37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 036
CONTENTS
Monday, March 26, 2001
1100
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Official Record
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1105
| The Speaker |
1110
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion
|
1115
1120
1125
1130
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
1135
1140
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1145
1150
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1155
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
1200
1205
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1210
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1255
(Division 36)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Second Reading
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1300
1305
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
1310
1315
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1320
| Mr. John Maloney |
1325
1330
1335
1340
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
1400
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| WINTER SPORTS
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1405
| DAVID MCTAGGART
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| UNIVERSITY HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1410
| TOBACCO ADVERTISING
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1415
| HERBERT RICE
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1440
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1445
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1450
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1455
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Mark Eyking |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1500
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
| Violence
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1515
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1520
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1525
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1530
| Mr. John McKay |
1535
1540
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1545
1550
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1555
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. John Maloney |
1620
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1625
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
1630
1635
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1640
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1645
1650
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1655
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1700
1705
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1710
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1715
1720
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1725
1730
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1735
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1740
| Mr. John Maloney |
1745
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1750
1755
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1800
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1805
1810
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1840
(Division 37)
| Motion agreed to
|
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Second reading
|
(Division 38)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1845
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1850
| The Environment
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1855
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 036
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 26, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
OFFICIAL RECORD
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Last week, as a parliamentarian, I asked the House
of Commons to make a correction to what is commonly called the blues.
These are the preliminary transcription of what is said here in the
House and sometimes corrections are made to it, sometimes not.
I had asked for a correction.
Mr. Luc Bélanger and Mrs. Louise Brazeau, an editor, pointed out
to me that the correction I was asking for could change the
meaning of what I had said in the House and that the only way to
make corrections was to listen to the recording in order to see
whether a word or expression makes no sense the way it is
written down. The purpose is to make the record of what was
said as faithful as possible.
The only corrections that can be made are to improve the quality
of the English or French as the case may be.
In connection with this, I commented to House Services that I
had often had the impression in the past that substantial
changes had been made to Hansard, far more substantial ones than
what I was asking for.
1105
They swore that was not the case, that all changes were
from the tapes and that never would the editor in
question looking at a potential change decide to alter the
meaning of remarks expressed here in the House.
I advised the transcription group that I would be watching
the operations of the service very carefully, given that I had
been treated unfairly compared with what I had seen done in the
past. I did not have to wait long to see that there was a double
standard at least in this service of the House.
I would draw your attention to what the Prime Minister said in
the House on March 21, 2001. In what are called the blues,
the Prime Minister said, and I quote “We had no financial
interest in that company in November 1993”. That was the
statement and it was very clear. It was limpid.
In Hansard, we find:
“Mr. Speaker, we did not have shares in that company since
November 1993”.
I do not know under what authority the editor responsible for
this or the head of the editing group changed “We had no
financial interest” to “We did not have shares”. It is
substantially different.
The sentence was in perfectly good French and at no time was
any correction whatsoever of the form necessary, as is clear
from the blues.
In the corrected version the meaning has changed. Why? One
might think that someone from the Prime Minister's Office had
stepped in, because that is how things are done, and requested
that the House editors change the substance, not the form.
Why, when the Bloc Quebecois House leader asks for
a verb tense to be changed, is he told that it is impossible,
that it is too great a shift, that it changes the meaning? Why
are requests from the Prime Minister's Office treated differently
than requests from the office of the Bloc Quebecois House
leader?
That is the first point I would like you to clear up.
I am going to have to conclude that if the Prime Minister's
Office requested a change between what the Prime Minister said and the official
House Hansard, it is because that office had a special interest,
and what was that interest? It resorted to what amounted to a
coverup of an answer given by the Prime Minister. Why did the
Prime Minister feel the need to make a substantial change in the
statement he made here in the House from “intérêt financier”
or “financial interest” to “parts” or “shares”. The two
things are completely different.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask you to take my point of order into
account. I think my parliamentary privilege has been
somehow breached. I think the editors have not behaved
appropriately. I think the influence of the Prime
Minister's Office is so pervasive that it has managed to change
the editing service's rules for handling our requests.
Ultimately we will sort this out with the Prime
Minister in oral question period.
The Speaker: The question asked by the hon. member for
Roberval is very specific. I will inquire to determine if other
members, whether it is the Prime Minister or another member of
parliament, are treated differently than the hon. member for
Roberval. I believe the question is properly put.
1110
I hope to be able to provide the House with an answer after
looking into the matter, but we must now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business.
Does the hon. member for Roberval have another question?
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, obviously I would like the
Chair to see whether the change was actually made. That is one
thing.
I would also like the Chair to rule on whether the Prime
Minister's Office had the right to ask for such a change. Why is
a change of this nature rejected when it is asked by the
opposition but accepted when it is from the Prime Minister's
Office? Is there a special relationship?
The Speaker: I understood all of that in the question put by the
hon. member. I indicated that the difference of treatment, if
that is the word in French, can be explained if there is indeed
a difference, and that I will get back to the House on this
issue. In my opinion, it is not necessary at this point to hear
other members on this issue. This is an issue raised by the hon.
member because of the way he was treated. I will inquire and I
will get back to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 11.12 a.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership on the international stage: (a) by taking action
designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction; (b) by signing bilateral treaties that include
commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally
handed down by the courts; and (c) by taking the necessary steps
within its own borders to combat international child abduction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable joy as well as
considerable emotion that I rise to speak to Motion no. 219 which I
am introducing today.
Although I am aware that it is not traditional to do so, I would
like to begin by thanking the standing committee on private
members' business, not only for allowing debate on this matter
today but for making it possible for members to express
themselves clearly in a vote that will be held very shortly in
the House of Commons.
I will touch on a number of aspects relating to international
abduction, beginning with a general picture of the present
situation both internationally and in Canada.
I will also list some of the programs developed by the Missing
Children's Registry.
As well, I will speak about the convention on the rights of the
child, an international convention containing a number of
provisions aimed at combatting the illegal transport of
children. In my opinion, this is something a number of
countries should take into consideration if we are to expand the
fight against international child abduction so that it is not
merely a Canadian effort but an international one as well.
I will also be speaking about the Hague convention on the civil
aspects of international child abduction, which has been signed
by 54 countries. Unfortunately, too few countries have signed it
at this point. Unfortunately too, it has certain flaws
which need to be addressed if located children are to be
returned to their country of origin.
I will also speak to the matter of bilateral agreements. In many
cases, even if the international conventions have not been
signed, particularly the hague convention on the civil aspects
of international child abduction, a certain number of countries
have entered into bilateral agreements.
1115
With respect to parents who are victims of child abduction, we
will take a look at just how the conventions are applied to see
whether parents can find an appropriate way to recover their
child as a result of the signing of these agreements.
I will also look at the question of measures to be taken within
Canada. It is not just a matter of showing diplomatic and
international leadership on this issue, Canada must show
leadership at home, within its own borders, in order to fight
international abduction of children.
I will set out a number of appropriate measures Canada could
consider and act on in order to fight this major scourge.
I will mention a number of recommendations appearing in a report
drafted by the standing house sub committee on foreign affairs in
April 1998 when the House considered the entire question and
proposed a number of recommendations. In my opinion, the
government should have between 1998 and today noted the report
and come up with a number of solutions and measures to fight
this scourge.
Finally, I will note that the fifth special commission on the
Hague convention on the international abduction of children is
being held from March 22 to 28. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
should have been in attendance at this commission in our opinion
in order to improve various aspects and measures of the
convention.
Therefore, the motion I have tabled today, which will be
debated, demands that the federal government exercise some
leadership in order to increase the number of countries that are
signatories to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of
international child abduction. It calls on Canada to sign
bilateral treaties that include commitments to respect custody
and access orders as originally handed down by the courts.
Finally, it demands that the federal government take the
necessary steps within its own borders to combat international
child abduction.
Not only am I very pleased to speak to this motion today as a
parliamentarian but from a personal point of view this debate
also gives me the hope of seeing a fundamental issue finally
resolved.
On January 17, 1993, my spouse's son, Karim, of whom she had
legal custody for a few years, was abducted. He was three years
old at the time. The father, a Canadian of Egyptian origin, took
advantage of a Sunday outing with his young son to abduct him
and take him to his native country. That was the beginning of a
long process involving three lawyers and high legal fees, but
above all, it was the beginning of a sad human and family drama
that is still unresolved.
In Canada for 1999 alone it is estimated that 358 children
were abducted by their father or mother, according to the number
of cases reported to the Missing Children's Registry. Half of
that number were the subject of a custody order from the court.
In Canada, under our criminal code, such an offence carries a
sentence of 10 years.
Unfortunately, however, the belief that abduction is the most
serious violation of a child's rights is not yet widespread.
The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child
abduction, the only multilateral instrument against
international child abduction, which came into force on December
1, 1983, has been signed or ratified by only 54 countries.
In order to protect the interests of children, each signatory
country agrees to respect custody arrangements made under the
laws of other countries and to return an abducted child to his
or her legal guardian in the country where he or she resided
before the abduction.
Members must know, however, that the geographical scope of this
convention is very limited since no country under Muslim law has
signed it yet.
1120
It would seem that Muslim laws and religious customs
establishing the rights of parents and the influence of the
family are the main obstacles to middle eastern countries
signing the Hague convention. For instance, by law in Egypt,
the child of a Muslim father must observe Islamic religious
practices and a mother must be married to the father of her
child for reasons of morality. In addition, Islamic countries
apparently do not see the family as consisting of two equal
partners, both with an equal right to access to their child.
The only recourse for parents whose children have been abducted
are bilateral treaties with countries that are not signatories
to the Hague convention, negotiations which could be conducted
between countries and which could result in the conclusion of
provisions similar to the convention. In this connection, it
should be pointed out that Canada has signed a repatriation
treaty with Egypt. Unlike the convention, this treaty is not
binding and contains no obligation to comply with the custody
and access order handed down by the initial court.
Canada must therefore show leadership on the international and
diplomatic stage so as to increase the number of signatory
countries to the Hague convention, and negotiate bilateral
treaties with non-signatory countries by imposing legal
obligations for the return of children to the country in which
they resided before being abducted.
In addition, Canada must take immediate measures within its own
borders.
How is it that three year old Karim was allowed out of the country
with his father, who did not have custody of the child, without
the permission of his mother, who had a court order? What sort
of document check was carried out, particularly with respect to
the production of a passport for a child? Did customs officials
and airline personnel have the required authority and training
to prevent such a situation?
It is estimated that there have been approximately 200 cases
where customs officials have suspected that a child was being
abducted but were unable to stop the presumed abductors because
they did not have the authority.
The fight against international child abduction is first and
foremost a fight for the right of children and for the love of
their parents. The solutions require the Canadian government to
show international and diplomatic leadership and to foster
close co-operation between the solicitor general, the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police and the provincial ministers
responsible for law enforcement.
As I said earlier, this is a general picture of what we are
experiencing here in Canada. Moreover, we know that, in
1988 the solicitor general and the government created the
Missing Children's Registry.
The primary roles and objectives of this registry, along with a
program entitled our missing children, are to intercept and
rescue children who have disappeared, have been abducted and
have crossed international borders to publish lookout notices
at the borders, and to install placards of missing children at
all Canadian border crossings. This organization also provides
training to the personnel of law enforcement bodies and of other
services, such as airline companies, so that child abductors can
be found out.
The mandate and role of the Missing Children's Registry and of
the related program did not achieve the results anticipated. The
time has come to be more rigorous in the training provided to
civil aviation staff.
1125
The time has come to give more powers to customs officers. They
must not merely monitor the importation and exportation of
goods. They must also ensure that children do not leave the
country without the previous authorization of both parents.
I referred to the mandate of the Missing Children's Registry.
The mandate is even broader. The registry must also help, if
necessary, all police forces during their investigations on
missing children.
When victim parents appeared before the standing committee on
foreign affairs in 1988, many of them told us that even though
complaints were made to local police stations, it took more that
24 hours before an investigation was opened. It is important to
realize that the first hours, the first days, the first minutes
are the most important if we want to find the child.
We cannot wait 24 hours after a parent makes a complaint to his
or her local police station to open an investigation. The
protocol established for police has to be stronger and stricter to
ensure that an investigation is undertaken in the first hours
after a complaint is received and that the Missing Children's
Registry officials and Interpol are informed.
If the abductor is no longer in Canada, we should be able to
station Interpol officers at various U.S. border crossings, if
necessary, to anticipate the return of the child.
It is obvious that the protocol has to be strengthened, and of
course that has to be done in co-operation with the RCMP, the
Sûreté du Québec and municipal police forces.
Moreover, the registry's mandate is to check the Canadian Police
Information Centre's file, also called the missing persons
computerized system, to give more information or follow up on
missing children investigations, as needed.
Would it not be more effective and better if customs officials
had in their possession all the information on the custody
order? If they saw that there was a custody order from a court
and that a parent who did not have the custody of the child was
trying to leave the country, that person could be arrested
before boarding a plane belonging to a foreign airline. We
should never forget that from the moment that the abductor
parent and the child are inside the plane of a foreign airline
company, there is nothing more we can do, even if the plane is
still on Canadian territory.
Customs officials have a crucial role to play in the
identification of abductors. They must be provided will all the
means to do their job.
As we know, Quebec acts as the central authority in that regard,
under the convention on the civil aspects of international child
abduction.
Quebec is responsible for the implementation of the convention.
As I said, the administrative law branch of the justice
department of Quebec acts as the central authority responsible
for the implementation of the convention on the civil aspects of
international child abduction, which helps to locate and
repatriate children who are illegally taken to a foreign country
by a parent.
1130
Contrary to what is presently done in Canada, in Quebec we can
identify, and this is easily accessible on the website of the
Department of Justice, countries where abducted children have
been taken.
This was one of the requirements made repeatedly to the House
subcommittee on foreign affairs by organizations, namely The
Missing Children's Network Canada, which come to the assistance
of parents whose children have been abducted. They asked that a
national register of children abducted in Canada be established
to facilitate their identification.
We cannot help but note there is no such registry available that
would allow us to intervene. As we know, Quebec has
one. For example, we know of a number of cases in the United
States, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland,
Venezuela, Zimbabwe as well as in Egypt. We know that a number
of children have been abducted and taken illegally into these
countries.
It might be high time we had a national registry, as requested
by the groups that appeared in March 1998 before the House of
Commons standing committee on foreign affairs, and by others as
well.
We must also know what the terms and conditions of the convention
are. It is not that simple. Before one's case can be examined
under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international
child abduction, a number of conditions must be met.
I would like to point out a number of points I have brought
forward but I want to remind the House that the fifth meeting
of the special commission on the operation of the Hague
convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction
is being held from March 22 to 28.
On March 5, I asked the foreign affairs minister to take part in
that meeting. Unfortunately, we cannot help but notice that the
minister will not participate. I think it would have allowed the
government to show leadership at the diplomatic level, as my
motion is calling for today.
I wish that all members of parliament could vote for this
motion, which essentially calls for action, as I said earlier,
for the defence of children rights and for the love of their
parents.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to support Motion No. 219. International child abduction is
a tragic phenomenon that affects too many Canadian families.
The motion calls on the Government of Canada to show leadership
on this issue on the international stage. This is what Canada is
already doing. Indeed, for many years the Government of Canada
has been leading the efforts globally to find effective ways to
prevent and solve international child abduction cases.
The Canadian approach toward child abduction has always been to
ensure that children's best interests are a priority. The Hague
convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction
was drafted some 20 years ago and became a reality through
Canada's efforts.
For a long time, Canada's priority has been to prevent
international child abduction cases, whenever possible, and to
find solutions when abductions happen. In the great majority of
cases, these situations happen during or after the parents'
breaking up, particularly when one parent or both have close
family ties with another country whom they are citizens from.
Twenty years ago, Canada started negotiations that led to the
drafting of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of
international child abduction. The Hague convention came into
force on December 1, 1983. Canada is still the first among those
who are trying to broaden the application of the Hague
convention, the only multilateral instrument providing for
effective assistance to children who are victims of transborder
abductions.
1135
According to the objective and guiding principle of the Hague
convention, the child's interests are best served by him
returning promptly to his normal or regular country of
residence.
In 1983, when the Hague convention came into force, only three
countries signed it, including Canada. Thanks to pressure
by the foreign affairs department, more than 65 states are now
signatories of the convention and that number is likely to
grow.
The Hague convention is the only international agreement that
one can refer to when dealing with international child
abduction.
Its accomplishments are impressive, and the commitment to make
it work and to increase the number of signatory states remains
one of the most important and constant priorities of the
government.
The Hague convention puts the interests of children first.
In 1998 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade published a report entitled “International
Child Abduction: Issues for Reform.” In that document, the
committee recommended that Canada continue to promote the Hague
convention and to increase the number of signatory states.
The Canadian government's reaction to the recommendations was
positive. The Minister of Foreign Affairs stepped up his efforts
and approaches to many countries in order to set forth the
benefits of the Hague convention.
Representations have been made internationally, especially with
several nations in Asia-Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the
Middle East.
For example, a team of officials of the foreign affairs and
justice departments went to Vietnam in late February for
bilateral consultations. Among the subjects discussed were the
benefits of the Hague convention. Canada urged Vietnam to
consider signing the convention and offered important practical
advice on the implementation of the convention.
The same kind of initiative was taken several times in many
countries throughout the world.
Canada has a leadership role in the preparation of the fourth
special commission on the Hague convention on the civil aspects
of international child abduction. This meeting will be the most
important international operational review since the convention
came into effect. Many options have been suggested. The
international consensus is that the best option to prevent and
remedy the problem of international child abduction is to abide
by the Hague convention.
But we know that all countries party to the convention do not
always implement it as it should be.
Procedural delays, non-compliance with court orders to return
children, contradictory domestic legislation and legal
interpretations not always in accordance with the Hague
convention are some of the problems that can arise when
proceedings are taken in other countries under the Hague
convention.
To maintain the confidence of the international community in
the Hague convention, member states must commit to fully uphold
their obligations under the convention. To promote a cohesive
interpretation of the convention, the justice minister will hand
out a $15,000 grant to the Hague child project in order to set
up a data bank where will be stored legal decisions pursuant to
the Hague convention.
The fourth special commission will be a crucial meeting where
decisions on how to better implement and enforce the Hague
convention will be made. Canada is sending to this meeting a
huge multidisciplinary team: representatives of the foreign
affairs and justice departments, provincial delegates in charge
of implementing the convention and judges who have to apply the
convention.
1140
Canada is a world leader in promoting the goals of the Hague
convention. We do everything we can to increase the number of
signatories to the convention. In fact, we are taking all
appropriate measures to make the Hague convention more
efficient, to help the Canadian families of children who have
been abducted and to ensure that abducted Canadian children are
returned to Canada safe and sound.
With your permission, I will now examine the question of
bilateral treaties respecting custody and access. Canadian
consular authorities have growing responsibilities in the area
of family matters, including the abduction of children by the
father or mother and other types of matters where the wellbeing
of Canadian families travelling or residing abroad is a source
of concern.
This increased volume of family matters requiring consular
assistance is due in part to the increased numbers of Canadians
with dual citizenship and the high mobility of Canadians and
Canadian families.
Encouraging countries to sign the Hague convention on the civil
aspects of international child abduction remains Canada's method
of choice in managing cases of child abduction.
However, given the concerns raised by the Hague convention in
many countries in the middle east, where Shariah family law is
in effect, Canada has negotiated innovative bilateral agreements
that constitute an effective way of dealing with such cases.
As cases of international child abduction are not covered by
official agreements, they can drag on, be hard to settle and
become bilateral irritants. Parents are separated from their
children, and children are taken away from familiar
surroundings. The parents of a family in conflict try turning
to the justice system of one country in order to establish
living conditions or terms of custody of members of the family
that live usually in another country.
International child abduction is a crime.
Canada has put comprehensive and effective measures in place to
fight this phenomenon. However, cases of abduction continue.
The Government of Canada is determined to find new ways to
prevent and resolve cases of child abduction. We must all work
on this objective. It is in the best interest of our children.
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion put
forward by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
In introducing the motion, my colleague has raised an important
issue that few will disagree should remain a priority for the
House, that is, the protection and best interest of the children.
For many years the international community has recognized the
need for countries to co-operate in order to remedy child custody
and abduction problems. In 1976 the Hague convention on private
international law accepted a Canadian proposal to alleviate some
of these problems. This proposal led to the Hague convention on
the civil aspects of international child abduction.
The objectives of the convention are: first, to secure the
prompt return of a child wrongfully removed to or retained in any
contracting state; and, second, to ensure that the rights of
custody and access of one contracting state are effectively
respected in the other contracting states.
As a leader in these negotiations, Canada was the second country
to ratify the convention which came into force in December 1983.
To date, 53 countries, including Canada, have adopted the
convention.
According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, over 300 Canadian children have been returned under the
convention.
Although the convention is supported in principle by a number of
countries and has been relatively successful in achieving its
aims, some recent reports say that we are not doing enough.
Let us look at the 1999 report by the international forum on
parental child abduction.
1145
The report stated that although it:
—was a giant step forward in dealing with cases of international
child abduction in a more uniform, consistent way...in too many
cases, the Hague Convention appears not to be working as
originally intended, and too many cases remain unresolved.
Some problems cited were: a lack of systematic data; wide
variations in outcome and interpretation; undue delay in reaching
resolutions; lack of public awareness; and lack of enforceability
of return orders.
The Canadian government has not been entirely oblivious to these
problems. The government's 1998 response to a committee report
reviews 14 recommendations that address similar issues relating
to the Hague convention, as well as domestic issues pertaining to
child custody issues and abduction.
Many of the committee's recommendations are similar, if not
identical, to the provision of today's motion, although it
remains to be seen what action the government has taken to
implement the recommendations.
