fair to say that it is an extremely
complicated and confusing section of the Criminal Code that
requires greater study and greater definition under the current
provisions.
The Department of Justice has expressed a desire to look at
these proposed changes. As was previously mentioned, it has
already made certain recommendations as they pertain to the
defence of provocation.
With respect to dealing with this particular motion, the
Department of Justice has expressed that willingness. As we have
seen with other cases, and particularly situations involving
changes to the Criminal Code, this government does not exactly
have a great record to stand on in terms of its timeliness of
response, but hope burns eternal in this regard. One would hope
that the non-partisan level of debate that we have heard here
will also prevail when it comes time to look at this situation at
the committee.
Issues dealing with the legality involved in the interaction
between men and women are in a constant state of flux in today's
society. Working toward creating a level playing field is a
constant challenge to our legal drafters, as well as those who
are left to interpret these laws. We cannot either change the
law as frequently as society changes or react in a very
shortsighted way when occasion occurs.
1910
I commend the hon. member again for taking the initiative to
bring this matter forward. The Progressive Conservative Party is
not opposed to looking at this matter further at the justice
committee or perhaps even looking at making specific amendments
to the bill that has been brought forward.
The wording is what troubles me. I am afraid that it would be
perhaps pre-emptive and an overreaction to simply remove this
from the Criminal Code at this time.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
the seconder of Motion No. 265 I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to rise and to lend my support to the motion.
Briefly, I would like to comment on the tone and the content of
the debate in the House of Commons today. I would compliment all
of the speakers for taking this issue in a very serious and
respectful way.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice started
her remarks by saying that this is an issue that the government
is taking seriously and one in which it is interested. She
herself has been seized of the issue for a good number of years,
as has the current Minister of Justice.
The member for Yukon is to be doubly complimented for bringing
this very timely issue forward now. From the debate we have
heard in the House, there is a great level of interest. This is
not something that came out of the blue or that stemmed out of
one isolated incident in Yukon, although that is where the hon.
member for Yukon started her remarks, speaking very passionately
about the tragic death of a woman at the hands of her husband.
We heard some of the detail. I am glad that we were spared some
of the gruesome detail.
Too often in the House of Commons when we are dealing with
tragic issues members fall into the sensationalism of the
horrible deaths and other things which people went through.
Surely the merits of the case can survive without dwelling on the
gruesome and the gory.
The member from the Reform Party disappointed me, frankly. I
was very surprised to hear the attitude of Reform members toward
this motion. He prefaced his remarks by saying that gender
should not be taken into consideration in this issue. He gave
some statistics which indicated that in the tragic situation
where a man killed a woman, 60% of the applications for taking
this into consideration were rejected. Only 40% succeeded.
However, if it was the case of a woman killing a man and the
lawyer for the defence wanted to use the defence of provocation,
the numbers were reversed. The inverse was true. Forty per cent
of the cases were rejected and 60% were accepted.
The member somehow used this as rationale or justification,
suggesting that there is an imbalance and that women are treated
more favourably in the application of the provocation rule than
are men. I would like to take a moment to point out that it is
the member from the Reform Party who fails to see the historic
imbalance in the power relationship between men and women and who
fails to recognize how such figures might come about, even given
the fair application of the provocation rule.
Other members have spoken today of what a complex issue we are
dealing with. It is true that lay people like me, frankly, have
a hard time even getting our minds around when this rule should
be used and when it should not. I do not envy the judges or
whoever makes the determination as to whether a particular case
should qualify under the provocation rule or whether it should be
self-defence or spousal abuse syndrome arguments.
I can see this really getting to be a quagmire of minutia when
someone is trying to determine when this works.
The fact that it works at all and works even once in a rare blue
moon is clearly too many. The member for Yukon made very good
points indicating that this was an arcane leftover in our
judicial laws. We do not need such a reference any more. It
hearkens to a darker time when this kind of thing could be
contemplated.
1915
I do not like the idea that we can justify the use of violence
in any situation, frankly, because it tends to condone it. Is it
okay to lash out in the schoolyard if Joey pushes you down? We
spend a long time teaching our children that is not okay. There
are other ways of conflict resolution other than striking out. A
black eye in the schoolyard was sort of a common incident when I
was growing up certainly, but now hopefully we have moved beyond
that and have matured.