The issue must not be left unresolved. Now that it has come up
again in the House, we must find real solutions and initiate
concrete action on behalf of children.
Let us consider the first provision of the motion that calls on
the House to take action designed to increase the number of
signatory countries to the Hague convention on civil aspects of
international child abduction. There is no question how
absolutely crucial this is. The convention can only be effective
insofar as other nations are willing both to participate and to
enforce once they have signed on.
Most of Europe and North America, as well as Australia and New
Zealand, have signed on. However only five African nations are
signatories. In Asia and the Middle East there are six, and in
South America there are seven.
The difficulties in increasing the number of signatory countries
are many. In particular, the laws of some Middle Eastern and
African nations may make international co-operation on the matter
more complex, especially in terms of parental abductions.
In many middle eastern and African countries, as my colleague
from the Bloc pointed out, the father's permission is often
required for his children to leave that country. The father will
often have ultimate custody, despite the fact that the child may
have dual citizenship in Canada or another country.
Bearing that in mind, it may be difficult to persuade countries
with such laws to subscribe to or subject themselves to these
principles. In taking any steps one must obviously bear that in
mind. As my colleague from the Bloc has stated, Canada needs to
show leadership.
Despite the difficulties, we must step up our efforts to
persuade other nations that it is in their interest to co-operate
to protect children both at home and abroad. It has often been
said that it takes a village to raise a child. In this case, it
will take all nations of the world working together to ensure
that children's rights are secured and protected and that parents
do not need to live in fear for their children.
The second provision, to sign bilateral treaties that include
commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally
handed down by the courts, is extremely vital. If we cannot
persuade non-signatory countries to sign on to the convention, we
must continue to negotiate bilateral treaties with those
countries.
The third and last provision of the motion is to take the
necessary steps within our own borders to combat international
child abduction. Of course, any international initiative must
and should begin at home. Authorities, such as the solicitor
general, the RCMP, the police associations and provincial and
territorial ministers, should work closely together to develop a
policy instructing police officers to report suspected child
abductors to the missing children's registry.
1150
All missing children reports should automatically be entered
into the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. Although this
already occurs to some extent, our missing children's registry is
nowhere near as extensive as it should be in order to be truly
effective.
Within our own borders, child custody and abduction problems are
extremely serious. Outside our borders, however, we have almost
no control over what happens once a child is abducted. This must
change if we are to give Canadian children the level of security
and protection they are entitled to.
Accordingly, I would ask that all members vote in favour of the
motion.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to the motion today. I compliment the
hon. member for bringing it forth. He has a long track record of
dealing with issues that concern young people in Canada and
around the world. He deserves a lot of credit and recognition
for his work.
It is obvious to all members that young people are our most
precious resource and that child abduction is reprehensible.
Whether a child is abducted by a parent who does not have custody
or by someone else, using children to accomplish one's own
purposes is wrong.
We compliment the member for his work. He has a long track
record of bringing up issues with respect to young people and
children. He has taken an avid interest in adoption laws,
especially issues surrounding immigration and international
adoptions. My party supports the motion and will be behind it
all the way.
The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child
abduction signed in 1983 was a multilateral treaty to protect
children from the harmful effects of parental abduction and
retention across international borders and boundaries. The
convention provides a procedure for attempting to bring about the
prompt return of children. Sixty-five countries have already
signed the treaty, including Monaco, Canada, Ireland, Great
Britain, France and the United States.
The convention is one of three signed at the Hague with the aim
of protecting children. We think the motion, if successful and
turned into policy by the government, would enhance and increase
the protection provided by the convention. That is one
reason we support the motion and feel that it should be done
through The Hague process. The motion, if passed, would
certainly ensure the rights of custody and protect children.
The Hague convention applies to children under the age of 16.
How can children under 16 look after themselves if they do not
have protection or a choice of where to go if someone abducts
them? The convention is certainly appropriate.
If a parent believes a child has been removed or retained in
breach of their custody rights, they can apply to a central
authority under the convention. The convention also details some
exceptions to returning the child to his or her home state. For
example, if in returning the child it could cause further harm,
then the child may be able to remain in the new state, which is
again appropriate. There is flexibility in the convention to
protect children no matter what the situation.
To facilitate the return of children, the Permanent Bureau of
The Hague Conference on Private International Law has established
the international child abduction database which makes accessible
all judicial decisions taken around the world on the abduction
convention.
Motion No. 219 by the Bloc has three parts, and we support them
all. One, the federal government should take action to increase
the number of signatory countries to the hague convention on the
civil aspects of international child abduction. Sixty-five
countries are signatories at present, and that is not enough. We
would certainly like to see more countries sign on. The federal
government should take the initiative on that.
In the wake of the fatal car crash in Ottawa involving a Russian
diplomat, I have risen in the House on several occasions and
asked the minister of foreign affairs to initiate a dialogue on
changing the Vienna convention with respect to diplomatic
immunity. Although we brought it up time and time again, the
government shows no interest in taking that initiative. The same
type of initiative could be taken with respect to the motion to
bring more countries under The Hague convention.
The government has an obligation to act and should act. I hope
it acts in both these cases.
1155
The second part of the motion says that the federal government
should show leadership
Such treaties would be as important as the overall convention,
and more powerful in many cases, because they would involve one
country dealing directly with another.
Third, the federal government can show leadership by taking
steps within its own borders to combat international child
abduction. The government can never do enough to protect
children, yet its record leaves something to be desired. More
children live in poverty now than 12 years ago when the House
passed a motion to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.
Years after the motion to eradicate child poverty, the government
has still not addressed the issue.
In Liberal speeches from the throne, children's issues are
mentioned. However I am not sure anything concrete has been
accomplished or that any tangible action has been taken.
The PC Party has been concerned with this issue for many years.
When we were in power we spearheaded the missing children
initiative. In May 1980, before the convention was signed, a
former colleague of mine, Mr. Benno Friesen, member for
Surrey—White Rock—North Delta, tabled a private member's bill
dealing with parental abduction and custody matters. He had
introduced it in 1976. The bill received the support of the
government of the day and its wording was quite close to that of
government bills introduced in 1978.
I will quote Mr. Friesen from Hansard in December 1980, 21
years ago.
I have had many representations received in my office regarding
this type of case. These are cases involving virtually helpless
parents who have had their children snatched from them by the
other parent, usually, but not always, the father. The parent
with custody granted by the court becomes a helpless
victim...There seems to be no elementary or emotional security
for these children in their formative years. They sometimes
become scarred for life through such an experience.
That was said in the House over 20 years ago and still applies
today. I mention it to show that was the case even before the
Canada treaty entered into force on December 1, 1983.
The Progressive Conservative Party takes the issue very
seriously. Because of this, we support the motion and
congratulate the hon. member for bringing it forth.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Motion no. 219,
which deals with international child abduction.
Canada's record in solving cases of international child
abduction by the father or the mother is well known not only
here but worldwide. Let us not forget that in countries that
are not party to the Hague convention child abductions are
treated on a case by case basis.
Even though the desired outcome is generally the same, namely
bringing the child or children back to Canada, each case must be
dealt with based on its own particularities.
The main obstacles to the child's return may be related to the
following: the relationship between the father and the mother
and other close relatives; the marital status of the parents;
the gender of the child or of the parent seeking the return of
the child; family law and the religious system in the foreign
country where the child is; and the nationality of the parents
or of the abducted children.
The consular affairs bureau, which has a vast experience in
dealing with child abduction cases in countries that are not
party to the Hague convention, has succeeded in securing the
return of children from foreign countries, including
middle eastern countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait, Syria
and Iran.
These past few years the department has managed to reunite more
than 30 children taken to non-signatory countries with their
parents who had legal custody in Canada.
No other country with a similar incidence of child abduction by
the father or the mother has such a high success rate.
1200
The consular affairs bureau works in close co-operation with
other agencies, particularly with the partners involved in the
our missing children program, namely the passport office, the
RCMP, Customs Canada and Immigration Canada. The high degree of
co-operation between these bodies plays a critical role when
disappeared or missing children must be rescued.
While there is no single or easy solution leading to success,
some measures have, in a number of cases, helped the return of
children, or helped maintain contact between children and the
Canadian parent left behind. The measures taken by Canadian
police forces to lay criminal charges against the parent who
abducts a child are important ones. International search and
rescue activities conducted abroad by police forces can be
greatly facilitated when criminal charges are laid.
Then there are the measures to maintain or facilitate contact
and communication between the abducting parent, the children
abducted and the parent left behind. Except for our consular
agents, parents who are left behind often have no one to turn to
in order to get information on their children and to maintain
contact with them.
Thanks to these efforts, consular agents have managed to
negotiate visiting rights for the parents left behind. Visiting
rights can be essential to preserving the relationship between
children and the Canadian parent during the years that it may
take to settle such cases. These rights are also important to
restore confidence between the parents, which can sometimes lead
to a voluntary return of children.
Patience also comes into play. Some cases were settled years
after the abduction and in rare cases the abducted child
sought consular assistance to come back to Canada when he was
old enough to do so on his own.
Then there are the representations made to foreign authorities.
Consular agents contact authorities in foreign countries and
closely co-operate with them to settle these cases.
Since most countries that have not signed the Hague convention
share with the signatories the desire to reduce the incidence of
international child abduction, they are always disposed to
support and discuss these cases.
Other countries frequently find ways to help us, within the
limitations of their own systems. This approach has, for
instance, been used by the Canadian department to negotiate two
bilateral agreements with Egypt and Lebanon in order to
facilitate the settlement of cases of children that have been
abducted and taken to these countries.
Unlike the Hague convention, the bilateral agreements do not
include any mandatory provisions relating to the return of
abducted children.
These agreements are not intended to replace the Hague
convention, which is still the preferred means for handling
international abduction cases, but they are one of the outcomes
of the constructive co-operation shown by the governments of
Egypt and Lebanon in consular affairs with the Government of
Canada.
These agreements provide an official framework at the diplomatic
level for discussion and information sharing on specific
consular matters, including cases relating to child abduction
and child custody. The agreements set up joint advisory
commissions comprised of representatives of the Egyptian or
Lebanese departments of foreign affairs, justice and the
interior, and representatives of the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade and of the RCMP.
These bilateral agreements constitute a new approach that has
been adopted by the Government of Canada to overcome the
difficulties presented by international child abduction cases.
1205
Nevertheless, far too many children are being abducted by
parent. When children are taken to other countries, the
mechanisms that can be used to obtain their return to Canada are
imperfect in that they depend, of necessity, on co-ordination
between different national legal systems. This is why the
Government of Canada has put in place the most exhaustive
measures even taken by any government to help the victims of
international child abduction.
The challenge we must face, which reflects the commitment we
have made to the public, consists in making these programs and
interventions still more effective.
Canada has always urged other countries to be party to the Hague
convention which remains, as I said before, the only
international instrument that can be used to prevent and solve
international child abductions by fathers or mothers.
Moreover, Canada is number one with regard to international efforts
to ensure that the Hague convention is properly implemented by
other countries. As mentioned by the member for Hull—Aylmer,
Canada will be represented at the special commission which meets
in March 2001 to have a look at the structure of the convention.
New supplementary agreements have been concluded, for example
the 1996 Hague convention on protection of children. Canada
provides significant assistance to Canadian parents who are
dealing with abductions to countries where the Hague convention
does not apply, always to ensure that the child is returned to
Canada safe and sound.
To solve the problem of international child abductions by
fathers or mothers, the government has come up with several
measures, including bilateral conventions and agreements. I
would even add that what Canada is doing now goes further than
the proposals included in the Bloc Quebecois's motion.
Many of these initiatives have already been endorsed by the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
for instance, the 1998 report entitled “International Child
Abduction: Issues for Reform”.
I will conclude by saying that all these initiatives show that
the Government of Canada has for some time made determined
efforts to find ways to prevent international child abductions.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I support the motion moved by the
member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. This is something that I
would have preferred we not have to do but, in the past five
years almost 300 children in Canada have been abducted by a
foreigner, which also shows that we have considerable difficulty
recovering these children.
I listened closely to the debate and followed the issue, since
my colleague brought it to the public's attention. Often
refuge is taken behind the fact that there are agreements,
conventions and so forth. It is all very fine and well to sign
agreements and conventions, but some means of enforcing them is
also necessary. That is the problem we are facing. There is
little that can actually be done to get these children back.
The member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie knows whereof he speaks
because his spouse went through such a situation.
I believe he is probably the member of this House who knows
the most about this sort of situation.
It is unfortunate that the Liberal Party member seems more
inclined to recite his briefing notes. Furthermore, I wish to
point out to him that this is not a Bloc Quebecois motion but a
motion by a member which is being debated under private members'
business.
I am sure all Bloc Quebecois members and most, if not all,
other members of the House will be pleased to support the member
for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, so that measures are much more
effective than they are right now.
I listened carefully to my colleague earlier when he said that
from the outset people often have to wait too long before
action is taken.
Not only must the federal government take action but the police
must also review the way they operate and there must be
co-operation in the exchange of information. Customs officials
must also play a key role and their authority should be
increased.
1210
For example, we talked about measures as simple as issuing
passports to children. There are very concrete actions. The
rules could be tightened so that we would have an increased
intervention capability that would help us prevent such
incredible human tragedy where a parent is separated from his or
her child. I do not need to make a long speech on this issue
because everyone is aware of the negative and disruptive
consequences that has on the child, on the parents and on the
community. It is a human tragedy.
If only we could take measures limiting such tragedies because
when we hear about a case in particular, we feel that it is very
exceptional.
I was very surprised to learn that there were around 60
cases a year, on average. When I said that there were close
to 300 cases in the last five years, it was way too much.
I do not have enough time to speak in detail to each of the
measures. My colleague has done a much better job dealing with the issue.
I invite all members to unanimously support the motion.
I invite the government to go beyond statements of
principle and to take measures that have more teeth than what
we now have.
I congratulate my colleague from
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie and I assure him of my support, as no
doubt all members of parliament will.
Not everyone will get to speak but everyone will get the
opportunity to vote and show his or her support for such an
important motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 12.12 p.m., the time
provided for the consideration of private members' business has
now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order
of precedence on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-7—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal
justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts,
not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the bill and,
fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the allotted day of the second reading
consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House
shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order,
and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the
second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House has heard the terms of
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please
say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
1255
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Calder
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
| Finlay
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 118
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Clark
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Venne – 65
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Discepola
|
Farrah
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Ianno
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
LeBlanc
| Loubier
| Marcil
| Matthews
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Paquette
| Perron
| Peterson
| Provenzano
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion
carried.
SECOND READING
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to the legislation. If the
people out in the real world were listening earlier today, they
would have noticed that time allocation has been forced on the
House in regard to Bill C-7, a matter which is a foremost problem
faced by myself, as a member of parliament, as it is I am sure
for many other members in the House, since coming here in 1993.
We are talking about the Young Offenders Act.
1300
Let us just take a look at this. For well over seven years the
government has been working on or promising to introduce new
legislation with regard to the Young Offenders Act. For over
seven years it has worked on this problem and this is the best it
could come up with. It has come up with a piece of legislation
that absolutely does not address many areas of concern that out
there in the public when it comes to young offenders.
Not only our party but other parties in the House were involved
in committee hearings that went on across Canada. We listened to
different people and had witnesses come in with regard to this
piece of legislation, yet the government has just about totally
ignored most of these recommendations.
A government's first and foremost responsibility be to any
country and to any of its citizens has to be safety and
well-being. That should be the foremost responsibility of any
government. This piece of legislation does not come anywhere
close to addressing that. We have a habit in this country of
saying that children and our young people are precious gifts,
which they are. They are also our responsibility, not only in
regard to their safety and well-being but their spiritual,
physical and mental well-being. That is our duty, as elected
representatives, to them, to parents and to the rest of our
citizens: to try to protect.
When we have pieces of legislation such as this that are
supposed to address the problems in our country facing young
people today and when we go out and speak in schools, I listen to
the young people in the schools and they tell me that the Young
Offenders Act is a joke, a laugh. These are young people who
themselves are concerned about going to school, concerned about
gang violence, concerned about losing their own personal property
through theft or concerned about intimidation by their peers, by
other young people. When we ask them about the penalties that
can be imposed, they look at what has happened in our court
system and start to laugh.
There is nothing out there to deter these young people—and
there are a few of them but not a majority of them—out there
committing these types of crimes. They look upon our judicial
system and how we handle them as a joke and, when we go through
it all, it is a joke.
Since the Young Offenders Act was incorporated, the violent acts
of crime by youth have increased 100%. That statistic alone
should tell the government that there is something wrong with the
legislation it has been introducing in this regard.
When we hear people saying that the young offenders legislation
should start taking in people from the age of 10 and up, we
should be listening to them. Instead, we turn away from them.
The government has been told this by every party in the House
except the Bloc, and even its own members agreed to this in
committee, and yet in this piece of legislation it has refused to
address this.
I am not saying that all crimes committed by young offenders
should be treated in that strict a manner. When we look at
diversion or extrajudicial measures, which have been brought up,
we see that they have been quite successful. For those who do
not know what that is, it is merely a program whereby the accused
young offender admits guilt and agrees to be dealt with in an
informal manner through some form of community based committee.
The committee may be made up of citizens of the community, if the
accused and perhaps the victim are so inclined. The committee
will talk over the case. The accused gets to acknowledge the
damage and decides how best to show remorse and so on. Community
service may be decided on. An apology may be written. The
offender may either pay the victim for the damages or work off
the damages by assisting the victim in some other manner. By
successfully completing the program, the accused avoids a
criminal record, which is good, and hopefully the community is
satisfied with having been involved and with seeing how and why
certain decisions were made.
1305
This is all good, but the legislation was supposed to be for
first time non-violent offenders. Yet this piece of legislation
is not limited to first time non-violent offenders. That is why
it is open to abuse. There has to be concern about that. There
are some positive steps in the legislation, but it is extremely
unfortunate that for the small steps it has taken forward there
are still large loopholes left. Therefore we in our party cannot
support it.
Liberal members come to us and ask us why we cannot support it,
telling us to look at the good in it, but when we look at it, it
is like asking us to pay the full price for a loaf of bread that
is three-quarters rotten in order to get four good slices. It is
unacceptable.
Yet when amendments come forward from other parties in the House
they are totally disregarded. Instead of standing here and
debating it, when a person can stand and talk for 20 minutes or a
half hour and really get into the root causes, we are told there
is time allocation on it. Our real concerns are not addressed.
We do not have time for proper debate.
Let us take a look at clause 2 regarding definitions. A
non-violent offence means an offence that does not cause or
create a substantial risk of causing bodily harm. Non-violence
would appear to include: drug offences such as trafficking;
theft, including car theft; break and enter; perhaps even sexual
touching; possession of child pornography; and fraud, just to
name a few.
This is a very important definition because for these types of
offences offenders will likely avoid custody. In fact it is also
presumed that extrajudicial measures are sufficient and they will
not even gain a criminal record.
We have to wonder what is going on here. Presumptive offences
include only five offences: first degree murder, second degree
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and aggravated assault.
That includes serious violent offences for which an adult can be
sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years, if at the time
of the offence committed by the young person there have been at
least two previous judicial proceedings where the judge has made
a judicial determination that offences were serious violent
offences.
When we look at that we realize that the list does not include
violent crimes in which a firearm has been used or sexual assault
with a firearm or even a knife. These can be quite traumatic to
the victim, yet they are not included. Why?
We leave these pieces of legislation open to interpretation and
we all know what happens when we allow the courts to start
interpreting what we are supposed to be doing here. We run into
a bigger mess than we already have.
Although there are some good parts to the legislation, much more
has to be done before it would be a viable piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
we have been saying all along, the Bloc Quebecois is totally
against the bill introduced by the justice minister.
We cannot agree to the rigid model she is proposing, because her
bill goes against the values shared by all the people in Quebec
and everyone working with children at risk. The government is
ignoring years of efforts to implement programs to help young
people facing violence in their daily lives. We are not about to
backtrack on this.
The government is looking backwards by taking
unnecessarily repressive measures without proposing acceptable
alternatives to its strong action. To supervise and to punish
seems to be the underlying principle of the bill but what
about preventing and addressing the problems of our youth? The
question remains unanswered.
Despite what the justice minister says, what makes a bill good
or bad has nothing to do with the government being reelected
but rather with the bill being in touch with reality. The
minister is ignoring Quebec's experience in this area. By
turning young people into criminals, she is rejecting the Quebec
model and its proven success based on rehabilitating young
offenders.
In doing that, she is compromising an effective approach in
favour of considerations on which there is no consensus.
1310
Why is the minister being so hard on our young people who
need to be supported and guided rather than punished? Why does
she want to send our young people to crime school, which is what
prison is? Why deprive them of any hope? Does she want to ruin
their chances of getting back on the right track? Does she want
to take away their future? These are the goals pursued by the
Minister of Justice.
How can a government get swept up in such a piece of
legislation, the severity of which is totally pointless?
According to recent statistics showing a drop in violent crimes
in Canada, such an attitude on the part of the minister, which
she insists on keeping despite all opposition, is absolutely
unjustified.
Our young people should have a chance to tackle life with more
confidence, with proper guidance and supervision, but the
government wants to do the opposite.
The bill opens the door to consequences that the government has
yet to measure. Young people, gobbled up by this repressive
system, will find themselves with their backs to the wall, with
no choice but to try to survive in the prison environment. Can
we believe that the measures contained in the bill would really
have a deterrent effect? Does the minister truly hope to do
society a great service by treating this way young people in
trouble?
They are being pushed too far. They are left to fend for
themselves. What other result can we expect but to turn these
young people into future criminals? We must denounce the bill,
which was drafted mainly to satisfy a visceral need for revenge
which, in the long run, will do more harm than good to our
justice system and, more to the point, to our young people.
We have repeatedly denounced all this during the many
discussions and debates we have had regarding the bill.
Despite our repeated representations, despite the statistics on
youth crime—Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in
Canada—despite negative comments from people in the field,
despite the success of the Quebec model, the government keeps on
turning a deaf ear.
The justice minister, confined in her ivory tower, has chosen to
attack the bill's opponents instead of showing its possible
benefits, which everyone is still trying to detect. The warning
issued to the minister by the Bloc Quebecois failed to make her
see the light, so strong is her determination to legislate at
all cost in this field. We remain convinced that this
legislation ignores Quebec's expertise in the matter and
destroys everything that has been accomplished over the years.
The implementation of this new legislation would create more
problems than it would solve. We would have to start again from
square one and rebuild from a basis whose future efficiency is
doubtful. What the Minister is proposing is nothing short of a
radical change in philosophy. Nothing justifies tightening up
the current act, which has a proven track record and, I repeat,
has produced the expected results.
The minister has failed to take into account the criticisms, the
objections and, more important, the arguments presented to
her. She has come up with a bill nearly identical to the one she
introduced in the last parliament.
A few changes here and there—in the French version, the term
“infliger” in relation to sentences becomes “imposer”, a
fundamental nuance if there was ever one—some of the wording may
be slightly different, a few scattered sentences, this is the
kind of frivolous changes the minister has the nerve to call
improvements.
I cannot see any significant change, any change of direction,
any notable redesign, which means that the minister has not seen
fit to rethink her bill in the light of everything that has been
said or written on the matter. Her bill is based on a lack of
maturity and the denial of principles dear to a majority of
citizens.
Canada's reputation for tolerance, compassion and good judgement
will not survive this new image that the minister is trying to
give her government.
Is that the way that the government wants to go? Does it want to
erode its reputation on the international scene by choosing a
repressive approach over a preventive one?
The Bloc Quebecois refuses to go down this path of an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth, and would rather rely on the law as it
is applied in Quebec which, together with adequate resources and
programs, is the best tool to solve the problems that the
minister's bill claims to be resolving.
1315
No, we will not go for this because, in its current form and in
light of the actions taken, the system is achieving the desired
results. These actions are not dependent on interest groups, but
on needs this bill is not addressing.
Why does the minister not accept the arguments of all the
stakeholders concerned? Does she not take their expertise into
consideration? If she insists on going about it the wrong way,
she will have to shoulder the blame for destroying something
that is working well. She will have only herself to blame.
Finally, I want to underline that the Bloc is still vigorously
opposed to a bill that does not respect the public consensus in
Quebec.
The minister must not let the bill be used to promote the
hateful agenda of a small number of people. I would advise her
to re-examine her position and to think a little longer about the
impacts of the bill on Quebec.
I will conclude by saying that, since it does not seem that the
minister will let herself be guided by reason but by futile
impulses, there is no doubt that she will go ahead as she has
said she will in the last few days. She should at least consider
giving Quebec an exemption allowing it to continue with the act
as it is right now. I doubt that the minister will have enough
goodwill and good faith to satisfy this demand, considering what
she recently said on the Bloc and which all my colleagues and I
still remember.
Since nobody has succeeded in bringing the hon. members to take
a moment to think about what they are doing with this bill, I
will end on a quotation by Montesquieu, hoping that he will.
“Any punishment that is not absolutely necessary is tyranny”.
I would myself add that any legislation that is not absolutely
necessary is unacceptable.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
statements of the member are totally irresponsible.
Is she against the fact under the bill young offenders
would no longer be brought before adult courts?
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, progress cannot be made by
making disparaging remarks and attacking members of parliament.
What the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for, and what I also
want, is for the current legislation, which is working very
well, to continue to apply in Quebec. That is what my remarks
boil down to.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Speaker, how can the member believe
that this government would pass legislation that goes against
the interests of young Canadians? Can she assure the House right
now that she has read Bill C-7 in its entirety before making the
remarks we just heard?
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do read the bills
before making any comments about them. I can even tell the House
that I attended the hearings of the Standing Committee on
Justice, where several witnesses, experts and lawyers, told me
how incomprehensible this bill is. They told me that even
lawyers who read their fair share of such legal documents all
agree that people in the legal profession would have a tough
time understanding this piece of legislation. Can you imagine
how tough then it is for people who are not really used to this
kind of legalese—which could be the case of the member opposite—to
understand this bill? As far as I am concerned, I stand behind
what I have said.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
my colleague for this most interesting speech. She was just
telling us that some people within the justice system were
opposed to the introduction of this bill, whatever the member
opposite may say.
I would like her to tell us who are these serious stakeholders
who have spoken out against the bill. I would be interested in
knowing if the Barreau du Québec, the professional body of which
the member opposite who is shouting so loud is a member, has
expressed its views on this issue. I would like the member to
tell us.
1320
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, a whole group of witnesses
from Quebec told us unanimously that they were opposed to this
bill.
Indeed, the Barreau du Québec appeared as a witness. We also
heard from all the groups that are directly involved in this
field. We heard from Cécile Toutant, a well known criminology
professor at the Université de Montréal. She came to tell us how
this bill would be harmful to our young people and that we
should continue to apply the law as it is in Quebec. I think
that was a unanimous opinion in Quebec.
Maybe the member opposite has not heard those views but I think
she will have the opportunity to hear them when the bill reaches
committee stage.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to address some deeply disturbing comments that were
made when the bill was last before the House at second reading.
We have heard many comments from the benches opposite about the
need for decorum and restraint in the House. The line of
parliamentary respectability was crossed when the member for
Berthier—Montcalm singled out a particular official of the
Department of Justice and attacked the individual personally.
Perhaps he may not agree with the point of view of the
individual, but he should not denigrate those who cannot stand in
this place to defend themselves. It lowers the level of debate
in the House.
If the member's arguments are so compelling against Bill C-7 on
substance, let these arguments stand on their own. His views
should be considered on their own value. We do not need to
debase this place with personal recriminations. The member for
Berthier-Montcalm made comments that were extremely
unparliamentary and the individual targeted had no opportunity to
rebut those allegations.
I will now address the youth criminal justice act. One may ask
why we need a new youth justice legislation? The youth justice
system under the Young Offenders Act is not working as well as it
should for Canadians. Too many young people are charged and
often incarcerated with questionable results. Procedural
protections for young people are not adequate and too many youth
end up serving custodial sentences with adults.
The overarching principles are unclear and conflicting. There
are disparities and unfairness in youth sentencing. Interventions
are not appropriately targeted to the seriousness of the
offences. They are not adequately meaningful for individual
offenders and victims or adequately supportive of rehabilitation
and reintegration.
The proposed youth criminal justice act attempts to address
these fundamental flaws. First, with regard to targeting
responses of the youth justice system to the seriousness of the
offence, Canada's failure to target the most serious
interventions to the most serious crimes has resulted in one of
the highest youth incarceration rates in the world. The proposed
law would provide a statutory framework through principles,
presumption, new sentencing and front end options, so that
serious violent offenders are treated seriously and constructive
measures are available for the vast majority of less serious
offences.
The presumption in favour of an adult sentence for the offences
of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual
assault has been expanded to include repeat serious violent
offences. While an adult sentence could be applied to youth 14
years old and above under the Young Offenders Act, the
presumptions would now apply to them as well unless a province or
territory opts for a higher age.
Privacy protections currently do not apply to youth receiving
adult sentences, and this would be continued. Where a youth is
convicted of one of the most serious presumptive offences and
receives a youth sentence rather than an adult sentence, the
privacy protections would not apply unless the judge ruled
otherwise.
Enhanced options for police and crown discretion at the front
end, together with statutory presumptions about when the formal
court process and custody are not be used, will lead to
meaningful, effective and faster resolutions of the majority of
less serious offending behaviour.
The overall effect of this targeted youth justice system should
be fewer young people being put through the formal justice system
and receiving custody sentences for less serious offences and an
overall reduction in our youth custody rates.
It would also clarify the principles of the youth justice system.
1325
The proposed youth criminal justice act sets out the purpose of
the youth justice system through its principles. Unlike the
Young Offenders Act, the principles of the new bill would provide
clear direction, establish structure for the application of
principles and thereby resolve inconsistencies. The new
principles would reinforce that the criminal justice system for
youth is different from the one for adults. It emphasizes
preventing crime, ensuring meaningful consequences for offending
behaviour, and rehabilitating and reintegrating the young person
as the ways it would contribute to the protection of society.
It would ensure fairness and proportionality in sentencing. The
sentencing principles in the proposed law would provide a clear,
consistent and coherent code for youth sentences. They are
intended to reduce disparity and reflect a fundamentally fairer
approach to sentencing. Unlike the Young Offenders Act, the new
legislation states that the purpose of sentencing is to hold a
young person accountable for the offence committed by imposing
meaningful consequences and promoting the rehabilitation and
reintegration of the young person.
To reverse the current unfairness, the new law would provide
that the punishment imposed on a young person must not be greater
than what would be appropriate for an adult in similar
circumstances. Given the significant disparity between what
similarly situated youth receive for similar offences, principles
of proportionality among youth sentences are included in the new
legislation. Proportionality sets the framework or limits within
which the needs of the young person committing the offence are to
be addressed through the criminal justice system to achieve
rehabilitation and reintegration.
It would respect and protect rights. The Young Offenders Act
does not adequately respect the rights of young people. It would
provide that a youth could be transferred to an adult court
before conviction and lose age appropriate due process
protections including privacy protections on the basis of an
unproven charge.
Transfer proceedings have lasted as long as two years, which
impedes access to a speedy trial. Once transferred into the
adult stream, youth as young as 14 could be required to serve
their sentences in adult provincial or federal correctional
facilities at the discretion of the judge.
The proposed law would address these shortcomings by providing
that all the proceedings against a youth take place in the youth
court where age appropriate due process protections apply. The
hearing on the appropriateness of an adult sentence would only
occur after a finding of guilt and all the evidence about the
offence had been heard. The youth justice procedure for the most
serious offences would be speedier, retain age appropriate due
process protection and be more respectful of the presumption of
innocence.
Bill C-7 also includes the presumption that if under 18 a youth
would serve an adult sentence in a youth facility. This is more
consistent with the spirit of the United Nations convention on
the rights of the child, which is expressly referenced in the
preamble of the new legislation.
It would enable meaningful consequences aimed at rehabilitation.
While youth may know that their behaviour is wrong, they may not
fully understand the nature and consequences of their acts for
themselves and for others. Some young people lack the structure,
guidance and support in their communities needed to change
behavioural patterns and overcome damaging influences.
Many of the new provisions in the proposed youth criminal
justice act would allow for individualized interventions that
instruct the youth. Police, crowns and judges would be given
statutory authority to warn and caution young people that their
behaviour was not acceptable and more serious consequences may
follow if they repeat that behaviour.
Conferencing is encouraged at many stages of the process, which
could allow the young person to be a participant in a process
with victims, family members and others to learn about the
consequences of his or her behaviour and to develop ways to make
amends.
The range of sentencing options would be expanded. In addition
to sentences that allow the young person to attempt to repair
some of the harm caused through restitution, compensation,
community service orders, there would also be new sentences that
provide for close supervision and support in the community.
Changed behaviour in the community is key to addressing youth
crime. These sentences include attendance orders, intensive
support, supervision orders, and deferred custody and supervision
orders. The proposed law would also provide a new sentence for
the most violent and troubled youth stressing rehabilitation and
support. It is a serious commitment to the protection of society
by making every effort to stop the recurrence of the most violent
youth conduct.
It would support reintegration after custody. A major flaw of
the Young Offenders Act is that it currently does not provide
sufficient provisions for a safe, graduated reintegration into
the community.
1330
The proposed law would include provisions to assist a young
person's reintegration into the community, which protects the
public by guarding against further crime. It would provide that
periods of incarceration will be followed by periods of
supervision in the community through custody and supervision
orders. To ensure truth in sentencing and clarity for the young
person, at the time of imposing a sentence, the judge would state
in open court the portion of time that was to be served in
custody and the portion to be served in the community. Breaching
conditions of the community supervision could result in the youth
being returned to custody.
Studies demonstrate that treatment is more effective if
delivered in the community instead of in custody. The
reintegration provisions encourage continuity between the custody
and the community portions of the sentence through increased
reintegration planning, which takes into account the youth's
needs throughout the whole sentence and, through reintegration,
leaves for specific purposes of up to 30 days.
It would encourage an inclusive approach to youth crime. The
youth justice system under the Young Offenders Act has been
criticized for not appropriately involving victims, parents,
family, community and representatives from other disciplines.
Youth crime is often a complex phenomenon. Involving others can
improve understanding and provide support for the victims,
youths, families and communities in responding constructively and
meaningfully to the offending behaviour.
The proposed law specifically encourages conferences at many
stages of the proceedings, including those involving the police,
sentencing judges and provincial directors. Some conferences may
involve bringing together professionals such as child care
workers, school psychologists or others who are already involved
with the youth to seek advice and verify continuity of services.
Others may be in the nature of sentencing circles or family group
conferences involving victims, offenders and their families.
The proposed law would also expand the possible mandates of
youth justice committees. These are committees of citizens who
can assist in any aspect of the administration of the act or in
any program or service for young people. They can encourage
community members and agencies to take an active role in
supporting constructive resolutions to the victims, families,
youth and others implicated by youth crime.
The proposed youth criminal justice act corrects fundamental
weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act and will result in a fair
and more effective youth justice system.
In the time left, I would like to comment on some of the
specific provisions of the bill as they relate to the publication
of names. This is a contentious element of youth justice policy,
with some arguing for publication in all cases and some opposing
it in all cases. Some argue the public needs to know who the
criminals are in order to protect itself from them. They argue
protection of society requires the press to publish the names of
all those who commit an offence.
Before accepting the argument, we should also ask ourselves how
much additional protection society gets from the publication of
names of adults. Unless we know the person named, or the case is
of such importance that it is in the paper for weeks or months,
do we pay much attention when we read in the paper the name of a
person prosecuted for or found guilty of a particular offence? I
am not sure we do. In most cases, a few minutes after reading
it, we have already forgotten the name. This hardly can be a
factor contributing to the protection of society.
Another argument against the ban of publication of names is that
it is contrary to an open justice system and to the freedom of
the press. It is important to emphasize that the youth justice
system is an open justice system. Members of the public can
attend and the press can report every detail of the case and the
rendering of justice, except for information which would identify
the youth. I am sure that we all recognize that freedom of the
press is an important element of a free and democratic society.
It should only be limited by law and in a reasonable manner that
can be justified in a free and democratic society.
The current legislation governing young offenders, the Young
Offenders Act, prohibits publication in all cases where the youth
is dealt with in the youth system. The provisions prohibiting
publication were challenged almost as soon as the Young Offenders
Act came into force. The courts have decided that the provisions
were a reasonable limitation on the freedom of the press and
therefore valid legislation. The courts came to that conclusion
because they recognized that the rehabilitation of the youth was
an important enough societal objective to require balancing the
right to the freedom of the press with this objective
rehabilitation of the youth.
The new legislation would continue to allow publication of
offenders' names in all cases where a youth was sentenced to an
adult penalty. It would also continue to protect the names of
the great majority of youth who commit offences and are sentenced
to a youth penalty. It will be an offence to publish their names
even after they became adults, unless the youth court considers
them to fall under two very exceptional circumstances. First, if
a youth is charged with a serious offence and is considered
dangerous at large and publication is necessary to apprehend the
youth, then the case publication would be allowed for five days.
1335
Second, the youth has asked to be able to publish and the court
is convinced it would be in the best interests of the youth to
publish information about his or her experience with the youth
criminal justice system.
In the first case the judge will authorize the police to publish
for five days the name of the youth wanted. In the second case
the judge will authorize the youth who asked permission to do so
to publish information or cause the information to be published
on his or her being dealt with in the criminal justice system.
Once the youth has made the information public it is no longer
protected.
Under the proposed legislation the presumption in favour of
privacy would not apply to a very small category of youth who
receive youth sentences. The names of youth who would be given a
youth sentence for a presumptive office of murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent
offences could be published unless the judge prohibits
publication.
The youth court judge would prohibit publication in two
instances. First, when the youth or the crown applied for a
publication ban and the judge considers it appropriate in light
of the importance of rehabilitating the youth in the public
interest. Second, when the crown gave notice that even though it
was a presumptive offence, the crown would not seek an adult
penalty. The crown would do so when it was convinced that the
circumstances of the offence or of the offender did not warrant
an adult penalty. In that case the judge would impose a youth
penalty would prohibit publication.
The legislation would not only protect the privacy of young
offenders but also prohibit publication of names of youth who
were victims of young offenders, and the names of youth who were
witnesses in a young person's trial. The youth victim or witness
could only publish information on their role in the criminal
justice system when they became an adult, with the permission of
the court before that time, or with the consent of his or her
parent.
I believe these provisions strike an appropriate balance between
the freedom of the press, which is a fundamental right in a
democratic society, and the interest of society in protecting
itself by the rehabilitation of young persons who have committed
offences.
I will address one other area on the issue of adult sentences.
Under the Young Offenders Act, if a youth is 14 or older at the
time of the alleged indictable offence, the provincial prosecutor
can apply to have the youth transferred to adult court, as I have
indicated. In addition, the Young Offenders Act sets out a
category of presumptive offences which includes murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It is
presumed that the individuals charged with a presumptive offence
who were 16 or 17 years old at the time the alleged offence
occurred will be transferred to adult court and receive adult
sentences.
When a youth is transferred to adult court, the rules applicable
to adults apply to the youth and the special protections granted
by the Young Offenders Act, including the ban on publication do
not apply. In addition, a transfer hearing which takes place
before the trial begins can significantly delay the start of the
trial. Some transfer hearings, including appeals of the decision
to transfer, have taken more than two years to complete. Such
delays can be problematic because for most young people the
consequences that follow closely after the offending conduct
prove to be much more meaningful.
As under the Young Offenders Act, the proposed youth criminal
justice act would allow prosecutors to seek to have an adult
sentence imposed if a youth 14 or older were found guilty of an
indictable offence. The youth criminal justice act maintains the
category of presumptive offences in the Young Offenders Act, but
extends the presumption to youths 14 or 17 and to serious repeat
violence offences.
A youth charged with a presumptive offence has an opportunity to
demonstrate to the youth court judge that the presumption should
not apply. In addition, under the proposed youth criminal
justice act, provincial prosecutors would have the discretion to
waive the presumption in an individual case, in which case the
judge must impose a youth sentence.
Under the Young Offenders Act the crown must make an application
to waive the presumption and the decision rests with the judge.
The provincial attorney general could also issue guidelines to
prosecutors respecting the waiver of the presumption. Finally,
through an order in council a province could raise the age of the
application of the presumption from 14 to 15 or 16.
The bill eliminates the transfer to adult court and provides
that all proceedings against a youth take place in youth court,
where age appropriate due process protections apply, as I have
already indicated. Hearings to determine whether a youth
sentence or an adult sentence should be imposed would be held
only after the youth has been found guilty. Therefore, the youth
court judge would make the decision whether to impose a youth or
adult sentence after all the evidence regarding the circumstances
of the offence and the offender were put before the court.
1340
This bill is a good bill. We look forward to hearing the
comments today and moving forward with this legislation. The
bill was before the House in the previous parliament and it is
now time to get on with it. Canadians are demanding it and we
should respond to their demands.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member dealt at length on the issue of naming young
offenders. We support the idea that a person who has done
something wrong ought to confess to it, make it right and make
restitution, if it is a property crime, and do everything he or
she can do to restore and build their character.
I would like the member to give us his rationale for including
in this legislation that which has been practised in Canada for a
number of years now. I am speaking of hiding the identity of a
person who has been charged and convicted. It seems to me that
it is part of accountability when someone admits that he or she
did something wrong and asks for help. If the community knows
who that person is that person can then go on to make a good life
for himself or herself. That is what should be done. I am
puzzled by Liberal insistence on keeping identities of young
offenders secret.
Could the member comment on that?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the
preamble to the member's question.
There is a certain stigmatization that goes with knowing the
name of a young offender, especially when he or she has committed
a minor crime. That certainly counteracts rehabilitation and
reintegration, not only within the youth's community but within
school as well. These people get targeted. Little Johnny is a
bad boy so we should not associate with him. How can that help
with the individual's reintegration into the community?
With regard to serious offences, I have already indicated that
names will be and can be published.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I
might add to the comment made by the parliamentary secretary, I
think he is quite right in what he said about stigmatization.
We must remember that youth are, by definition, in a protected
category. We do not assign to youth the same rights and
responsibilities that we assign to other members of society.
Children exist within families. Releasing the name of one member
of a family who is having difficulties stigmatizes the entire
family. The entire body of youth justice is built on the basis
of rehabilitation.
As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, it is true that
there are circumstances in which youth who are determined to be a
danger in the community may need to be identified. However, that
is an exception rather than the rule.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, before I proceed to speak to Bill C-7, the youth
criminal justice act, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend my colleague from Surrey North for his prompt and
critical review of this rehashed piece of legislation.
As a new member of parliament in this 37th parliament, I also
want to commend him for the wealth of information that he made
available to us, especially in the justice committee, and for the
many times he has helped us out. We appreciate that. I would
also like to commend him also for his diligent efforts over the
last three years in holding the Liberal government accountable
for its failure to bring about immediate and substantive changes
to the young offenders act.
My Alliance colleague lends credibility to this debate. He
turned a personal tragedy, the death of his son, into a crusade.