In the same light and by the same token, why then do we accept
that any level of violence is acceptable if one is insulted or
provoked mercilessly to the point where one could not stand it
any more? Really one is saying “I can't take it any more” and
lashes out. This law deals with lashing out in the ultimate way,
murder, killing someone.
In one of the cases cited by the member for Yukon, the B.C. case
involving a man named Burt Stone, he stabbed his wife 47 times,
put her body in a toolbox and then went to Mexico for a month.
For this he got a sentence of four years in jail. He was able to
prove that his wife had provoked his violent behaviour by verbal
insults delivered over a four hour road trip. He had to suffer
nagging, abuse or insults for a four hour period and the result
was he stabbed her 47 times and stuffed her into a toolbox. The
defence of provocation was allowed in this incident.
That one incident alone would motivate me to rise up and speak
against ever allowing the defence of provocation to be used. I do
not need other incidents, although, as I say, the reason the
member for Yukon originally rose on this issue was to deal with
the Klassen murder in Yukon.
One member spoke of the folly of letting special interest groups
drive our legislative agenda when it comes to justice issues, as
if to say that we cannot be so loose with our changing of laws
that if we get 50,000 signatures and lobby the government
aggressively it will have no choice but to chuck that section of
the code. No one is advocating that. I do not think we could
accuse the member for Yukon of acting in a frivolous way or
asking government to act in a way that is not prudent.
There is a great history of the lobbying and studying that has
gone on about this issue. The member walked us through some of
the review and study by groups and by the Department of Justice,
knowing full well that this set of rules and laws should be
changed. It was reviewed by the Law Reform Commission of Canada
in 1989. We had the report of the federal-provincial working
group on homicide in 1991, the report of the bar association in
1992, a House of Commons subcommittee on the recodification of
the Criminal Code in 1993, and on and on it has been reviewed. It
is only fitting and only proper that we now have it where it
should be, being debated in the House of Commons.
A member mentioned special interest groups. He tried to imply
that this was somehow the women's movement or something. I do
not know if that is what he was getting at, but to even say that
is to trivialize the issue and not to show respect for the member
for Yukon who clearly is following through on a progressive
movement that has been going on for over a decade to try to have
this aspect of the code altered and changed.
One murder which results in a charge of manslaughter as a result
of the use of the provocation defence is too much. I take issue
with one member who said earlier that one does not get acquitted,
that one is reduced from murder to manslaughter and manslaughter
can have a penalty of life.
1920
That member failed to point out that manslaughter can also have
no minimum sentence whatsoever. The person could in fact walk
with a probation, without serving any jail time. It is a huge
advantage if the lawyer manages to successful argue the
provocation defence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the government has misled Canadians about Cape Breton
Island.
Since Liberals decided to close the door on my home two months
ago they have spread convoluted and inaccurate information. Let
us look at the facts and not at Liberal rhetoric. Just over $1
billion have gone into Devco and $5 billion has come out, which
is a five to one return on the public's investment. No
stockbroker would sneeze at that.
The men who worked hard and paid taxes will not receive
benefits. Our tax dollars will go in and nothing will come out.
It is Liberal financial planning.
For every job lost at Devco another three will disappear from
the private sector. Picture the impact in towns where
unemployment is already over 40%.
This economic vandalism is all the more upsetting when looking
at the reality of Cape Breton coal. The government has tried to
say that $1 billion was wasted on Devco. It conjures up images
of lazy workers and inefficient operations. What it does not say
is that most of the money spent on Devco went on cleaning up
sites the government inherited from the private mining companies
which ran Cape Breton like a private empire for 200 years. When
they bailed out they left the taxpayers the bill.
It has nothing to do with inefficient workers but everything to
do with a government that did not have the spine to stand up to
foreign companies and the big banks that backed them.
The truth is that Devco's coal mining operations, stripped of
the clean-up costs and the numberless failed economic development
schemes hatched by the government, actually made money. That is
right. Do we hear about that from the government's spin doctors?
Do we hear how Devco miners are known to be the best in the world
or how Devco's employees have provided power for Nova Scotia and
cash for their communities? No, of course not.