Starting with the establishment of a new group called CRY, crime,
responsibility and youth, the member for Surrey North succeeded
in drawing attention to the inadequacies of the youth justice
system and its failure to hold young people responsible for their
criminal actions.
Since his election to the House in 1997, he has utilized his
wealth of information and exercised diplomacy while working with
members of all sides of the House to amend bills, especially
those bills that preceded Bill C-7.
1345
I also congratulate the member for Provencher for his election
to the House and for his appointment as lead justice critic for
the Canadian Alliance.
The former Manitoba attorney general's speech earlier this month
clearly demonstrated his experience and knowledge regarding the
Young Offenders Act. I also appreciated his references to
federal-provincial financial agreements and how they have come to
play a part in the bill.
In June 1997 the justice minister promised to make amending the
Young Offenders Act a priority. Nearly three and a half years
later Canadians are still saddled with an ineffective law that
has failed to adequately hold young people accountable for
criminal behaviour. In 1997 the minister realized the need to
amend the act. She said, and it was publicized, that it was
clearly the most unpopular legislation in Canada.
More than five years ago, following the 10th anniversary of the
Young Offenders Act, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs initiated a review of the justice system. After months
of cross country hearings, submissions and presentations by
people with a vested interest in youth justice, and at a cost of
almost half a million dollars, the committee tabled a report in
April 1997. The report contained a number of recommendations to
amend the Young Offenders Act.
In dissent, the Canadian Alliance presented a minority report
which contained a number of recommendations we believed were
important. Unlike those of the committee, my party's
recommendations dealt with and fell exclusively within federal
jurisdiction.
Unfortunately I do not have time to go into all the
recommendations and details of our report. However I will use my
allotted time to deal with some of the more important or
significant points of it.
The most important recommendation was to make the protection of
society the guiding principle of the youth criminal justice act.
We live in a time when individuals, boards, committees and
businesses are all looking to come up with a mission statement or
guiding principle which, as they focus on the direction they are
taking, they can keep in mind.
The top priority and guiding principle of Bill C-7 needs to be
the protection of society. Appearing before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in October 1996, Mr.
Victor Doerkson, a member of the Alberta legislature for Red Deer
South, said:
In listening to Albertans, one lesson became very clear. The
protection of society should take priority over all other
considerations and there must be accountability on the part of
all offenders—Alberta also recommends that the declaration of
principles within the act be amended to give the protection of
society and offender accountability priority over all other
considerations.
The member of the legislature, who spoke on behalf of many
Albertans, said the people were telling him that protection of
society must be the guiding principle. Bill C-7 does not do
that. It does not, as recommended by the Alberta MLA and many
others who appeared before the standing committee, make
protection of society the first and guiding principle of the
youth justice act.
According to the declaration of principles, safety and security
of Canadians is secondary to the rehabilitation and reintegration
of the offender back into society.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act came into effect in 1908. It
created an informal juvenile justice system that was separate
from the adult system. The guiding principles of the Child
Welfare Act were that young offenders were not criminals but
rather misguided children in “a condition of delinquency”.
Because of that condition of delinquency they were not to be
punished. They were rather to be treated. That was the guiding
principle of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
1350
Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act there was no specific
sentencing and the judges had very significant discretion in
dealing with young offenders. This meant that in some
jurisdictions judges handed out extremely stiff sentences,
including periods of incarceration for fairly minor crimes, while
in other jurisdictions light sentences of open custody were given
to violent offenders.
This is unfair. It is unfair to the offender. It is unfair to
the victim. It is unfair to the public at large as there was no
guarantee in the law that the offender would be incarcerated.
Recognizing that the exclusively welfare oriented focus of the
Juvenile Delinquents Act was not appropriate and to reduce
judicial discretion, the process of reforming the Juvenile
Delinquents Act began in the 1960s. It was not, however, until
the early 1980s with the introduction of the famous charter of
rights and freedoms that major juvenile delinquent reform became
inevitable.
The Juvenile Delinquents Act was inconsistent with the emphasis
on due process that was in the charter. In particular, it was
considered to be contrary to section 15 of the charter of rights
and freedoms which came into effect in 1985. Section 15
guaranteed equality before the law.
Besides failing to make the protection of society the guiding
principle in the bill, it would also effectively enact the
contentious portion of the Juvenile Delinquents Act that
wrongfully promoted an inequitable application of criminal law,
in that it would provide far too much discretion to the youth
courts.
We on this side of the House do not accept the Liberal
government's chequerboard approach to the justice that appears to
be at the very crux of the youth criminal justice act. We also
do not accept the minister's outright rejection of what I
consider to be the next two most important principles or
recommendations of my party for amending the Young Offenders Act.
The minister has again refused to lower the age of criminality
to encompass 10 and 11 year olds in limited circumstances. She
has rejected allowing for the publication of the names of all
violent offenders. The only way to ensure the safety of our
children and grandchildren is to provide parents with the names
of violent and dangerous offenders.
We do not have that right now. I listened with great interest
to speech of the parliamentary secretary as he elaborated on what
may happen if we had those rights. As parents, we need to know
who in the school systems, for example, may be threatening our
children or perhaps those in schools associating with our
children that they need to be careful of. The only way to ensure
the safety of our children and grandchildren is to provide the
names of these children.
Also the bill does not, and I believe it should, allow the names
of drug dealers to be put on that list. This category of
offender has wrongly been missed in the new legislation.
Many Canadian schools, including public schools, are faced with
serious troubles. We had representation from the school trustee
boards that came around and visited with many members of
parliament in the last week. They expressed the need to know who
the students are in the school systems that perhaps have been
through violent offences or are in trouble with the law.
Drugs are a serious problem in schools. According to a 1999
special edition of the province in Burnaby, British Columbia,
police are seeing 13 and 14 year old kids selling crack cocaine.
The report went on as well to say that girls of the same age were
trading sex for drugs.
The same report revealed that 75% of high school students in
Coquitlam, B.C., experiment with drugs. An estimated 10% of them
misuse drugs on a regular basis and up to half of them have
become addicted.
1355
We as parents have the right to know who our children are
associating with. We have the right to know if a convicted drug
dealer is attending school with our children. We have the right
to know if there is a violent young sex offender living three or
four houses down the street.
We have the right to know. We must have the right to protect
our children. That is why we on this side of the House believe
that the names of violent offenders, including drug dealers,
should be published.
With regard to lowering the age of criminality to 10, Professor
Nicholas Bala of Queen's University, who appeared before the
standing committee on justice, summarized a Statistics Canada
survey of 27 police forces in Canada.
The data indicated that offending behaviour by children under
the age of 12 was very significant. Despite this fact,
authorities are powerless to hold these children legally
responsible for their criminal actions. Although a number of
provinces have a child welfare system that can and does deal with
these children adequately, many provinces do not have such a
program. Repeatedly witnesses came before the standing committee
on justice and bore witness to the fact that violent offences
with a welfare response was inappropriate.
Lowering the age to 10 does not mean that there will be a huge
influx of 10 and 11 year olds into the system. It does not mean
that we will be inundated with 10 and 11 year olds as they are
drawn into the justice system. The system can divert most
children of this age away from any formal response, particularly
with the support of alternative measures or community based
programs.
By amending the age we will in the very few cases of violent
offenders have the means to provide these children with the
rehabilitation they need. As it stands now, the minister has
abandoned 10 and 11 year olds who by committing criminal acts
signal that they are in need of help.
As we researched a speech for an earlier debate in the House we
noticed that many criminals were taking advantage of the fact
that 10 and 11 year olds were not touched by the justice system.
They were drawing them in to be drug runners in other ways. If
these people are falling through the cracks they need to be
helped.
Appearing before the standing committee during its indepth
review of the Young Offenders Act, in reference to lowering the
age, a representative from Citizens Against Violence said:
Preferably I would like to see the age in the Young Offenders Act
lowered to 10, because there's a mindset among today's youth who
are becoming well educated in the criminal field that they cannot
be touched under the age of 12—We would like to see the age
lowered so that the kids themselves know they have to face
responsibility for their actions.
The last recommendation I should like to touch on today is the
need to differentiate between non-violent crime and violent crime
for the purpose of sentencing. We on this side of the House
recommend that the minister restrict the use of alternative
measures or community based programs to non-violent offenders who
pose no threat to society.
We firmly believe that only through lengthy periods of
incarceration, where there are effective rehabilitation programs
including education, will violent offenders cease to be
dangerous.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing
that drives me moderately up the wall is declarations on the
Canadian dollar by that well known economic guru, the Leader of
the Opposition.
[Translation]
The quickest way to get a 50 cent dollar would be a return to
the huge deficits the Alliance was calling for during the last
election campaign.
On the other hand, if a stronger dollar is what we want, the
only thing that can be done in the short term is to raise
interest rates, and that would be the worst possible thing to
do.
[English]
I have two suggestions for the Leader of the Opposition. First,
he should do what good little right wing parties do and trust the
markets to determine the value of the Canadian dollar, given that
this is a time of U.S. dollar strength rather than Canadian
dollar weakness.
Second, at this time of economic turbulence he should stop
trashing the Canadian economy on the floor of the House of
Commons.
* * *
1400
HEALTH
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the foot and mouth epidemic that has gripped the United
Kingdom and parts of Europe continues to spread. This highly
contagious disease, although not harmful to humans, has
devastated the livestock industries in the affected countries.
Canada has been foot and mouth free for 50 years. It is
critical to keep Canada a foot and mouth free zone. If foot and
mouth were transported to Canada, our export of almost all
livestock would be immediately curtailed. The costs of lost
exports and the expenses of disease control are estimated to be
in the range of $20 billion in the first year alone.
I implore the government to take all the precautions necessary
to protect our dairy, beef, hog and sheep operations, indeed, all
our primary and secondary livestock operations, from
annihilation. Producer groups and individuals are implementing
their own precautions and need to be supported in their efforts
by real government action.
A national strategy involving all government ministries is
needed to battle this outbreak. Decisive action is needed now.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to announce that the Government of Canada is
investing $3.7 million in the Ikajuruti Inungnik Ungasiktumi
Network, which is a tele-health service developed by the Nunavut
Department of Health and Social Services.
Given the distances involved in Nunavut, tele-health is a
welcome tool in helping to provide accessible health care and
related social services to Nunavummiut.
The $3.7 million from Health Canada's infrastructure
partnerships program shows how the federal Minister of Health is
working together with the Nunavut minister of health and social
services and showing a commitment to improving the quality and
accessibility of health care for Nunavummiut.
* * *
[Translation]
WINTER SPORTS
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
with great pleasure today to congratulate one of the most
acclaimed and recognized of our winter sports figures, Jean-Luc
Brassard, a gold medal winner in the 1994 Winter Olympics.
Jean-Luc won the dual moguls event at the 2001 Canadian Freestyle
Ski Championships this past Sunday at Mont-Gabriel in the
Laurentians.
This is particularly good news, since Jean-Luc had surgery to his
knee last year and is coming off rehabilitation.
Congratulations, Jean-Luc Brassard. We salute your perseverance
and skill.
I would also like to report on an event I attended this past
weekend, as part of the family cup.
For the third year in a row, thanks to the financial
participation of our government, competitors from one family
have been honoured and rewarded. I saw one race in which a
73-year old grandfather, his son and two grandchildren competed.
Congratulations to all the families that participated, and to
the competition champions.
* * *
[English]
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank the members of the House who will be at
this evening's special screening of a new Canadian feature film
entitled Café Olé.
The story, written by Emil Sher, who will be with us today, is a
romantic comedy about a young man whose universe revolves around
the video store where he works and the funky little coffee shop,
his home away from home, all of this until he meets Alicia, a
delightful young Chilean woman who works at the bookstore across
town and, to know the rest, members will have to see the movie.
The film is the product of Montreal based Ficciones Films, the
director, Richard Roy, and the distributor, France Film/Equinox
Entertainment.
We are pleased to have with us today the representatives from
the production and distribution teams, as well as three of the
actors we will see in the movie, Mr. Andrew Tarbet, Mme.
Stephanie Morgenstern and Mr. Dino Tavarone.
Please join me in wishing success to all those who have
contributed to the making of Café Olé.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in January 1998, Patrick Lees violently murdered his
wife, Laura, in their family home. Once convicted, he was
assessed by Correctional Service Canada and sent to the William
Head Penitentiary. I find it deplorable that Mr. Lees could be
sent to a club fed, condo style penitentiary to begin his
sentence.
My office submitted an access to information request over a year
ago to obtain documents on this case, yet to date we have not
received one scrap of paper. In fact, I met with the director
general of the Information Commissioner's Office and was told
that staff could not release anything because it would violate
the murderer's rights.
Our justice system currently grants more rights to murderers
than to the Canadian public, the victims and their families.
I ask the solicitor general to direct Correctional Service
Canada, which has complete discretion to reassign any inmate to
any institution at any time, to ensure that all people who have
been convicted of murder serve at least two years in maximum
security, even those who have been sentenced within the last two
years.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
DAVID MCTAGGART
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
salute the memory of a Canadian and international hero, David
McTaggart. He died before his time as the result of a car
accident in Italy.
[English]
A giant of the global environmental movement, a precursor and a
visionary, David McTaggart foresaw decades ago the threat to our
planetary ecosystem as the defining issue of our time. At the
risk of his life and displaying amazing courage, he challenged by
his continuing presence the surface nuclear testing carried out
by France in the South Pacific, which led to the eventual
cessation of such tests.
This feat alone would have given him a place in history, but he
was to go on to found Greenpeace International, no doubt the best
known environmental organization and the most responsible for
raising environmental consciousness in all parts of the world.
As Canadians, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to David
McTaggart, environmental hero and a Canadian whose legacy will
have marked not only our history but that of the world at large.
I ask all Canadians to join with us in saluting his memory.
* * *
[Translation]
UNIVERSITY HOCKEY
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Patriotes of the Université du Québec at Trois-Rivières have
become the new Interuniversity Athletic Union champions. This
is also the third time in their history they have won the
championship. They beat the X-men of St. Francis Xavier 5 to 4
in the second overtime period.
I would like to congratulate the players and the coach, Jacques
Laporte, and all who in one way or another helped these young
people achieve their dream and share it with us. I congratulate
them on their courage and their determination.
This is a fine example of courage and determination these young
people have given us. It is an example that will inspire the
young and not so young to go the extra bit and do it. This is
the importance of sports.
Hats off to the Patriotes, to the UQTR and to Trois-Rivières.
* * *
FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has just introduced a bill to cut
the delivery of services in French on the grounds that doing so
is a waste of money.
In my opinion, this bill is a clear illustration of just how far
the Canadian Alliance is out of touch with the concerns of
Canadians living in a minority situation in one of Canada's
regions.
There is the francophone community of Toronto and its cultural
survival.
There are the French legal services currently being offered in
Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario.
There is the work done by the Regroupement des jeunes filles
francophones in my riding to provide social and medical services
to young people in their language.
There are the needs of French speaking immigrants requiring
services in their mother tongue in order to be able to
contribute to their new country.
There is the issue of national unity. I must conclude that this
bill flies in the face of what underlies our spirit of
bilingualism in Canada, and I am surprised at the lack of
understanding it represents.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère
was turned down for a Business Development Bank loan because the
inn was deemed a bad risk, but was later approved when the Prime
Minister intervened. In contrast, an inn in my riding was
granted a BDC loan on its own merits with no political
intervention.
The Auberge Grand-Mère missed 12 payments and the loan was not
called. The inn in my riding missed three payments on a low
ratio BDC first mortgage during an exceptionally slow winter
season and the loan was called.
Why is the government's Business Development Bank so reluctant
to take action in the Prime Minister's riding and yet so quick to
take action in mine? Obviously there are two standards, one for
the Prime Minister and one for the rest of Canadians.
The other question that begs to be answered is why the Prime
Minister interfered with the operation of a crown corporation to
force it to provide a loan it judged unworthy of consideration.
That question has been asked repeatedly, and although the true
answer has not yet been given, the truth will come out.
Unfortunately it may be too late for a small western inn that
does not happen to be next door to a Prime Minister's golf
course.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport announced a major injection of funds into
VIA Rail and has initiated a study into the business case for VIA
service between Peterborough and Toronto.
All the evidence suggests that we should get people off our
roads. Passenger rail service reduces pollution, dependence on
gasoline and highway accidents. It provides a predictable rush
hour commute.
1410
The rail track between Peterborough and Toronto is in a
reasonable state and there is now a local freight rail company
that has great experience of it.
The time has come to provide the people in Peterborough and
those along this rail line with good commuter service and good
tourist season service.
I urge the government to move quickly on this. I have the full
support of the members for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham
and Whitby—Ajax.
* * *
TOBACCO ADVERTISING
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to draw your attention to a flagrant violation of
Canada's tobacco laws and make an appeal to the government for
urgent intervention.
Last week an advertisement appeared in daily newspapers across
Canada promoting du Maurier cigarettes and offering a trip to New
York City, but there is a hitch. One has to be a smoker to
apply. The ad says “Live it up in the city that never sleeps”.
Do not think for a minute that this ad was not designed to
appeal to young people. Do not imagine for a moment that this
was not another insidious attempt on the part of tobacco
companies to have young people associate glamorous living with
smoking.
It undercuts so much of the work we have done here and it is
certainly contrary to the Tobacco Act.
I call upon the government to take action against du Maurier and
to stand up against big tobacco companies and refuse to tolerate
any violation of the laws of this land and the values of
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the many
contradictory statements by the Prime Minister and his ethics
counsellor, after last week's revelations, Industry Canada's
dealings with respect to the golf club records, and the direct
intervention of the Prime Minister's Office in the testimony of
Mélissa Marcotte, this House is going through an unprecedented
crisis of confidence, not only with respect to the person who
holds the highest office in government, but also with respect to
several ministers.
Out of respect for the office he occupies, the Prime Minister
should immediately release all documents having to do with the
golf club and the Auberge Grand-Mère, and agree to appear before
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The time for ducking and hiding is over. The public's trust in
the very office of Prime Minister of Canada hangs in the
balance.
The Speaker: I wish to say that the Chair has already taken this
matter under advisement. I am now preparing a ruling on the
issue raised and mentioned by the hon. member. It is not for
the House to discuss these issues at this time because, as I
said, the Chair is now considering the matter.
* * *
[English]
CURLING
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes it
is not a sin to steal, especially in the great state of Utah.
A few weeks ago I stood in the House to congratulate Suzanne
Gaudet's junior curling team from Summerside, P.E.I., for winning
the Canadian junior women's championship and to wish them well in
representing Canada in the world tournament in Utah.
Suzanne's Silver Fox Curling Club rink won the world junior
women's championship for Canada. In a miracle last stone finish,
the Gaudet rink finished this tournament with a record of 9-2
overall.
Inspired by flag waving fans from Summerside and Stephanie's red
hair, the Canadian champions, Suzanne Gaudet, who skipped with
poise and cool leadership, third Stephanie Richard, second Robyn
MacPhee and all star lead Kelly Higgins, with Carol Webb and
coach Paul Power, gave a great demonstration of strategy and shot
making all week long.
In the championship game Saturday night, which I believe all
P.E.I. watched, the young ladies from the Silver Fox Curling Club
curled with poise as Suzanne drew—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
* * *
CURLING
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
think it is very appropriate that I follow the hon. member,
because I, on behalf of my colleagues in St. John's East, the
people of Newfoundland and all of us here, would like to
congratulate Brad Gushue and his team from Newfoundland who
yesterday won the world junior men's curling championship.
Brad Gushue and his team of third Mark Nichols, second Brent
Hamilton and lead Mike Adam, on a final end last rock
hit-and-stick, delivered the world junior championship, not only
to Canada but to Newfoundland, where it was really the first
official team sport championship that our province has achieved.
We are very proud of them simply because they are great people.
Equally proud are the curling club in St. John's, the people of
Newfoundland generally and the whole country. They are great
Newfoundland champs, great Canadian champions and a great bunch
of young men.
* * *
1415
HERBERT RICE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to acknowledge the retirement of an extraordinary
soldier in my riding. A decorated reservist, Honorary Lieutenant
Colonel Herbert Rice was honoured recently for his lifelong
contribution to Canada's military. At an incredible 94 years of
age, he has retired as Canada's oldest serving military officer.
Lieutenant Colonel Rice joined the 14 Company, Canadian Corps of
Signals, in Hamilton in 1922 at the age of 15, reaching the rank
of major by 1936. During the second world war, he served in
Great Britain, Washington and Halifax, leaving the regular forces
in 1946. In 1980, he was named honorary lieutenant colonel of
the 705 Communication Squadron, a reserve unit in Hamilton. He
performed these duties with pride for 21 years.
I know all members will join me in recognizing the remarkable
contribution this man has made to our country. I congratulate
Colonel Rice and hope he enjoys his well earned retirement.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with the Prime Minister in the House
maybe we can get a direct answer. So many facts have now come
out that prove his statements over the last two years to be
inaccurate. Every day there is more evidence that points to a
possible conflict of interest and cover-up.
There is only one way to clear the air. Would the Prime
Minister call an independent judicial inquiry to clear the air on
the Shawinigate scandal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said, and I repeat again, that I sold my share on
November 1, 1993. Last week the lawyers for the company said
that they had passed a resolution accepting the transfer of their
share, and this is where we are. After that, the ethics
counsellor looked into it, during which time he consulted with my
lawyer and trustee at every step. He concluded that I never had
any conflict of interest. I stand on what I said. They have
asked the police to look into that. They have asked the ethics
counsellor six or seven times to comment on that. They got
answers. They were never satisfied.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, even his own Liberal backbenchers are now
calling for an inquiry. The cover-up and attempts at obstruction
are no longer working. The Prime Minister must shed some light
on Shawinigate.
Will the Prime Minister finally set up an independent commission
of inquiry to determine whether or not he behaved improperly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor appeared before the committee several
times in 1999. He kept the committee informed about what was
going on.
My lawyer, who is also my trustee, informed the ethics
counsellor without fail each time she had to take a decision in
order to ensure that we were within the established guidelines.
I wish to point out that the ethics counsellor was the assistant
deputy registrar general, and that he was appointed to this
position by the previous government.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he refuses to table the documents.
He will not call an independent inquiry. He will not clear the
air. In 1993, the Prime Minister promised to bring honesty back
to government. He has betrayed this trust.
Does he not realize that his refusal to clear the air brings a
cloud of darkness over the Prime Minister's office, over the
government itself, over his reputation and the reputation of that
high office?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from a man who promised a member of parliament $50,000
if he were to quit his seat and who never paid him, from a man
who had the taxpayers of Alberta pay $700,000 because he had the
foot in mouth disease, I have no lessons to learn from him.
1420
I stand by my words. I want to inform the House that this
morning I asked the ethics counsellor to release all the relevant
documents he has, if he can get the consent of the private
partners in the transaction.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for a man who ran up a $2.5 million
legal fee with Brian Mulroney, for a man who ran up a legal fee
that continues with another citizen, for a man who cost us $45
million in liabilities because of another contract cancelled, he
talks about asking people to do things.
Would he give us some information on the person from his office
who phoned Madam Marcotte and asked her not to talk anymore about
the situation? Talk about asking people not to do things. Would
he give us some information on that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was Madam Marcotte who called my office to talk with
me. She talked with my assistant who told her I was not
available.
However, there is one thing I want to say which I have always
said. I did work for my riding, not only on this file but on six
or seven other files. I made sure that jobs were created so that
the people in my district could benefit from the programs of the
government. That is why after seven years the level of
unemployment in the riding went down from—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, dear knows what we will uncover next. For two years the
Prime Minister has made contradictory statements about
Shawinigan.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North has the floor.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, they sound like nervous
Nellies.
The Prime Minister said that he had no decisions to make on
it, but he was involved all along. He said that the loan was in a
blind trust, but it was not. He said that he did not pressure the
Business Development Bank, but he did. He said that no immigrant
investor funds were involved, but they were. He has denied that
he was a shareholder, but he was.
He wants Canadians to believe that he is open and honest. Why
does he keep contradicting himself at every turn?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always said exactly the same thing here. I have
never deviated. I am not like the member of parliament who went
to her riding saying that all members of parliament who accepted
a pension were pigs, and then became one after the election.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I caution hon. members on
their use of language. The hon. member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
last the Prime Minister is telling us that he asked that all the
documents be made public. It took him a long time to do the
obvious thing.
The Prime Minister also finally admitted that he had financial
interests in that business until 1999. His ethics counsellor
told the Standing Committee on Industry that he was directly
involved in the negotiations.
Does the Prime Minister realize that it was in his best
interests that the Auberge Grand-Mère got funding and did not go
bankrupt, so as to find a buyer after a 6 year search, and that
he must explain his actions to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I said many times, this is a jointly funded project, with a
mortgage on the building being held by the Caisse populaire in
Grand-Mère, by the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du
Québec—and I doubt these people are my organizers—and by the
Business Development Bank of Canada. The whole thing was
guaranteed by a mortgage.
In any case, a number of similar projects in my riding received
help, not only from the federal government and federal agencies,
but also from the provincial government, which is led by the PQ.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
the Prime Minister and no one else who contacted the Business
Development Bank of Canada.
It is the Prime Minister and no one else who had the decisions
changed. It is also the Prime Minister who had an interest in
seeing that the Auberge on the adjacent lot did not go bankrupt,
because it is easier to sell the golf course if the Auberge did
not go bankrupt.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he must explain his actions
before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
because there is every indication that there was a conflict of
interest in this matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly did not influence the decision made by the Fonds de
solidarité. I certainly did not influence the Caisse populaire,
which are both on the same level in terms of the guarantee.
What I did, what I must do and what every member of parliament
must do is to ensure that every government agency can be helpful
to his or her constituents. This is what I did.
I no longer owned the shares after November 1, 1993. I did not
want—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister requires his ministers, specifically his Minister of
Finance, not to intervene in any matter involving shipping,
because of his personal interests.
He, however, is not shy about twisting the arm of the president
of the Business Development Bank of Canada to obtain a loan,
while he had considerable personal interest in recovering his
investment.
How can something that represents a conflict of interest for the
Minister of Finance not be so for him? That is what we want to
know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should understand that, since March 1993, six
months before my election as Prime Minister, the Auberge was
sold to a third party.
At that point, there was no longer a connection or relationship
between the golf club and the Auberge. This is what the ethics
counsellor said clearly at least three times before the Standing
Committee on Industry where he has testified over the past two
years.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's response is a little on the light side when we says
there was no connection. The address of the head offices of the
golf club and the Auberge is the same, the Auberge Grand-Mère.
The connection tightens.
In the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère, Industry Canada has had
the books of the golf club corrected. The office of the Prime
Minister has asked Melissa Marcotte to change her version of the
facts. The Minister of Industry has tabled a letter including a
significant error in date and, finally, the ethics counsellor is
changing his position.
How does the Prime Minister think that he is being credible in
this matter, with all the manoeuvring—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said the same thing here right along.
As of November 1, 1993, I had no more interest in the golf club
or in the Auberge. When I became Prime Minister, I handed all
my assets over to my lawyer for her to administer and that is
what she did.
She has always acted in consultation with the
ethics counsellor, who is also the deputy registrar general and
who has the responsibility of looking at all of the files of all
ministers, parliamentary secretaries and all deputy ministers in
government. It is his duty—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for more than a
year the Auberge Grand-Mère affair has been taking up a lot of
the attention of parliamentarians.
When is the Prime Minister going to table, for once and for all,
all of the documents pertaining to his involvement in the
Grand-Mère affair?
When is he going to free up this House to work in matters of
importance to the people of Canada and stop hiding behind his
partners?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the hon. member that the House and the people of
Canada would be happy to see the opposition dealing with this
nation's real problems. The only thing it is interested in,
however, is trying to destroy the person who is the Prime
Minister of Canada.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member that we are going to help
him, help them get back to the affairs of the state, because if
the ethics counsellor can obtain permission, since he is
required by law to respect the privacy of those involved, I have
authorized him to make public all documents he has in his
position, and if he gets permission—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
1430
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is the
Prime Minister himself who is obstinately holding everyone up.
Now he is hiding behind his partners.
If the Prime Minister is truly concerned about the debates that
are going on in the House at this time, and if he is really
concerned about the best interests of the Canadian public, let
him table the documents that are being asked for.
But there is more. Why is the Prime Minister not in agreement
for an independent inquiry to be held, if he wants to clear his
name for once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said yes to his request. That is yes in English and oui in
French.
The documents will be tabled if the commissioner gets permission
from the other parties involved. I myself have authorized him
to table all those he has. He must, however obtain the
permission of the others. As for me, I have said yes to having
them tabled.
[English]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it has now been established by the ethics counsellor that the
Prime Minister's agent, Debbie Weinstein, was actively
negotiating the sale of his golf club shares between 1996 and
1999.
How many potential buyers did the Prime Minister's agent
approach before Louis Michaud Investments agreed to take the
shares? Were the shares shopped around for three years by the
Prime Minister's agent, or did the Prime Minister only attempt to
sell these shares when the heat was turned on in 1999 and the
public became aware of his blatant conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the leader of the fifth party does
not want to understand. From November 1, 1993, these shares
belonged to Mr. Prince. It is clear. It was established by the
letter that was transmitted by Mr. Paquet to the Department of
Industry last week.
I have had no shares in any company of that nature, either golf
or auberge, since November 1, 1993. Debbie Weinstein could not
sell the shares. Mr. Prince wanted to sell the shares and—
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
January 1996 the Prime Minister told the ethics counsellor that
he had not been paid for his golf club shares, which he thought
had been sold to Jonas Prince.
Can he tell the House why the transaction fell through? What
explanation did Mr. Prince give to the Prime Minister for no
longer wanting the shares in the golf club? Was it a bad
investment, or was there some other reason?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what a fishing expedition. Again, I understand that he
twice failed his law exams, so I will have to say this.
On November 1, I sold my shares to Jonas Prince who signed a
bill of sale, and after that there was a resolution according to
the lawyers passed by the company accepting the fact that I had
sold my shares. After that I had no interest and there was
nothing I could do about the shares that were not mine. They were
Mr. Prince's.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps repeating
that he sold the shares in November 1993. I believe there is
something he could do very quickly and simply to confirm that and
to clear this matter up.
That would be to release the income tax records for his company,
J∾ holdings, which would clearly show a sale and a receipt of
money for the shares at the time the Prime Minister said.
1435
The Prime Minister needs no one else's permission to do this. I
ask the Prime Minister whether he will simply release those
documents that are entirely in his control and clear up this
matter.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have asked the commissioner to release every document
that he has to this effect. He has looked into that. He has
stated carefully and clearly that the shares were not mine since
November 1, 1993. He stated that there was no connection between
the golf course and the hotel.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a
letter that I sent to the leader of the fifth party earlier
today, explaining in detail all I can say on this that is
pertinent. With your permission I would like to table this in
the House right away.
The Speaker: The Prime Minister does not need permission
to table a document in the House. Any minister may do that at
any time.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, surely the House of Commons of Canada
deserves more than a red herring. I say to the Prime Minister
again that if he has his own tax records available he does not
need anyone else's permission to table them.
The tax records would clearly show a sale of assets and receipt
of money for those assets. If the Prime Minister really wants to
clear this up, if he really wants to come clean with Canadians,
will he simply put those tax records for his company before the
Canadian public and prove once and for all that his assertions he
sold those shares are correct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the commissioner has the permission of the other
parties—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: There is nothing I can do. I
gave him the authority to table the bill of sale and to table the
resolution that was passed by the company on November 1, 1993.
After I sold my shares I just tried to be paid the money that
was owed to me. As far as the auberge, in the letter that I gave
to the Table you will find that in my district I concentrated a
lot to create jobs in the tourist industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, referring to
the 1996-97 period, the Prime Minister said in the House on
Wednesday, regarding the golf club that, and I quote, “The
Minister of Industry has stated that I did not own shares”.
However, officials of the Grand-Mère golf course stated that the
Prime Minister's name was on the shareholders' register until
1999. Moreover, Radio-Canada learned that Industry Canada asked
that the register be changed.
Could the Minister of Industry tell us whether it is the Prime
Minister who asked that this change be made, the office of the
Prime Minister or the minister himself?
Who asked that this change be made?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the member's question, the answer to that
specific question is no, the Prime Minister's Office did not make
any request.
Let me say further to the member and for the information of the
House that last week I asked the deputy minister of industry to
take control of this file and not to have either any member of my
staff or myself involved in the discharge of the work of the
directorship branch.
The deputy minister of industry is a man of integrity. For
three years he was the chief of staff of the Conservative leader
in the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Industry confirm that before the changes recently
made to the books of the golf club, one of the names on the
shareholders' register was that of the Prime Minister?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to say it again. The work of the
directorate is being carried out under the supervision of the
deputy minister. The deputy minister for three years was the
chief of staff to the leader of the Conservative Party and for
two years the chief of staff to the former deputy prime minister
under the last Conservative government.
No directions have been given, none whatsoever. Business is
being conducted as usual. When the work is finished the normal
information will be posted for all the public to see.
1440
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the House has reason to have
this matter clarified. I would like to ask the Prime Minister
again if he would table the income tax records for J∾
Consultants for the year 1993.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the relevant documents are the bill of sale and the
transfer of the sale. The income tax return has nothing to do
with it.
As to when the document will be made public, we said that in
1996 Mr. Prince had not paid the shares so at that time we were
not paid. My lawyer, who is my trustee at the same time, took
the steps that were necessary in discussion with Mr. Wilson, who
said that in front of the committee last year. The deputy prime
minister informed the House last year too that they were working
with Prince to make sure—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a concern that this
might have been a sale of convenience, and I think to clarify the
issue it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to table the
income tax returns for 1993 for J∾ Consultants.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): This is
a fishing expedition, Mr. Speaker. I put all my assets in trust.
J∾ is a family company from which I resigned as director.
The lawyer became an executive director of the company. She
made all the relevant decisions. She was completely authorized
to do that. She was doing that on her own, making her own
judgments after consultation with the commissioner and informing
me because the debt was not subject, as Mr. Wilson said, to
conflict of interest but she treated it the same way—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, we learned that the Prime Minister had
spoken to Mélissa Marcotte and apparently encouraged her to speak
to the media to clear his name.
Can the Prime Minister explain why he asked Mélissa Marcotte to
come to his defence, rather than tabling the documents, as we
have been asking him to do for two years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have never spoken to Mélissa Marcotte, at least not for years.
I did not speak to her last week, or the week before that. She
is the daughter of one of my partners in 1993, when I sold my
shares. I did not speak to her. I did not ask her to do
anything at all. You saw her on television. She was harassed
by journalists—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: She said so herself. I saw her on
television. I am not the one saying so.
What I am saying is that I maintain, once again, from my place,
as I have always done—
The Speaker: The member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am going to try to find someone else who was
apparently harassed.
How does the Prime Minister explain the actions of Bruce
Hartley, his advisor, who asked Mélissa Marcotte to change her
testimony so as not to reveal that the Prime Minister had been a
shareholder in the Grand-Mère golf club?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said this earlier, but they are not listening, because they have
their questions prepared before they come to the House and they
are not quick enough to change them themselves.
I repeat that at 7 a.m. on Friday, Mélissa Marcotte asked to
speak to me, having been made aware of the allegations in the
National Post. Mr. Hartley, who works for me, said that I was
not available. She spoke with Mr. Hartley, not the reverse. It
was she who spoke to Mr. Hartley, and Mr. Hartley, who is a polite
man—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday of last week the industry minister sent
officials to examine the corporate registry of the Grand-Mère
golf course.
1445
He has had almost a week now to read the few pages that were
given to him. I know he has been trying to distance himself from
this file in the last couple of questions in question period, but
could he now disclose the registry documents and tell the House
whether any or all federal laws have been complied with and
whether anything has been altered in those records?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the director, Mr. Richard Shaw, has informed the deputy
minister that he will shortly be completing his examination of
the corporate records of 161341 Canada Inc. Once that
information is completed, a letter will be sent in response to
the ethics counsellor from whom the request came in the first
place.
However let me say something. There has not been one piece of
new information here today. The fact remains that the ethics
counsellor has examined the matter. The police has opened and
closed the books. What we have here is an attempt to smear.
There is not one new piece of information. Members opposite
should get back to the business of Canada and stop the business
of smearing a Prime Minister who has done no wrong.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what a complicated web they weave. It was reported that
Jonas Prince's role was not one of a shareholder but essentially
to serve as a parking place to buy the Prime Minister time to
sell his shares.
If the Prime Minister's lawyer was trying to sell the shares for
the Prime Minister, how could the Prime Minister say that Jonas
Prince owned them?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a very simple reason why the Prime Minister and
everyone else have looked at this and said that Mr. Jonas Prince
owned the shares. He bought them in November 1993.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has recently announced re-engagement with India. There are
concerns that our engagement with India will lead to further
isolation of Pakistan and increase the possibility of
destabilization of the sub-Indian continent.
Could the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific affairs clarify
for the House Canada's current policy toward the government in
Islamabad?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Canada does not wish to isolate Pakistan. We know there is
a need for political stability and the absence of nuclear
proliferation in that region.
In fact Canada has pursued a policy of selective engagement on a
bilateral and multilateral basis since Pakistan tested its
nuclear weapons in 1998 followed by a military coup in 1999.
We believe that selective engagement will allow Canada to help
Pakistan in the transition to a stable economy and sustainable
democracy.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for years now the Solicitor General
of Canada has been saying that government does not interfere in
police investigations before, during or after.
We now have newspaper reports that indicate that the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism and her staff have been contacting
RCMP officials regarding racism activities in British Columbia.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What she has done to the
House and to the people of Prince George is absolutely
scandalous. Her apology is not good enough. What ethical
leadership will the Prime Minister show in the House to
discipline that member for what she said to the good people of
Prince George?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the House last week I said that the minister
apologized to the House of Commons. She did that, just like the
member for Edmonton—Strathcona. It is not for me to question
what is done and all the plotting for this and that. He stood in
the House and said “I apologize”.
After 36 years in the House of Commons, and in fact it will be
38 in two weeks, when a member stands and apologizes there is a
great British tradition that we accept that and turn the page. I
know it is not the tradition that the present opposition wants.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a few years ago Jean Charest sent a
letter to a judge and was disciplined. The member for
Fredericton had loose lips on an aircraft and was disciplined.
The member for Edmonton—Strathcona did a little thing wrong with
his assistant and was disciplined.
The member for Vancouver Centre contacted the RCMP in strict
violation of cabinet code and everything else that is ethical in
the House. I ask my question as a former British Columbian. What
will the Prime Minister do to discipline the member for Vancouver
Centre, to put some ethical treatment back into the House?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the right to know if there is any information
that is public which they can give to any member of parliament.
It is not an inquiry then to ask if anything has happened in the
public in the past because it is subject to public record. If it
is what she did, there is nothing wrong.
This is the first time I am hearing this allegation by the
member.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I am saying that I heard about
it this moment. I will check that, but last week I said that the
minister after she had made—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
the Prime Minister announces, in order to try to get out of the
mess he is in, that he has asked the ethics counsellor to make
public all documents on which the latter's decision to pardon
him was based.
Could the Prime Minister at least ask the ethics counsellor to
table a list—not the contents, just a list—of the documents the
counsellor used to analyze the situation? Can he confirm to the
House that his lawyer-trustee did inform him that his name had
indeed been stricken from the golf club shareholders' list?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have authorized Mr. Wilson to table all documents he used in
reaching his conclusion that I had no conflict of interest and
that the shares had been legally and actually transferred to Mr.
Prince on November 1, 1993. I hope he will make them public,
but he has to meet the obligations placed on him by law.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there are numerous inconsistencies and
contradictions on the public record by the Prime Minister over
the Auberge Grand-Mère affair. One thing the Prime Minister has
said consistently is that he wanted to get paid for his shares.
Will the Prime Minister simply inform the House what was the
original asking price for the shares in the Grand-Mère Hotel,
agreed to by Jonas Prince in 1993, and what was the final price
paid to him by Mr. Michaud in 1999?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the corporations directorate is
nearing completion of its examination of corporate records of
this company. Once that is completed the information that is
appropriate will be conveyed to the ethics counsellor for his
judgment as to their use.
With respect to further information, the Prime Minister has just
indicated that he has agreed, and hopes others will as well, to
make information public and have that information released by the
ethics counsellor as soon as possible.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it appears the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism is making a habit of slandering
British Columbians. Last week she denigrated the people of
Prince George, but that was not the first time.
In 1997 the minister was quoted in a newspaper article saying
“Crosses are burned outside Kamloops”. That is absolute
nonsense and my constituents are outraged. What proof does the
minister have that crosses are being burned outside Kamloops or
anywhere else in B.C.?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has never been my intent to
disparage communities, either in British Columbia or in Canada. I
deeply regret the hurt the statement I made last week in the
House caused. I apologized for it and I apologize again for it.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has a track
record for making inflammatory statements that insult and
embarrass British Columbians and all Canadians. She has no proof
of crosses being burned outside Prince George, Kamloops or
anywhere else.
The minister's role is to prevent racism, not invent it. Will
the minister apologize to my constituents and tender her
resignation immediately?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the
member across the way mentioned that. What I am sorry about is
that this incident has detracted and moved us away from the
attention that should be paid to the way communities across the
country have been working to deal with issues of racism and hate
within their communities. We have been working with them to do
this.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the election campaign, the Prime Minister's ethics
counsellor took his side when he stated that he had seen all the
books and that everything was in order.
How can the Prime Minister explain this statement made by the
ethics counsellor during the election campaign, when last week
his name was still on the list of shareholders of the golf club?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once someone has sold his shares he is not responsible for how
the books are kept, since he is no longer a shareholder or a
director of the company.
I stopped being a shareholder of that company on November 1,
1993. How the books were kept afterwards does not reflect the
reality at all. The shares were sold to Mr. Prince on November
1, 1993, as confirmed by the company's lawyer last week and as
confirmed repeatedly by the ethics counsellor.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in light of these facts, we can only conclude that either the
ethics counsellor lied or that he did not check the books
properly.
My question is very simple: On whose orders did he act like
this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just said that, as of November 1, 1993, I no longer had any
right or obligation vis-à-vis the books of a company to which I
was no longer connected.
I do not know what is in these books. This is irrelevant,
because I sold my shares on November 1, 1993, as was confirmed
last week by the company's lawyer. What went on with that
company between November 2 and now is none of my business.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the minister
for multiculturalism stood and said that she had a letter from
the mayor of Prince George about a cross burning incident in the
city of Prince George. Then the next day she said “Whoops, I
made a mistake; it wasn't Prince George”.
I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism. Was there ever any letter from any mayor about
any cross burning incident in any city in B.C., or was the letter
just a fabrication?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said that I made a
mistake with regard to Prince George, that I was very sorry and
that I apologized to the people of Prince George.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, her apology referred to saying it was
from the mayor of Prince George. That was it. The fact is we
believe that the minister deliberately fabricated a story about a
letter.
I am asking her this question. Was there ever any letter, from
any mayor about any cross burning incident in any city in B.C.?