All we hear are more derogatory stereotypes, more contempt. Now,
to add insult to injury, the government has announced its latest
plan to revitalize our economy. There is $40 million for the
social research and demonstration corporation, $40 million for a
corporation based in Ottawa hiring Ontarians to study Cape
Bretoners. What an insult.
I want to be on the record opposing yet another Liberal
patronage gift. I want to be on the record condemning money for
Cape Breton being spent in Ottawa. Just as the books were fudged
with Devco and whole communities demeaned by slander and innuendo
from the government, so now we see the future: more money for
friends of the government, more money for Ontario.
I hope the government will have the courage to admit the obvious
truth, that it thinks of Atlantic Canada as nothing more than a
convenient way to channel money from the taxpayers to its
friends. The government should stop studying Cape Bretoners and
start listening to us. We want honesty. We want accountability
and we want to control our own destiny.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said before in the
House, meetings have already been held between Devco's management
and union representatives to review the human resources package
and they continue to meet.
I am pleased to say that co-operation between management and the
union is strong at the present time. Before the roof fall at
Phalen colliery, production was very good.
Since the roof fall, unions and management have been working
together to clean up the coal face and assess the damage. To
this end, both the unions and management have hired independent
experts to assess 8 east wall with Devco management agreeing to
pay half of the union's independent expert.
1925
To reiterate, the criteria to determine eligibility for the
early retirement incentive program have not been pulled out of a
hat. They are the criteria that were negotiated between Devco
and its unions through a joint planning committee in 1996. They
are the criteria that Devco's collective agreements indicate
shall apply to the early retirement incentive program for any
further workforce reductions. The $111 million in funding that
has been approved by the government for workforce adjustment
measures includes $60 million for an early retirement incentive
program, $46 million for severance packages and $5 million for
training for employees who receive severance packages.
I want to make it clear that the early retirement incentive
program has absolutely no relationship to the pension benefits
that Devco's employees have earned through participation in one
of the corporation's pension plans. Workers will continue to be
eligible for any earned pension benefits.
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pursue a question I first asked prior to the
federal budget regarding funding for the RCMP.
The RCMP cadet training academy, better known as the depot, is
located in my riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. We are
also home to F Division of the RCMP which serves as our
provincial police force. Its head office is in my riding. Regina
is very proud to be associated with the RCMP and many of the
workers there are constituents of mine.
Over the past six months a number of them have approached me
concerned about the future of the depot and the future of the
force. NDP caucus colleagues from rural, northern and remote
communities have also been raising concerns about a shortage of
RCMP constables in their districts.
Last October training was suspended at the depot. RCMP budgets
across the country were frozen, $10 million was redirected to
B.C. and a $1 million study of management problems was ordered by
the Treasury Board.
In a former life I worked as a management consultant advising
businesses on various aspects of their operations. It is not a
bad idea for an organization facing or coping with significant
change and outside pressure to step back and analyse what it is
doing and how it could be done better. Evaluation, auditing and
medium to long term planning are vital for an organization that
spends $1.1 billion annually with such a critically important
mandate as the RCMP.
The RCMP staffing shortage is an urgent problem, one that is
already documented and that management and the Liberal government
need to fix now. We do not need to wait for an organizational
audit to see that. I am told that fully one half of the 16,000
member force will be eligible for retirement in seven years. We
already have a shortage of 400 constables in western Canada. Why
have we not been spending every single day training their
replacements?
The depot knows there is a problem. Chief Superintendent Harper
Boucher said just last week in the newspaper: “Right now, right
across the country, there's a demand for new members, so we're
not meeting that need”.
Last week it was announced that the depot could resume training
using shorter length courses starting in April. That is a start
but it will not begin to fill the backlog if half the force is
retired by 2006. I see the government has restored about a
quarter of the funds it cut to the RCMP's budget. They had
better invest some of it in training new constables as soon as
possible.
I would also like to mention the persisting worries of the
depot's civilian workers who are being scapegoated for RCMP
management's overspending in B.C. and Alberta divisions and
headquarters.
They have been told that RCMP management wants to bring in
alternate service delivery, ASD, which is a new word for
privatization as a so-called cost saving measure. Everyone knows
that in Saskatchewan privatization means fewer jobs, lower pay,
reduced services and higher costs to taxpayers.