Was there a letter? Yes or no. Will she produce it? If not,
will she admit it was a fake statement and resign her position?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already said in the
House that I made a mistake with regard to Prince George and I
apologized to the people of Prince George.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of the House the
environmental problem of Sydney tar ponds and coke oven sites in
my riding. It is known that the population of Sydney is very
concerned.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of the
Environment this question. What are the time lines regarding the
clean up of the Sydney tar ponds and coke oven sites?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the local joint action group has more than a dozen
proposals of companies which believe they have the technology and
the capacity to clean up the tar ponds site. The technologies
are currently under evaluation.
There is no way one can predict when that analysis by the local
group will finish, but I can assure him we want to make sure that
as soon as we have a decision by the local group of the correct
technology we will proceed with the clean up of that site.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister for multiculturalism misled the House
when she said she had a letter from the mayor of Prince George
asking for help with cross burnings on lawns.
1500
By Friday of last week, one day after her apology to the people
of Prince George, the minister was still trying to build a case
to defend herself. In fact, she ordered her officials to contact
the RCMP and get information on cross burnings. Is that not
enough for the Prime Minister to fire her?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I made a mistake
with regard to Prince George. I apologize to the people of
Prince George.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)
Mr. Speaker, the minister has a history of using that kind of
paranoid statement against the people of Prince George and
Kamloops. She is prejudiced against anyone outside her
constituency. Canadians cannot trust her any more.
Would the Prime Minister fire her before her slurs hurt any more
innocent Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with your permission, I would like the hon. member to
repeat the question because I was talking with the House leader.
I am sorry but I was not paying attention.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question if the Prime Minister
will listen to it carefully.
The minister has a history of using that kind of paranoid
statement against the people of Prince George and Kamloops. She
is prejudiced against anyone outside her constituency. Canadians
cannot trust the minister any more.
Would the Prime Minister fire her before her slurs hurt any more
innocent Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we debated that last week. I said to the House that she
made a statement, regretted the statement and apologized to the
House of Commons. I repeat that we have accepted, in the
tradition of parliament, her apology. The hon. member is not
raising a new issue. He is referring to an incident for which
the minister has offered her apology and for which we have
accepted the apology.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
all of the Prime Minister's lines of defence have fallen. There
is now a very serious lack of confidence in the Prime Minister,
not only in the House, but among the public and in his own
caucus.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the best way to re-establish
confidence, if this is still possible, is to agree to appear
before his peers on the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs to account for his behaviour?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has not been a single new piece of information
brought forth today to substantiate this smear campaign.
As for the statement that the Prime Minister lacks the support
of the caucus, let me say on behalf of every member of the caucus
that we have full confidence in the Prime Minister. We will
stand with him and beside him in the House.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
all hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency
Anatoliy Zlenko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1505
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Chair will know of course of
the rule of the House whereby one member cannot accuse an hon.
member on the floor of the House of making statements that are
not true. In fact, this occurred during question period.
I am sure that when the informal Hansard, the blues, as we
refer to it, comes out in just a few minutes, it will confirm
that such an accusation was made by the hon. member for Edmonton
North against the right hon. the Prime Minister.
I will not repeat the precise words. That would only serve to
make the statement twice. My request through the Chair would be
that the hon. member be given the opportunity to withdraw what
she said.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I withdraw.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with respect to the Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
It has come to my attention that the Standing Committee on
Industry, Science and Technology, which is scheduled to meet at 9
a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, the 27th, will be held in room 308 of the
West Block.
Given the great general and public interest in having the
meeting broadcast, I would ask that the chair of the committee
use his office to facilitate the meeting in a room that will
accommodate the large number of individuals and media who want to
attend.
The Speaker: Question period ended a short time ago. If
the hon. member had asked his question during question period it
might perhaps have been in order. While he has made his
point, it is not a question that is in order at this moment.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference of Tuesday, February 27, 2001 in relation to Bill C-9,
an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-9 and reports the bill
without amendment.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting
to the House a petition signed by residents and workers of the
city of Val-d'Or and of the RCM of the Vallée de l'Or concerning
the Sigma-Lamaque and Beaufor mines.
The petitioners are asking parliament to establish a financial
assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Quebec's
resource regions and the government, through its national
highways program, to intervene in the McWatters project for the
Sigma-Lamaque complex on the Trans-Canada, highway 117, in the
municipality of Val-d'Or, through its Canada-Quebec-infrastructures
program, part three.
[English]
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present two petitions from people who are concerned about
kidney disease in Canada.
The first petition points out that real progress is being made
in preventing and coping with kidney disease. The signatories
call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of
the institutes in its system to be named the kidney and urinary
tract diseases institute.
The second petition is from citizens of the Peterborough
area who are also interested in kidney disease.
The petitioners point out that kidney dialysis and
transplantation have been successful for some people but for not
for others. They point out that the availability of dialysis and
kidneys for transplant are very limited.
1510
They call upon parliament to support the bioartificial kidney, a
research development which would eventually eliminate the need
for dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
VIOLENCE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition organized by a
member of my constituency which calls upon the government to
address the issue of video violence on the Internet and in video
games.
The concern of my constituents is with the relationship in the
criminal code between the words violence and sex, in that
violence cannot stand alone as an issue in the criminal code.
They think it should. They think the two should be separated and
that the violence depicted in videos should be enough to disallow
minors purchasing them.
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, the people in my riding would like to table
this petition to put an end to sanctions against Iraq.
Of course, since Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998, over
10,000 air strikes have taken place against Iraq, producing an
incalculable number of victims.
Whereas the continued UN sanctions against Iraq, considered to
be the heaviest ever imposed, have devastated the Iraqi economy
and resulted in the death of over 5,000 children a month, the
people of my riding want the bombing to stop and serious peace
negotiations to take place between Canada and the United Nations
in order to increase efforts to provide food, medicines and
infrastructure funding for the reconstruction of Iraq.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I ask that all questions be allowed to stand, I will
indicate for the benefit of the member for New Brunswick
Southwest that answers to Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are imminent.
I anticipate that those questions could be raised and introduced
in the House tomorrow. I therefore ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is refreshing to hear
the parliamentary secretary anticipating answers to my questions.
For the record, those questions will be celebrating their first
birthday within a few short weeks. Not only have they survived
two parliaments, but they have survived an election as well.
Do the assurances of the parliamentary secretary relate to the
sale of not only the 40 Huey helicopters but of the 10 Challenger
aircraft as well? I remind him that there are two questions that
are close to being one year old. Is he entertaining answering
both of them?
The Speaker: The parliamentary secretary indicates that
he has given the answer. Shall all the remaining questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, an
act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend
and repeal other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we were speaking to Bill C-7, the amendment to replace
the Young Offenders Act with the youth criminal justice act. We
were speaking about the use of alternative measures or community
based programs for non-violent offenders who pose no threat to
society.
1515
We firmly believe that only through lengthy periods of
incarceration where there are effective rehabilitation programs
including education would violent offenders cease to be
dangerous.
We are encouraged that the bill would make these educational and
rehabilitation programs mandatory. When and if young offenders
are incarcerated, they would be forced to go through programs so
that they could be integrated back into society thus making it a
safer place to live. Protection of society is the key guiding
principle of the Young Offenders Act or of the youth criminal
justice act.
According to an old Statistics Canada fact finder a very small
percentage of violent offenders are incarcerated. It means that
a very small percentage of them are actually held in custody.
They are unable to go through those programs while a
disproportionate number of non-violent offenders are
incarcerated, limiting the space and resources needed to
rehabilitate the violent offenders.
Prison is not necessary for young persons who commit minor
offences. We are not asking that there be incarceration in that
regard. In many cases it may be detrimental to them. They may
be assaulted by other violent young offenders or they may also
learn from the other ones in the prison system. After their
release, depending on how we look at it, the educational program
may also allow them to progress to higher levels of crime or
lower levels of crime.
We fully support alternative measures but only for non-violent
first time offenders. In 1995, with the passage of Bill C-41,
the Liberal government legislated conditional sentences and
alternative measures. My party fought adamantly but to no avail
to amend the legislation limiting the use of conditional
sentences to non-violent offences. As a result of the
government's failure to make such amendments, judges have
repeatedly handed out conditional sentences throughout the
country to persons convicted of serious crimes.
There is one case that has been raised many times in the House.
A man who abducted and viciously sodomized a young woman was
given a conditional sentence. The young woman was scarred for
life. She now lives with that in her memories and is plagued by
that conditional sentence.
A few weeks ago in Ottawa, another case dealt with a woman who
was convicted of attempting to hire a hit man to kill her parents
and was given a conditional sentence.
The first and guiding principle of Canada's criminal law should
be the protection of society. Without strict limits placed on
the use of alternative measures or conditional sentences, whether
it be for violent adults or violent youth, the tenet for the
protection of society would be violated.
In closing I urge the government to take the step to realize and
to recognize the importance of dealing with the protection of
society within Canada's criminal law. Do we need changes to the
Young Offenders Act? Yes, we do. We applaud the government and
the minister for recognizing the inadequacies of the Young
Offenders Act and for realizing that we need to make changes.
Bill C-7 falls short. It is short of what is required for the
protection of society. We are dealing with our children. The
throne speech dealt with our children. The protection of our
children and grandchildren is paramount. Bill C-7, although it
moves in the right direction, falls short of giving the tools we
need to help protect society and our children.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
I congratulate my colleague from Crowfoot for his excellent
speech in which he mentioned diversion programs that may be
applicable to helping young offenders.
I know of one such program in my own riding, a young diversion
program, in which the member for Surrey North even as a sitting
member is still involved and shows great commitment to. Could he
indicate how youth diversion programs could be implemented?
1520
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the
fact that we need to be able to divert non-violent offenders.
Diversion should not occur from the judicial system because that
is where they enter the system when they commit crimes. There
are many community based programs, going back to the Juvenile
Delinquents Act, that can be implemented for these young people.
Some of them are probably living in the condition of delinquency.
We do not believe that for violent offenders we should be
looking at some alternative measures, that there should be some
community programs for violent offences. We believe that
community based programs or alternate programs may be used for
non-violent first time offenders.
Young people can make errors. They get mixed up in the wrong
crowd or hang out with people who have bad reputations. They
blend in and all of a sudden they find themselves involved in
criminal activity on a first time offence. We should see how our
communities can bring them back in.
The hon. member mentioned that there are already some community
programs in place. Other community programs are being considered
where the community itself, understanding their young people and
the needs of the community, could probably do two things. They
could educate them and help them integrate back into that
community or for the safety of other young people could hold them
in check.
We are not opposed to alternative measures, but we are opposed
to those with third or fourth time offences going through
alternative measures. We are opposed to violent criminal acts
bypassing incarceration. They are placed in a community program
where it is a slap on the wrist and we believe they should be
incarcerated.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I remember a little nine year old boy coming down
the street into my backyard one day. His pockets were bulging
and overflowing with candy and stuff. When I queried him about
it and asked him if he had any money to pay for it, he said no,
that he had just helped himself.
What I did as a father was what any father should do with a
child who has been caught shoplifting: I marched him back to the
store. I made him apologize to the owner and give back the
candy. Fortunately he had not started eating it so he was able
to give it all back.
Is it not public disclosure of the things we do wrong one of the
best ways for us to make sure it does not happen again? Is it
not true that most of the crime in the country occurs under the
cover of darkness or takes place when other people cannot see
what is going on because it is human nature to not want to get
caught doing something that is wrong?
With regard to the public disclosure of names of children who
have done something wrong, is it not common sense that if we
published the names of these children a shame factor would come
into play? Would it help prevent them from doing it again, or
has society gone so far away from the shame factor that it does
not matter any more? I would like the hon. member to comment on
that.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the publication of names
does two things. It helps to protect society. I talked about
that in my speech. As a parent, the publication of names would
allow me to be very careful whom my children hang around with. It
would let me know about someone living down the street or close
by in the community that I would not want my little girl or boy
hanging around with.
I could then do one of two things. I could be there all the
time that my child is with that individual, or I could step in
say that I do not want my child hanging around with those types
of people. The publication of names is a good idea.
1525
The fear of their name being publicized creates a deterrent as
well. If they commit a crime or are involved in a crime they do
not want their community to know. The hon. member is 100% right.
It serves as a deterrent and a deterrent that we should not
question. Over and above that it give us another tool to protect
society and our young people.
We need to publish the names of all violent offenders such as
the individual the hon. member came in contact with. We are not
asking for the publication of names of individuals who have
shoplifted or stolen candy from a candy store. That is not what
we are asking for. We are talking about violent offenders.
The school boards said that they wanted to know the names of
those involved in crime. It was information they could use to
educate. It could also protect society. Other members said
names of violent offenders were already published but not to the
extreme they would like to see. Some information is provided to
schools to a certain degree, but not to the community to the
point where I as a parent would know that young Johnny who just
moved in is a convicted drug dealer.
The whole issue of drug dealing is not mentioned under violent
offences. We should look at what drug dealers are doing to the
country. That is another area that should be publicized. It is
ripping our country apart. It is to a large degree driving young
people into crime. Parents have said that we need to know who
the drug dealers are and who is convicted of drug dealing.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member.
When he speaks of the issue of deterrence. I agree that general
and specific deterrents are an important part of the messaging in
the criminal justice system. It applies to youth as well.
Having looked at the bill he would know that it attempts to draw
a line in the sand between violent and non-violent offences. It
sets up the impression in the public sphere that somehow the bill
would enable more to be done in terms of early intervention.
There would be more programming available by virtue of the bill.
There would be more attempts made to be proactive in our criminal
justice system. All those things are certainly laudable goals.
They are areas, he will agree, that we should be looking at.
The difficulty that exists in the bill is that the federal
government through the Department of Justice has given no
undertaking whatsoever to increase its share of the costs of the
administration of justice, particularly pertaining to the young
offenders system. As it currently exists in most provinces, the
federal government is picking up less than half the cost.
My question for the hon. member is quite simple. If the new
bill is raising expectations and putting in place mechanisms that
put greater emphasis on early intervention and rehabilitation,
goals that we should be trying to attain, yet at the same time is
giving no commitment whatsoever to funding such programs, are we
really not in some instances making things worse by dashing the
hopes of dedicated people in probation and other dedicated
workers who are trying to do more to help youth at risk?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
absolutely right. As I read through Bill C-7 I did not
understand the provincial jurisdiction and the federal
jurisdiction. A lot of what the hon. member is referring to is
true. Funding is definitely lacking.
Our lead critic from Provencher spoke about the provincial
jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction. As a new member in
the House I have gone through the bill, but I have not been privy
to all the witnesses and all the committee meetings. I have heard
concern that we are stepping into provincial jurisdiction and
that we are putting expectations on the provinces. We are not
willing, as we used to say down on the farm, to put our money
where our mouth is.
1530
It is a huge problem when we download to provinces programs
which perhaps they should be in charge of and there is no money
available to help follow up. The whole thing should be looked at
as far as the federal portion of funding is concerned. If they
are willing to come with these programs, the government had
better be willing to back it up with its wallet.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time.
This debate by and large generates more heat than light and has,
over the past seven years of these last three parliaments,
generated a great deal of heat. I do not know how much light we
actually came to over the course of those three parliaments, but
this occupied the 35th parliament. The justice committee
reported in May 1997 on this issue and that formed the basis for
the 36th parliament's Bill C-68.
In the course of dealing with Bill C-68, parliament was
prorogued and that bill became Bill C-3. In the course of
dealing with Bill C-3, we in the justice committee had extensive
hearings, as did the previous justice committee, hearings that
were nationwide. In the course of those hearings, we heard from
pretty well every corner of the country and from every interested
jurisdiction. Bill C-3 has now become Bill C-7 and we are now in
the 37th parliament and back to debating this issue.
While I have some discomfort at times about time allocation,
there comes a time when time should be allocated. I believe this
is one of those occasions where we finally have to deal with the
evidence we have heard, the testimony we have heard and the
manner in which the government has put it forward in a bill after
extensive hearings.
May I say that at the point where we were just about to get down
to clause by clause in the justice committee, the Bloc Quebecois
decided that would be a good time to filibuster. The Bloc took
up something in the order of 27 hours of the committee's time on
a filibuster which ultimately had to be returned to the House,
with the net result that the bill was not heard and not dealt
with prior to the election in November 2000.
I submit that we are not going to make everybody happy. There
are times at which government just has to be government.
Parliament does its thing and expresses its view because, after
all, this is a talking shop. We do talk and we do advise, but
ultimately it is the government that makes decisions.
I want to commend the Minister of Justice on her willingness to
listen to evidence and to change significant portions of the bill
based upon the evidence she heard at committee.
The first change is in the area of the preamble and principles
of the bill. Members will notice that clause 3 has been changed.
Again, this is as a direct result of what she heard at committee.
The first statement of principle will now read as follows:
(i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a
young person's offending behaviour,
(ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and
reintegrate them into society, and
(iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful
consequences for his or her offence—
As I say, a number of people before the committee said that we
had the principles in the preamble as a declaration of principle
and that was not correct. The Minister of Justice listened and
the Minister of Justice has put that into the bill.
Second, the importance of timely intervention is recognized in
the principles. In some respects that may be stating the
obvious, but in testimony after testimony we heard that a youth
would commit an offence in May of one year and not be dealt with
until a year or 18 months later. At the best of times one has
difficulty bringing together the consequences of one's activity
with the punishment, and the result is that the youth loses all
appreciation for the justice system, so the importance of timely
intervention is right in the declaration of principle. Again,
the minister changed this.
1535
There is another change. A reference to the needs and level of
development of the youth has been added to the principles.
Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(iii) reads:
(iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or
her needs and level of development and, where appropriate,
involve the parents, the extended family—
and so on.
Those are significant additions and, again, are based upon
evidence we heard. Again I have to commend the Minister of
Justice. She listened to the testimony. The changes were made
in the bill.
When she attempts to come before the committee members opposite
filibuster. I cannot quite see how that is being a responsible
parliamentarian. Members are forever saying that they have no
impact on legislation. Frankly, the justice committee did have
an impact on this legislation. Frankly, the justice committee
spent a lot of time listening to the evidence. Frankly, the
minister reacted with significant amendments. Yet members
opposite say that we have to debate this some more and that
members opposite are irrelevant and do not have any impact on
legislation.
With reference to the interests of victims, that was probably a
flaw in the previous bill and has been referred to in the
preamble of the bill where it has been incorporated by reference.
It states:
Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice system that
commands respect, takes into account the interests of victims,
fosters responsibility and ensures accountability—
I do not know what else can be said in terms of how to
incorporate those kinds of principles into a bill.
We heard a great deal of testimony about how Canada treats its
youth when they come in contact with the law. What became clear
in the course of listening to our evidence was that we overrely
on incarceration, particularly on incarceration for aboriginal
youth. I can recall the testimony of one youth justice of the
Northwest Territories who gave a rather sad commentary on our
youth justice system. He said that one of the reasons he puts
aboriginal youth in jail is that he knows they have no real
alternatives, that they either go back on the street to
dysfunctional families or go back on the street to no families at
all. As a consequence, he saw it as his only option to put kids
in jail. That is a pretty sad commentary on our situation.
Canadians would be interested to know that we incarcerate youth
at twice the American rate. That is a pretty shocking statistic
and is frankly something I had not heard prior to becoming a
parliamentarian. That contrasts quite distinctly with the fact
that Americans incarcerate adults at four times the rate
Canadians do.
The other point of interest that came up in testimony had to do
with learning disabilities. It became clear that a
disproportionate number of youth offenders have learning
disabilities. The low estimate was something in the order of
35%. The higher estimate was something in the order of 80%. More
than one out of every two young offenders cannot read. In this
society, people who cannot read will likely be marginalized. If
they are marginalized, they are likely going to be hanging out
with people they should not be hanging out with and doing things
they should not be doing. The consequence is that they will be
involved in conflicts with the law.
We also heard that young offenders drop out of school at twice
the rate of their peers. At some level this is not really news
and at another level it is a profound recognition of societal
failure, which brings us into conflict between the needs of
criminal justice and the needs of social justice. That is a kind
of philosophical divide that we all straddle in some manner or
another.
One of the pieces of testimony that really caught my attention
was that of professor Allan Leishfield of the University of
Western Ontario.
I know he is not from Queen's, Mr. Speaker, but he still
probably has something to say in this area.
He states:
There is simply not enough evidence to support the notion that
incapacitation through incarceration of relatively large numbers
of youth is an effective way to promote community safety.
The second is partly drawn from the first and that is that the
cost of providing custody for large numbers of youth is
considerable and not justified given the poor outcomes recorded
in the vast majority of the programs that rely on incapacitation.
1540
Members opposite should know that it costs about $106,000 a year
to keep a youth in jail, whereas referrals to other non-custodial
situations cost somewhere in the order of about $9,500.
When something is costly and is not working, there is something
wrong. When we are faced with that situation we have to look at
other alternatives.
I respectfully submit that this bill has looked at other
alternatives, that this has been completely and thoroughly
debated by members opposite, and that it is time to deal with the
issues that criminal justice presents to all of us.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his
intervention. It is a pleasure to again be back on the justice
committee with him.
I have one question with regard to the provisions for what is
essentially parole for young offenders, that is, mandatory
supervision, which would equate to half of the length of the
incarceration period of the sentence.
The initial idea was to mandate one-half the period. In other
words, if there were a three year sentence, one year of that
would have to be under supervision as mandated. There were some
objections raised to that. I can understand that. I think we
could all agree that for certain offenders, especially violent
offenders, we would want to see some period of supervision after
an incarceration period.
However, some objections were raised to that because it in
effect reduced the incarceration period, which a lot of people
were saying was too short as it was for violent offences. The
government in its wisdom has decided to give that discretion back
to the judge, which in effect now takes away any form of
mandatory supervision for the most violent offenders.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that. What we
would suggest is to increase the actual length of time of the
sentence and impose the mandatory supervision. To reduce the
incarceration period and then take away the supervision for the
offenders who probably need it the most does not seem like much
of a solution.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is
referring to the presumptive offences, an area that is actually a
fairly significant change in the bill. Now crown attorneys and
defence attorneys will not argue as to whether a case should be
tried or not tried in adult court. The crown will simply ask for
an adult sentence at the end of the presentation of the evidence.
The interesting anomaly was raised in evidence as to whether
this would in effect, if there were an imposition of an adult
sentence, result in the reduction of incarceration time, the time
actually in incarceration, and a period of supervision. There
was that anomaly.
I do not have a good answer for the hon. member's inquiry. I
think it is a legitimate issue to raise. That was an area about
which we all had some questions. It was rather a pity that the
last committee did not get down to debating significant issues
such as the hon. member raises. I am hoping that we do have the
opportunity at the committee to raise that particular issue and
arrive at a reasonable solution.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today
to try to correct some of the information that has been
circulating on the opposition benches since Bill C-7 was tabled.
Some are suggesting that Bill C-7 is too tough on young
offenders, whereas others are criticizing it for being
toothless. Bill C-7 is a departure from these two contradictory
philosophical approaches and strikes a balance resting on three
closely interconnected and complementary elements: first, crime
prevention; second, accountability for young offenders; and
third, the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders.
1545
We have been consistently hearing comments to the effect that
Quebec has taken the approach of treating its young offenders
well, an approach which would be jeopardized by the
implementation of Bill C-7. This is not quite the case.
Statistics show that Quebec tends to put its young offenders
into custody even for minor offences. Statistics also show that
between 1997 and 1998 Quebec was the province with the biggest
increase in its incarceration rate, which jumped by 6%.
Everybody can benefit from Bill C-7.
At the national level, our justice system's way of dealing with
young offenders is such that our young people are detained in
custody four times as often as adults and, at the international
level, from 10 to 15 times as often as young Australians or
Europeans.
Bill C-7 recognizes the difficult times some of our young people
are experiencing. Although criminal legislation by itself cannot
be an appropriate response to their problems, it can provide the
necessary tools to bring in both health and youth protection
agencies, and remedy the underlying causes of juvenile
delinquency. This is exactly what Bill C-7 does.
The youth criminal justice act, Bill C-7, would allow the use of
health professionals at any stage of the process to assess if
the young person has health problems, physical or mental
disorders, psychological problems, emotional problems or
learning disabilities, or if he or she is mentally retarded.
The diagnosis could then be used in sentencing or in determining
extrajudicial measures to be applied. Bill C-7 even provides for
a custody and supervision system that includes an intensive
rehabilitation and reintegration program.
The bill would also enable a youth court to submit the case of a
young offender to a youth protection agency so it could determine
if he or she needed its services.
However, detention or custody cannot be used as a substitute for
appropriate child protection, mental health or other social
measures.
Despite what some people say, putting young people in prison or
in youth centres, even though it may sometimes be necessary, is
not the only effective way of fighting crime.
We reject the statement that custody may be necessary to treat a
young offender with problems even though the offence does not
require such a strict penalty. Our response to that argument is
threefold.
First, it is not necessary to have a young person in custody to
ensure that he or she receives appropriate treatment. Treatment
is the responsibility of the health and welfare system or the
youth protection system, but it is not the responsibility of the
criminal justice system.
Second, detaining a young person just because his or her
particular condition requires an action by the health or child
protection system, in cases where the offence is a minor one,
would be contrary to the principle of fairness and equity.
Finally, this kind of approach would penalize a youth simply
because of some unfortunate circumstances, not to mention the
stigma of detention that could limit a young offender in his or
her endeavours to become a productive citizen.
Bill C-7 was criticized for being prejudicial to what Quebec
took over 20 years to build. As an elected representative from
Quebec and a former president of the Quebec Bar Association, I
approve the criminal justice system for young persons set out in
Bill C-7. The bill commands respect but also protects the
interests of the victims, promotes responsibility by providing
positive opportunities and focusing on rehabilitation, keeps
harsh sentences for the most serious offences and limits
detention for non violent young persons.
Finally, let me review some of the elements of the bill that
would improve upon the current system and reinforce the strength
of the Quebec model while enhancing its approach.
1550
In no specific order, these elements are the following. First,
there is the exclusive jurisdiction of the youth justice court
and the fact that young offenders would no longer be transferred
to adult courts, as is currently done.
Second, an adult sentence would only be imposed after a person is
found guilty and the names have been published.
Third, in clause 4, the bill creates some kind of framework for
the discretionary power of the youth workers on the front line.
This is set out in clauses 4 to 12.
The following point concerns the emphasis on diversion and the
means available to stakeholders to use it effectively.
Another point has to do with the notion of time, which is so
important when correcting criminal behaviour. The current
legislation, I note, is silent on this point. All signs are that
Quebec will improve its response time, or at least maintain it,
when faced with the requirement to act rapidly and effectively.
The following point has to do with the distinction made between
the majority of offenders, who commit non-violent crimes, and the
minority, whose crimes are violent.
Another point concerns the clarity of the objectives and general
guidelines for each stakeholder in the system at all phases of
the procedure, and the specific principles applicable to a
particular stage or intervention.
A wide array of measures is available to stakeholders, whether
they be the police, the crown, judges or social workers, to
help young offenders take responsibility and adopt behaviour
that is consistent with the values of our society.
The following point has to do with the recognition given
frontline workers for their contribution to the youth criminal
justice system.
The creation of committees of citizens, to be called youth
justice committees, on which the bill confers duties and powers
of recommendation, supervision, support, information and advice,
is another point contained in the bill, as is the possibility of
convening conferences to deal with a specific case. This
possibility is given to a police officer, the crown and the
judge.
Such a meeting would bring together the victim and his or her
family, the young offender and his or her family, community
organizations, school authorities, and other individuals
concerned in determining specific solutions in a given case.
The bill also contains the principle of recognition of the
victim and the obligation to forge partnerships with the
community and the community organizations for a better
understanding and resolution of the problems surrounding youth
crime.
In conclusion, let us keep in mind that, in support of the
efforts to implement the youth criminal justice act, Quebec would
receive a substantial portion of the budget allocated for this,
as well as an increase in the federal government contribution to
the administration of justice.
I recently wrote an open letter in response to a letter from the
president of the Junior Bar of Quebec. I sent this open letter
to La Presse and invite them to publish it.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have always respected the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi but
today I was both surprised and disappointed by his comments.
He based part of his arguments on the fact that he is a former
president of the Quebec Bar Association. Listening to him, I got
the impression that he was talking more like a Liberal member
trying to support a minister who finds herself in a rather
awkward situation.
As a Quebecer, he is well aware of. I know that he reads
the newspapers. I was not surprised to see that La Presse did
not publish his letter because La Presse must have realized
that it did not reflect the consensus in Quebec.
Let me ask the following question of this former president of
the bar association. I think La Presse should have noted that the
national assembly, of which his brother is a member, agrees that
this bill makes no sense in Quebec.
1555
All the organizations, the youth centres, the representatives of
the young people and the CLSCs say so. Everybody says so.
There is a consensus, and the member for Berthier—Montcalm has
shown this on a number of occasions. I even did so in the
previous parliament. There was a very broad consensus among all
the organizations concerned with young people in Quebec. They
say that this law makes no sense, that is was introduced simply
to please a certain western lobby, which wants measures to be
more severe.
He surprises me especially where he expresses the statistics in
national terms and notes increases in certain statistics. At
the same time, he speaks of a 6% increase in detentions in
Quebec, finding that this is serious and significant. Yet, the
rate of detention is low—that is the way to see it—in fact, it is
lower in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. He said there was a
slight increase and yet this is where there are the fewest
detentions in Canada. His making a point of saying “It
increased by 6%” in order to justify his remarks, I find
unacceptable.
Is the member aware of the list of all those opposing his bill?
Could he list, by memory, those involved with young people in
Quebec who agree with what he says? Could he name a dozen
organizations in Quebec that would agree? Does he remember all
those opposed, when in fact there is a consensus, which includes
the Quebec National Assembly and his own brother?
Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has a little trouble with
shipbuilding in his riding, but in this case I think he is
missing the boat.
I draw the attention of the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and particularly of the member for
Berthier—Montcalm to the bill before us. Earlier, I spoke about
correcting some of the misinformation our Bloc Quebecois friends
are circulating right and left.
I urge them to read the bill carefully. Let us begin with the
first page. It says:
WHEREAS members of society share a responsibility to address the
developmental challenges and the needs of young persons and to
guide them into adulthood;
That is the first “Whereas”. The second paragraph says:
WHEREAS communities, families, parents—
What do they have against families and parents?
—families, parents and others concerned with the development of
young persons should, through multi-disciplinary approaches, take
reasonable steps to prevent youth crime by addressing its
underlying causes, to respond to the needs of young persons, and
to provide guidance and support to those at risk of committing
crimes;
That is the second “Whereas”. I could go on with the other
paragraphs, which are along those lines.
Members need to read the bill and to understand what is in
the bill.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank our justice critic, the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for the work he has
done on this which extends way beyond this parliament.
As hon. members well know, this bill has been introduced and
reintroduced. In fact, it goes back to three parliaments ago
when it was originally brought in to update the Young Offenders
Act, which we know has been a very troubled piece of legislation
since its inception.
I point out that the Young Offenders Act has gone beyond the life
of young offenders. It is 17 years old.
1600
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out on a
number of occasions that the present Young Offenders Act does not
deserve much of its present reputation. The government could do
a number of things to improve the act.
He pointed out that Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act,
from the outset looked very encouraging. It talks about early
intervention. It talks about preventive measures on youth who
could be embarking on a life of crime. That is of course what we
want to prevent. A reversal of one's behaviour can come about
only by interventionist activities on the part of professionals
that can help steer young people in the right direction. That is
very commendable.
However it is the shear complexity of the bill with which most
of us have some major concerns. The previous speaker had a copy
of the bill in his hands. The physical size of the bill is
double the size and the complexity of the existing legislation,
the Young Offenders Act.
Quoting from a previous speaker, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, in remarks made in the House on
February 14:
This particular bill in its current form is so complex, so
convoluted and cumbersome that were it to be enacted it its
current form, the delays, the interpretations, the legal jargon
and the manipulations that would result would be astronomical.
He and other members have mentioned the convoluted nature of
this piece of legislation. That has been borne out by judges and
others who have worked in the youth criminal justice system over
the years. A number of opinions have been rendered on that.
They simply say that interpretation of the act would be very
difficult for some of our most skilled members of the legal
profession.
We have other examples of what we should do and how the bill
could be reconstructed, but basically the problem we see is that
the present government has refused to give to police the tools
needed to do their jobs and the proper resources to effectively
implement the present act, let alone any new act. The
government's failure to address the problem has allowed the Young
Offenders Act to become synonymous with the problems involving
youth crime in Canada. There is a need to restore public
confidence in the system.
As I mentioned earlier, we have had over seven years of delay
and numerous promises in regard to the bill. Originally the
government, back in the early nineties, introduced it as Bill
C-3. That was replaced with Bill C-68 in the last parliament.
We are still talking but nothing is happening.
The bill was criticized by all parties, including the Liberal
Party, and all youth justice experts around the country. The
reasons were that the bill was too long, too complex and too
expensive for the provinces to implement. If the provinces do
not have the financial resources to implement the bill, what good
would it be, despite its good intentions?
As a result of the frustration of members of parliament in the
last parliament during committee hearings on the bill, the member
for Berthier—Montcalm filibustered for 27 hours in a determined
effort to derail this particular bill.
The bill to which we are speaking has only minor technical
amendments. Experts still think the bill is too long, too
expensive and too complicated.
1605
One of the models we often point to is the province of Quebec.
Certainly in terms of the treatment of young offenders, it has a
lot of which to be proud. Quebec is certainly miles ahead of the
rest of the provinces. The bill attempts to reflect that but
without giving the provinces the resources to do it. It is going
to complicate and exaggerate the differences between a province
like Ontario with that of Quebec.
Bill C-7 does not offer any real disincentive for youth
criminals. The Liberals say that crime rates are falling and
that opposition parties are only fearmongering when speaking
about the need to crack down on violent crime in Canada. Last
July Statistics Canada announced that crime rates had fallen to
their lowest level in 20 years. However, it did not mention
youth crime.
The overall decline in crime masks a sharp increase in violent
crime and a staggering rise in youth crime. While less serious
crimes have petered off, violent crime is actually up by 57% over
the last 20 years and violent youth crime is up by over 77% in 10
years. It is quite obvious that this is not fearmongering. It
is a real problem when we look at an increase of 77% in 10 years.
I will not end there because the numbers get even more
disturbing. Violent crime by young girls has risen 127% since
1988, with most of those statistics coming from categories such
as murder and hostage taking. Obviously we have read about
stories like that. There was one in the National Post on
July 20, 2000, if anyone is interested.
Lack of accountability for the crimes committed by young
offenders is no deterrent. Even when young criminals are
convicted, they are often given a custodial sentence which can
often be served at home. They are sentenced on average to a
single month. It is not much wonder that 40% of all young
offenders are repeat offenders.
Almost half of the convicted youths between the years 1998-99
were simply placed on probation. Seventy-five per cent of
custody sentences were for three months or less, and 90% of those
sentences were for six months or less. Only 2% of these
convicted offenders got more than a year. We are talking about
serious crime, not petty crimes. Only 0.1% of youth crimes made
it to adult court between 1998-99. I believe the last point or
the numbers are precise. Forty-eight per cent of those convicted
had at least one previous conviction.
1610
If we ask frontline police officers if things are getting
easier, their answer is absolutely not. They say so called minor
youth crimes are not being reported due to an overworked police
force that is stretched to deal with too much crime. Too many
young offenders are being dealt with through what they call extra
judicial measures. They do not become part of the government's
statistics. If it is not reported, it did not happen.
Frontline victim groups are upset that under Bill C-7 crimes
such as common assault are not considered by the government to be
violent in nature. That would not be included in the violent
crime statistics, thus helping to further massage the
government's statistics to support its theory that violent crime
is decreasing.
It is hard to believe that children under 12 years old are
committing serious crimes and many of them are not being charged
at all. I would like to give the House an example.
On August 23, 2000, Ms. Margaret Moore, an elderly woman in
Calgary, was mugged and beaten at noon hour by two young girls
aged 11 and 13. The 13 year old faces one charge of robbery and
the 11 year old is too young to be charged under the Young
Offenders Act. That is an important point to make. It is
obviously a flaw in the Young Offenders Act.
Another example is an 11 year old boy walked into an Edmonton
bank in broad daylight a few weeks ago and proceeded to rob it.
The young boy was wearing a ball cap, sunglasses and carried a
knapsack. He handed the teller a note demanding money. Being
only 11 years old, the system has no means of dealing with this
young offender.
Children under 12 and older youth are expected to be dealt with
through provincially administered programs which are supposed to
receive 50% of their funding from the federal government.
Obviously they do not because every province, including my home
province, is complaining about the lack of funds from Ottawa to
help in rehabilitation. Under the present government, the
provinces have seen their 50% share drop to as little as 30%.
This decreased funding equates to children not receiving the
services they need and rehabilitation does not occur. That is
the key. If we want to look to any part of the country where
rehabilitation has worked we would obviously look to the province
of Quebec.
Victims of youth crime could give us stories behind these
statistics. They could give us stories about the lives that have
been taken and the hurt that has been caused. They could give us
stories about the victims who have been left behind to fight for
recognition from a Liberal justice system which is concerned more
with the rights of the young offender than with the pain of the
victims and the need to be accountable to the public, which is
scared that these young offenders will continue to get off with a
slap on the wrist.
There are not many weaknesses in Bill C-7. However, if we are
reintroducing or bringing in a new bill, we have to provide the
provinces with the tools and resources to implement it. The bill
simply puts an impossible burden on the backs of the provinces,
especially the poorer ones.
We have a couple of things that could happen.
First, judges could be given more power to impose mandatory
treatment or therapy for troubled youth. The key is obviously
treatment and therapy.
Second, serious violent crime offences involving young offenders
could be automatically transferred to adult courts.
1615
Third, we should enact a parental responsibility act to make the
parents of young offenders financially responsible for the
criminal acts of their children.
Fourth, we should lower the age of accountability to include
violent criminals of all ages. Currently, as we well know,
violent offenders below the age of 12 face no punishment for
their crimes. At least in cases involving serious crime, the
justice system should be able to bring a child under the age of
12 into the youth justice system in the same manner that a young
offender can be transferred into the adult system for serious
crimes.
Our party, although we risk being accused of this when we speak
in such terms, does not intend to incarcerate youths in inhuman
or cruel facilities. None of us want that. However we do
support mandatory youth access to adult criminal rehabilitation
resources and increased accountability for violent youth crime.
Through such services we hope to prevent young adults from
continuing a life of anti-social criminal activity. We can make
a positive change in the area of law enforcement by making a
commitment to action in at least three areas.
First, we should reform the youth criminal justice system.
Second, we should build safe communities through the promotion
of anti-violence and by providing adult mentors for our young
people, especially our youth at risk.
Third, we should give law enforcement agencies the resources
they need to do their jobs.
In the last parliament, as the House is well aware, we put
forward a number of amendments. We will do the same in this
parliament. We put forth amendments to Bill C-3 and Bill C-68,
and we plan to do the same for Bill C-11.
The bill should be scrapped, but Liberal members are obviously
unwilling to listen to the public. We hope they will at least
take a close look at our amendments which aim at improving this
piece of legislation.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my friend opposite made a comment that there are not many
weaknesses in Bill C-7. I agree.
He refers to children 11 and under and says there are no
repercussions. Is he not aware that all provinces, to my
knowledge, have youth protection agencies that intervene on a
regular basis for those individuals? Does he really want to jail
a 10 year old?
His other point was about the frustration of our police
officers. Under the act our police officers will be the
gatekeepers. They will be at the front end. Under the advice of
crown attorneys they will be able to use their discretion. Is
that not good? Will it not address some of the concerns of the
police at this time?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the point
the member made. However the point we are making, if one follows
the points our justice critic has made on the bill over the past
months, is that the bill is fine in a perfect world. However
nothing in the bill guarantees funding to allow provinces to
encourage the counselling and mentoring of youths through various
agencies.
We truly believe that must be part of it. If one thing has hurt
our youth justice system more than anything else, it is the lack
of funding. If the corrective approach is prevention,
counselling and identifying children at risk, the hon. member has
made a good point. However we must have the resources to do
that. Unless they are there it simply will not happen.
1620
Not only are our police forces going flat out to do the best,
but so are our counsellors. I was a teacher at one time. The
school systems simply do not have the resources to help young
children at risk. If they did, it could make all the difference
in the world.
If the bill goes through, I hope the money would flow through
the provinces to make sure the bill could be enacted or enforced
and that we could prevent youth crime from occurring in the first
place. If it did occur we would have the rehabilitation services
to move those young people on to better things.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Reflecting on the
fact that the member was a school teacher, the association of
school board trustees was here last week lobbying each and every
one of us to do something about the notification provisions.
I would like to hear the member's comments on the desire of
teachers and school administrators that it be mandatory or
automatic that they be notified when there is a violent offender
or sex offender in the classroom. I would like to hear the
member's comments on that.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have been out of the
teaching profession more than 25 years but I know some things
have not changed in the school system. When there is a
disruptive influence in the classroom everyone is hurt. Unless
we have the resources to deal with the individual causing the
disruption, everyone suffers. That has not changed. I know
teachers have concerns about that.
With respect to the issue of violence I know the member has
spent a tremendous amount of time on the bill. He is speaking
from experience that none of us, thank goodness, have ever had to
live through in terms of violence and youth crime and so on.
However when we look at the shootings in various high schools and
institutions over the last number of years, especially in the
U.S. but also in Canada, the common theme is that they were done
by troubled people who had no one to help them.
Without such help nothing changes because we have no idea, or we
cannot say categorically, what kinds of homes those young people
come from. Obviously some come from what we consider good homes.
What happens behind those walls none of us know. I know parents
do their best to deal with this, but teachers need professionals
and support staff they can depend on. That would avoid a lot of
this.
I know some young people are the victims of teasing, taunting
and peer groups and so on. However putting up with young people
who are subjected to that, and who then vent their emotions on an
entire classroom, takes a lot out of a teacher.
The teaching profession, unless I am wrong, would be very
supportive of interventionist moneys or resources to help the
problem. Unless the problem is addressed and there is honest
dialogue in terms of what is happening in the classroom, nothing
will change. We must pay attention to the problem.
Let us put resource people into the classroom. Let us make the
commitment to do that. Such commitment means moneys from Ottawa.
We must identify the problem and the federal government must
finally stand up and say yes, we have the resources to help. That
is what we want. We want help in the classrooms of small towns,
communities and cities across Canada. We want something to
happen.
1625
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I
note, in relation to the principles and purpose of youth
sentencing, that subsection 38(1) asserts:
The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is
to contribute to the protection of society by holding a young
person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just
sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person
and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into
society.
Does the hon. member agree that this is a reasonable and
sensible approach to the sentencing of youth criminals? We are
talking about people who have been convicted at this stage and
are going on to sentencing.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, to sum up, we are in
favour of rehabilitation and identifying youth at risk. For the
problem to end and violent crime to be addressed, a number of
things must happen. Problems must be identified before they
happen. There must be a sense of deterrent. There must be
financial resources to allow all provinces to have a solution
that would work from one end of Canada to the other. It would
truly mean a financial commitment by the Government of Canada.
However the key to the entire problem is rehabilitation. We
must provide the resources to bring about rehabilitation in the
classrooms, and we must provide police forces the tools with
which to work. Unfortunately it often comes down to financial
resources, and that must be part and parcel of the package once
the bill is passed.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the bill today regarding youth criminal
justice. The bill will replace the Young Offenders Act. It is a
key part of the Government of Canada's youth justice renewal
initiative, an initiative that is very important.