The civilian workers asked to meet with the solicitor general
when he was scheduled to attend the graduation ceremonies last
week. The solicitor general later cancelled his plans to attend
and referred them to his deputy. The deputy then cancelled.
I hope the solicitor general and his deputy are not afraid to
meet with those workers. They have important information for him
about why privatizing those services will not save the money
management claims. I have met with those workers. They provide
a professional, loyal and dedicated service to the depot and the
force.
Fundamental decisions such as privatizing civilian services at
the depot should not be made until after the KPMG management
audit has been completed and after the employees have had their
input. The solicitor general should put the drive to privatize
on pause and consider the impact on the workers, their families
and on the city of Regina. I wrote to him and to the President of
the Treasury Board over a month ago asking them to do so. I look
forward, as do my constituents, to a reply which hopefully will
be coming shortly. It has been over a month now.
1930
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre has asked what the government is doing to ensure that the
RCMP has the resources and qualified personnel necessary to
carry out its policing mandate, given that training was
suspended at the Regina depot in October 1998.
As is well known, the government takes its financial
responsibilities towards Canadian taxpayers very seriously.
In order to be able to implement the plans necessary to be able
to operate within its 1998-99 budget, the RCMP imposed a
temporary freeze on discretionary spending earlier in the
current fiscal year. Another temporary measure consisted in
suspending any new training activities at the Regina depot.
Before resuming its activities, the RCMP decided to carry out a
detailed review with respect to the alternative service delivery
of all programs provided by its training centre in this
division. This review enabled the RCMP to identify whether
internal resources or non-members were more qualified to deliver
the services now being provided at the training centre.
I am pleased to say that the commissioner recently announced
that training at the depot will resume effective April 6, 1999.
The RCMP will implement a more efficient cadet training program.
This modified approach will allow the RCMP to attain its
program objectives more effectively, while ensuring the high
quality of training for which the RCMP is known the world over.
I myself can testify to this reputation. Whether at Interpol
headquarters in Lyon or in Bosnia, it was brought home to me
that, far from being an idle claim, this reputation was very
richly deserved.
[English]
CANADA PORT AUTHORITIES
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I see the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan is doing
double duty tonight so he has good reason to miss his dinner.
A long time ago, on November 17 to be exact, I asked the
Minister of Transport about the nominating process for directors
of the Halifax Port Authority. At the time I correctly predicted
that the board would be purely Liberal and would include Merv
Russell who is back in the saddle again as chairman.
The minister then and more recently invoked the principle that
all advisory groups are represented. Of course there are board
members from various walks of life. It would be pretty hard to
avoid that. But they all share one common important
qualification, which is that they have their common loyalty to
the Liberal Party.
This problem is not just restricted to Halifax. In Vancouver,
only two out of five stakeholder nominees were appointed as
directors to the new port authority. I guess this conforms to
the Liberal definition of devolution of power to the local level.
Looking ahead, the Prince Rupert Port Authority is scheduled to
swing into action on about May 1. I fearlessly predict that one
Rhoda Witherly, twice defeated Liberal candidate and current
chair of the port corporation, will find a safe berth in that
harbour. I will not even be surprised if her campaign manager, a
Ms. Denton, makes it into the dock as well.
It is well known and clearly understood that in the Liberal
lexicon privatization is a synonym for patronage and the creation
of these port authorities is a form of privatization. Can the
Liberals just occasionally loosen their grip and respect not only
the letter but also the spirit of the marine act? It is not too
much to ask.
There were some highly qualified candidates bypassed on the
Halifax and Vancouver lists. There are some really outstanding
people among those being sponsored for Prince Rupert.
1935
I ask the parliamentary secretary, will the government change
its longstanding policy and attach some importance to the
business and technical qualifications of non-Liberal candidates
to this and other boards?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address
the concerns that have been raised with respect to the port
advisory committee process in Halifax. I might indicate that the
process is also applicable in all other port authority
compositions.
The role of the port advisory committee was to develop a user
nomination process in response to the requirement in the Canada
Marine Act to consult with users on certain board appointments.
This nomination process has been reflected in the letters patent.
The purpose of this process was to solicit names for user
representatives of Canada port authority boards and to forward
nominations to the Minister of Transport for consideration.
Port advisory committee members will not be appointing directors
to the Halifax Port Authority. The authority is an agent of the
crown and the majority of directors are appointed by governor in
council. In addition, the province and municipality each appoint
a board member.
To ensure that the process was inclusive, port managers were
asked to contact users and invite them to attend a nomination
meeting. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local
newspaper advising of the port advisory committee nomination
meeting.
With respect to the composition of the port advisory committee,
a broad cross-section of port users was represented, including
members of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and the Halifax
Shipping Association. The list provided by the port advisory
committee was used by the minister in making his recommendations
to the governor in council.
As with the provincial and municipal appointees to the Halifax
Port Authority, each user representative will serve the board
with a view to the needs of the Halifax Port Authority as a
whole.
HOUSING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
report was published in January 1999 of the Toronto mayor's
homelessness action task force, better known as the Golden
report. It revealed that in Toronto alone about 3,000
individuals stay in shelters, about 37,000 people are on waiting
lists for subsidized social housing and an additional 40,000 are
spending more than half of their income on rent or are living in
extremely precarious housing conditions. The situation in other
Canadian cities is also serious and has been described by
municipal leaders as a national disaster.
Some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services whether the government would be prepared to
launch a housing program to meet the needs of the homeless. This
issue requires urgent and special attention. There is a great
need for federal and provincial funds for the construction of
social housing units.
Since the Golden report was released, the picture has not
improved. Homeless people in many Canadian cities are a reality.
More people have died as a result of cold and exposure, including
highly publicized deaths such as the one a short distance from
Queen's Park in Toronto.
The government has announced some measures. For example, on
December 18 the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
announced $50 million in addition to the $50 million already
committed to the residential rehabilitation assistance program,
RRAP, for the fiscal year ending this March. Only $11.6 million
of this money is for the most needy homeless. This is not
adequate to meet the need.
In 1996 a decision was made to transfer social housing to the
provinces. In some provinces, for example in Saskatchewan, the
arrangement has worked. In others, such as Ontario, the
situation is bad because of the unwillingness of the Ontario
government to build social housing.
It must be noted that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
can and has played a strong leadership role in the past.
Examples are Woodgreen Red Door in Toronto, Metropole Hotel in
Vancouver and the Interlodge centre in Montreal.
1940
I urge the federal government tonight to inject new funds into a
program for the construction of new social housing units in those
provinces that are not taking such initiative themselves,
particularly in providing for the homeless.
We all know that in addition to providing shelter, the
construction of social housing stimulates the economy, creates
jobs and maintains social stability.
Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if she can
indicate to us whether the government will provide additional
funds for the construction of social housing, in particular for
the homeless.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to respond to the hon. member who has a very long
history of deep concern for the less fortunate in society. As a
stay at home mom many years ago I followed his career as minister
of the environment and was always a big fan.
The minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation shares this member's concern, particularly about the
homeless.
The government recognizes the importance of affordable, adequate
and suitable housing in promoting the health and well-being of
all Canadians. We are working to improve the economic climate in
Canada to help promote housing, affordability and accessibility.
We also recognize the value of partnerships among governments,
community organizations and the private sector in addressing the
problems faced by the homeless.
Because of the complexity of this issue many players must be
involved in finding a solution. However, there is currently a
lack of understanding and consensus on the best methods to
address the needs of Canada's homeless.
Governments and service agencies have asked for better
documentation and information sharing on best practices for
addressing homelessness. In response, CMHC has undertaken two
initiatives. First, it has identified a range of best practices
in addressing homelessness from across the country and is
currently documenting and evaluating ten of the better ones.
Selected projects include a variety of project types, population
served and regions of the country.
Second, CMHC is investing in the most effective means of passing
on information on these and other best practices to those who
need it most.
CMHC undertook consultations with shelter agencies and
stakeholders across the country in 1998. As a result the
corporation is now planning a series of small focused regional
round table discussions to take place in April 1999, followed by
a national round table in June. These round tables organized in
partnership with local networks for service organizations have
the following goals: to bring together key people involved
directly with the homeless population; to explore the transfer
ability of successful approaches; to provide regional and
national round tables for the exchange of information and
experience among decision makers; to facilitate new links for the
partnership opportunities in the development of solutions.
I am afraid I am out of time. I would be pleased to share the
rest of that with the hon. member for Davenport.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 7.43 p.m.)