I had occasion recently to speak with a person involved in the
issue of restorative justice. We talked about the importance and
the challenge of ensuring that justice is swift while at the same
time guaranteeing the rights of an accused person. That is a
difficult balance. We want to see matters brought to justice
very quickly.
It is important for any person, but particularly young people,
to understand there are consequences to a criminal act and to
know what the consequences are. It is important that such acts
be dealt with swiftly. Their consequences must be swift and the
person responsible be held to account. They must face the victim
if that is appropriate. They must face the community and
confront the fact that their act has had a negative and terrible
impact on the community. That is important.
If young offenders are to overcome and get beyond what they have
done, recognize they have done something wrong and grow and learn
and change, they must be confronted fairly quickly with what has
happened. That is why restorative justice is a step in the right
direction, and I am glad the Department of Justice is working on
it.
However the other side of the challenge is that while justice
must be swift we must ensure the rights of an accused person are
protected. As a judge said many years ago, it is better that ten
guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. That
is one of the golden threads of our legal justice system in
Canada.
1630
The new act will incorporate some very important new
considerations. It will incorporate the initiative's new
approach to youth justice and it will form the backbone of a
major restructuring of the youth justice system. This
restructuring has been going on since 1988. Let us look at the
key elements of the new bill and the principles it applies.
The preamble of the bill underlines the values, rights and
responsibilities both of society and of young people in relation
to youth crime. Clearly we do have rights and responsibilities
on both sides and our values are important. What we are trying
to do, obviously, is to teach or to inject those values, so to
speak, into young people. We are not always talking about people
who are absolutely devoid of values. Often we are talking about
people who have strayed from those values, who have learned the
basics but perhaps have made an important and fundamental error,
in some cases a very serious error, and have strayed dramatically
from those values. However, in some cases, yes, they are people
who do not appear to show any of the values that we think are
important as a society.
The bill sets out the most important objectives of the youth
criminal justice system. The objectives are to prevent crime, to
rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into society, and to
ensure meaningful consequences for offences committed by young
people so that they have the consequence of being confronted with
their actions, of being brought to account to face the victim and
recognize what they have done to someone, and also to face their
community and recognize the impact on the community of what they
have done.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you, by the way, that I will be
splitting my time with the minister of state for youth.
The principles of the bill recognize that these elements,
pursued together, are the best way to protect the public and
promote safer communities over the long term.
Let me talk for a moment about the provisions of the bill
regarding sentencing. I mentioned a few minutes earlier, and I
want to repeat, what subclause 38(1) of the bill says. I think
it is a very important provision of this bill. It is important
to understand what the bill is all about and what the idea of
sentencing is all about within the new youth criminal justice
bill.
Subclause 38(1) asserts that the purpose of imposing a youth
sentence is:
That is very important. We have to consider that. Those who
feel, for example, that all people under the age of 18 who are
convicted of a criminal act should be in adult institutions, in
adult prisons, ought to consider the impact of that. Surely if
we put a 15 year old or a 14 year old or a 13 year old into an
adult prison facility, what we are doing, in effect, is helping
him or her to be trained to become a more proficient criminal.
Surely that is not an objective we ought to be endorsing or
embracing for our youth criminal justice system.
As this legislation states, the key purpose of youth sentences
is to hold young people accountable for their crimes. That is
vital. It is vital that they be held accountable and have to
confront what they have done. If there is any chance for reform
or rehabilitation, they must first confront and be confronted
with what they have done.
The other key purpose, of course, is to contribute to the
protection of society. How can this be achieved? There are a
number of goals that the bill sets out. For instance, it sets
out that we can achieve these goals through interventions that
are just; there must be justice in these interventions. This can
be accomplished through community intervention, with
incarceration for the most serious crimes. Community
intervention may work well in some cases. I think it is
important that we give it a try.
We have already seen the idea of restorative justice, whereby
young people are confronted by the community and particularly by
the victims they have injured and are required to make
restoration, not only to the victim but also to the community at
large. A crime is an attack not only on one person, on one
family or on one resident, but is in effect an attack on our
society and on the community in which the attack takes place.
1635
Another important goal is that we ensure meaningful
consequences. Clearly the youth must recognize the severity of
the crime, and the punishment should suit the crime. These are
very important objectives.
Finally, it must promote rehabilitation and reintegration.
It seems to me that the bill goes a long way toward achieving
those objectives. Provisions in the bill will encourage
community based sentences where appropriate, such as, for
example, compensation for victims, community service and
supervision in the community.
It will allow the courts to impose adult sentences upon
conviction when certain criteria are met. It creates the
presumption that adult sentences will be given to young people 14
and older who are found guilty of murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault or who are repeat
serious violent offenders. That is a very important provision,
this presumption of an adult sentence, because it means that for
serious crimes they will do serious time. It means that young
offenders can expect this if they are involved in serious violent
crime.
At the same time, because we recognize that there are different
situations in different parts of the country and we recognize
that different provinces have had success with different models
in relation to these issues, the provinces will have increased
flexibility in regard to the age at which this presumption will
apply within their jurisdictions.
Lastly, it will create a new, intensive, rehabilitative custody
and supervision sentence for the most violent high risk youth so
that they get the treatment they need. That is so important. Not
only is it important that they be confronted with their actions
but, particularly with the most violent youth, there is a real
need for serious treatment. These are people who obviously have
severe problems and we have a great challenge in order to have a
hope that people like this may at some point go back into
society. It is important that we find a way to give them good
treatment.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. colleague across the
way. He refers to clause 38 under “Sentencing, Purpose and
Principles”. I would ask the hon. member to explain to the
House why we do not see any mention of deterrence or
denunciation.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have talked about justice
and I have talked about meaningful consequences. I think that
when we talk about meaningful consequences, we talk about holding
people to account and about the strong impact.
In fact, a moment ago I mentioned something that relates
directly to this. I talked about adult sentences being given to
people who are 14 years of age or older and who are found guilty
of serious crimes. Clearly that is deterrence. Clearly
deterrence is part of this bill and part of what the provisions
provide.
Perhaps the member does not find it in this particular phrase,
but it talks about “holding a young person accountable for an
offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have
meaningful consequences for the young person” et cetera. Those
consequences are publicly known. The fact that there are these
consequences becomes public. The person's peer group is
certainly going to be aware of these consequences. That is
clearly a deterrent to further actions of this kind.
At the same time, there not only needs to be deterrence but also
treatment and rehabilitation. There cannot be the imbalance of
having one and not the other. There has to be that combination.
That is the challenge before us.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for New Brunswick Southwest suggested to the House
that there should be criminal sanctions to a parent for the
offences of his or her child.
I would like to ask the member for Halifax West if he feels that
punishing a bad parent is going to make him or her a good parent.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this
brings up a very interesting challenge for society, because how
do we legislate good parenting? On the other hand, how do we
penalize parents who have maybe been good parents when, in spite
of their best efforts, one of their children has engaged in
criminal acts, particularly in violent criminal acts?
1640
I do not believe that this permits simple solutions. It might
be attractive to say to throw the parent in jail or to penalize
the parent in some severe way and that would solve the problem. I
am not convinced that it will. I am not convinced that this
suggestion encompasses the reality that is out there, the reality
of parents who have been good parents or of parents who have done
their best but who may have limited ability, for whatever reason,
because of their own background, to provide the parenting we
would like to see them provide, to provide the level of parenting
we would like to see ideally.
It seems to me that the idea of penalizing the parent is one
that is not well founded. At the same time, yes, we want to
ensure that parents do a good job. Perhaps there is some way
that provinces could improve parenting training and perhaps there
are other things that could be done.
Clearly for children who are under the age of 12, where there
are consequences under provincial laws, in some cases a child may
be taken away from his or her parents because of this kind of
situation. However, to say that we can impose on one person a
penalty for what someone else has done is so contrary to the
fundamental principles of our justice system and of our legal
system historically that I think it makes no sense. I do not
think we can we can go that far or accept that kind of a leap in
that direction.
I think this bill does provide a good balance between the
challenge of bringing the youth to justice quickly and the
challenge of making sure that the accused's rights are
guaranteed.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to
speak today on the new youth criminal justice act.
Moderation is an ideal of virtue. Aristotle is said to have
defined virtue as the middle path between extremes of excess and
deficiency. It is the way of my party. It is the middle path
that we have chosen in placing the bill before the House.
The youth criminal justice act replaces and improves upon the
deficiencies of the Young Offenders Act. It promotes what
Canadians want to see in the youth justice system:
accountability, respect, responsibility and fairness. The act
intends to promote these values by protecting the public and by
preventing crime.
It ensures meaningful consequences for the full range of youth
crime and, perhaps most important, ensures rehabilitating youth
so that they can turn their lives around. It represents what
some would call a tougher but more just approach to tackling
youth crime.
It is not an excessive bill. It is a measured response to
practical realities. We have not caved in to the banal desires
of the members of the parties opposite whose quick fix proposals
to youth crime would be neither quick nor effective. Might does
not make right and justice should not be defined simply by
whoever is strong enough to enforce it. We have an obligation to
look beyond an individual criminal act to seek solutions, to seek
justice.
The opposition, left to its own interests, would have us believe
that compulsion is the only reason for obedience to authority,
that jacking up sentences and restricting the youth justice
process will lead to the reduction of youth crime. The facts
simply do not support their arguments. If it were so, we would
not have seen an overall reduction in crime rates in the last
decade. Canada's national crime rate fell by 5% in 1999, the
eighth consecutive annual decline. The youth crime rate is down
4% from 1997-98 and down 13% from 1992-93.
While last year's overall crime rate was down by 4% in the
Northwest Territories, youth crime is up, as it is in many parts
of northern Canada.
1645
These reductions have not resulted from tougher sanctions but
from improvements made in education and in living conditions. The
higher youth crime rates in the north and among aboriginal people
poses a much more difficult issue. Tougher sentences will not
reduce the number of young aboriginal offenders. There are other
mitigating factors. Many of them are social and others have to
do with perhaps other disabilities that could be better addressed
in another forum.
Improving the living conditions of northerners, including our
large aboriginal population, is the way to reduce poverty and
crime rates. It is a painful fact that aboriginal people
represent an alarming 15% of the federal offender population but
only 3% of the general population. It is more alarming when one
considers that the aboriginal offender population increased from
1997 to 1999.
Tougher sentences will only ensure that aboriginal people will
further increase their proportion of the federal inmate
population. That is not justice. It is vindictive and
ineffective. We cannot just lock people away and hope that the
problem will go away. It has not worked, it does not work and it
will not work.
That is why our party has taken a balanced approach. We have
adopted an aboriginal justice policy that tackles these issues
directly. Correctional Service Canada is working with aboriginal
organizations to seek new ways to heal aboriginal offenders. The
legislation before us recognizes the unique needs of aboriginal
young persons. It recognizes the cultural differences of young
aboriginal people, and that there are more effective ways to deal
with young people than simply locking them up.
Encouraging community involvement is one of the central
components of our strategy. We believe that community
involvement is central to repatriating the justice system to
aboriginal people, a system that for too long has been seen as a
foreign system by many aboriginal youth.
Some provincial correctional authorities report that aboriginal
youth constitute 80% of the youth in their correctional
facilities. In my riding of the Northwest Territories it is 90%.
The statistics are shameful. However, the Leader of the
Opposition's platform calls upon all Canadians to be treated
equally regardless of race, sex, religion or ethnic origin.
In building safer communities, the leader opposite also wants to
play a leadership role internationally. Can there be any better
example of the ideological failure of that party and its
platform? Which country in the international community does that
leader want to impress with these statistics?
That is not all. He wants to get tougher on these aboriginal
youth. Clearly, there is another way. It is found in the
proposed legislation. The proposed act would provide that
measures should respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic
differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons
and young persons with special requirements. Clearly there must
be community involvement and we must try different approaches
when dealing with young aboriginal people.
In my riding justice committees have been established in 70% of
our communities. The act would encourage this practice. These
community committees would continue to play an important role in
the development of extrajudicial measures that would be provided
for in the new act.
The new act would encourage the use of non-custodial sentencing
for youth. This is in keeping with the Northwest Territories'
commitment to apply a restorative justice approach. These
extrajudicial measures would be particularly appropriate when
dealing with first-time offenders who commit minor offences.
The new act would also provides for the use of conferencing
which promotes community involvement in dealing with youth
involved in the justice system. We believe that the new act
would respond to the needs of our justice system. We believe the
new act would be a marked improvement over the Young Offenders
Act. However, laws that provide a more effective framework for
dealing with young offenders is only one small part of our
government's approach to making Canada a better place for our
young people.
We have adopted an approach that cuts to the heart of the
problem. We have adopted a diverse and holistic approach to
crime prevention, which attacks the social causes of crime.
We are focusing on areas such as early childhood development,
education and training for young people. That is why we have
supported the aboriginal headstart groups and developed
multi-youth purpose centres for aboriginal people. We are
working to provide our youth with more opportunities so they will
be less likely to come into conflict with the law. We share the
same goal; a society that is safe, secure and respectful of all
citizens.
1650
It is sad but a true commentary that the Leader of the
Opposition spends more time on locking up young people than
supporting entrepreneurs. I had the opportunity to review the
leader's aboriginal policies. He talked about aboriginal
policies on one page, maybe one-quarter or half a page. That is
all that was dedicated to aboriginal people. He talked about
equality for Canada's aboriginal people. His definition of
equality was as confused as his definition of justice. The
opposition leader believes that he must take away aboriginal
rights and benefits to make aboriginal people equal. What is
more, this perverse logic is the cornerstone of that party's
approach to social policy and the poor.
It reminds me of one of the statements by the world renowned
economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, who is to be recognized as an
honorary officer of the Order of Canada next month. In his book,
the Culture of Contentment, Mr. Galbraith summed up the
prevailing view of the contented middle class, and I believe the
view of the party opposite: “To help the poor and middle
classes, one must cut the taxes of the rich”.
However the party opposite wants to further help youth,
aboriginal people and the poor by removing the public support
system that is in place for them, including training and
employment assistance. That is not our way.
We believe in a more holistic approach. We believe that in
addition to criminal sanction we must have a capacity and
willingness to help young people when they get into trouble. Make
no mistake, young people, including young aboriginal people, can
continue to count on our government to help them obtain the tools
and skills that will keep them out of the criminal justice system
all together. That is our way and that is the Canadian way.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. secretary of state, for
whom I have a great deal of respect, for her heartfelt position
on this and many other issues.
In her remarks she criticized the principle which guides the
position of the Canadian Alliance with respect to the
relationship between the Dominion of Canada and aboriginal
peoples. She suggested that equality is not an appropriate
principle for those relationships.
The principle of equality, which my party articulates in a
classical small l liberal sense, is predicated on the
ancient Liberal principle that ethnicity and race ought not to be
a factor in a relationship between the state and the individual.
This was a principle very strongly articulated by none other than
the late right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and of course
manifested in his 1971 white paper on Indian affairs, where he
proposed a paradigm similar to the one articulated by the
Canadian Alliance.
Could the minister reflect as to whether she thinks that Prime
Minister Trudeau was wrong for advocating the same position? She
says that the Alliance simply wants to take rights away from
aboriginal people when in fact what we want to do is for instance
grant individual aboriginals property rights which in many cases
they do not currently have.
Rather than a kind of confrontational approach, would she
consider that there is some merit, certainly Pierre Trudeau saw
it, in the kind of approach that we are advocating and perhaps a
more constructive dialogue would be a better way to go forward?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there is a world
of difference between the definition that the right hon. Pierre
Elliott Trudeau had for equality for this country under the
constitution and the charter. His definition was treating
everyone the same does not equate to equality.
Hence forthwith, Mr. Trudeau recognized that aboriginal people
collectively had unique constitutional and legal rights and
therefore recognized that in the constitution under section
35(1). Not only that but he took it one step further.
1655
After a discussion at the constitutional conference and after
listening and speaking to the great aboriginal leaders of this
country such as George Erasmus, Jim Sinclair and David Ahenakew,
Mr. Trudeau said that maybe they were right and that they should
speak for themselves. He suggested they be funded so they could
have their own voice. He therefore funded them. Hence we have
the National Indian Brotherhood of Canada and the Metis National
Council of Canada. Those organizations were born with the will of
the people and with the definition that man stood for, which is
not the same as the member's.
Treating people the same is not treating them equal. If someone
requires a wheelchair in order to get to the door, do we expect
them to walk to the door if they do not have legs? Do we expect
people to perform the same? They are equal with us. Do we
expect them to receive the same information if they cannot hear?
My colleague from the Atlantic is an expert on the disabled
issue. Treating them equally requires a different set of tools
and mechanisms. We cannot treat them equally under the law and
in the institutions by giving them all the same things that
everybody else has. Perhaps there is a disadvantage. Perhaps
there is a gap in the barrier that they need to overcome which
requires something extra special. That is real equality.
Equality is done with dignity and integrity. It does not
denigrate and is not premised on a negative motive.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we do not have to look very far to
realize that there is something terribly wrong in our society.
Statistics Canada reported in 1998 that 106,984 youth aged 12 to
17 were charged with a criminal code offence. One in five youth
were charged with a violent crime. The rate of youth charged
with violent crime is 77% higher than it was a decade ago. By
comparison, the increase for adults was only 6%. Over the past
decade the rate of female youth charged has increased twice as
fast at 127% as compared with male youth which was 65%.
Two-thirds of female youth were charged with common assault
compared to just under half for male youth. Male youth tend to
be involved in more serious crimes such as robbery and major
assaults than female youth.
These are alarming statistics, but the newspaper stories about
youth crime tell us the real stories behind the statistics. Here
are just a few articles.
On December 5, 2000 a Chronicle Herald headline read:
“Teen gets seven months for taking gun to school; Mill Cove kid
thought it was a cool thing to do”.
On November 20, 2000 a Calgary Sun headline read: “Gun
incident again rocks Lethbridge high school”.
On September 12, 2000 a Winnipeg Free Press headline read:
“Hero takes shotgun from pupil”.
On April 17, 2000 a Winnipeg Free Press headline read:
“Police investigate three threats of violence in local
schools”.
On March 3, 2000 a Toronto Star headline read: “Teen
charged in the seizure of handguns, a cache of ammunition and
machete following a school fight”.
On September 28, 1999 a Vancouver Sun headline read:
“Students taking weapons to school are trying to protect
themselves. Nine percent of grade 7 to 12 students surveyed said
they have taken a weapon to school”.
In October 1999 an editorial in the Peterborough Examiner
stated: “Adding to the already strict gun control laws is not
going to achieve safer schools. If laws aren't going to fix
these problems what is?”
The statistics and the stories we read in our newspapers signal
a dynamic societal change. We see it but we do not know what to
do so we pass more laws. Instead of instilling in kids a sense
of duty, we pass more laws restricting their freedom even more,
which causes them to rebel even more.
Dramatic societal change such as illustrated in these news
stories and statistics cannot be fixed only by legislation.
Little of anything will be fixed by this particular piece of
legislation.
When I was growing up this problem was non-existent. The guns
hung in the rack in the backroom and the kids knew exactly what
the firearms were for. We longed for the day when we would be
old enough for our father to take us out in the bush to show us
how to use the firearms safely. We longed for the day when we
would join our father and uncles in the hunt for birds and game
for our table.
1700
Some of us took guns to school all right but it was for hunter
safety training courses or to target practice in the shooting
range in the school basement.
We did not have to lock our doors. No teenager would dare enter
their neighbours' homes without being invited. We played cops
and robbers and cowboys and Indians and wore our cap pistols
proudly on our hips, and none of us became homicidal maniacs. The
only violence in our schools was a bit of fisticuffs and the
penalty for brawling was a few licks of the strap from the
principal.
What happened in the last 30 years to bring about such dramatic
change in how our young people act?
It will take more than passing more laws to bring about the
changes that the public is demanding. Maybe we should be asking
for the government to work with our communities and churches to
develop programs to address the underlying reasons that are
causing our young people to turn to violent crime.
What kind of programs might that entail? Studies have been done
that show us the direction we must head. There are even programs
that are showing dramatic results. They are not the programs
that liberals and other left wingers will like hearing about, but
I have the floor and I will tell them about them.
In July 1999, Charles Moore's column in the Calgary Herald
was titled, “To Know Guns is to Respect Them: Kids didn't shoot
up schools before gun control became all the rage”. In his
column he reported:
A study conducted from 1993 to 1995 by the United States
Department of Justice's office of juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention tracked 4,000 male and female subjects
aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh and Rochester.
Among the study's findings: children who are given real guns by
their parents don't commit gun crimes (zero percent); children
who obtain guns illegally are likely to commit gun crimes (21
percent); children who get guns from their parents are less
likely to commit any kind of street crime (14 percent), children
who have no gun in the house (24 percent), and are dramatically
less likely to commit a crime than children who acquire an
illegal gun (74 percent); boys who own legal firearms have much
lower rates of delinquency and drug use than boys who obtain
illegal guns, and are even slightly less delinquent than
non-owners of guns.
After I read this article, I ordered a copy of the study from
the U.S. department of justice.
The column goes on to quote Dr. Garry Mauser of Simon Fraser
University who commented on the U.S. department of justice study.
He said:
Socialization into guns for sporting and hunting purposes appears
to have “inoculated” the adolescents against the criminal use
of firearms.
Time magazine reported that:
Teacher Cesario Guerrero, who supervises hunting trips for
programs for kids from tough, inner city neighbourhoods in
Houston, Texas, told Time that these kids often “become
part of a different crowd” as a result. “It gives them
pride”.
It gives them pride. Would that not be something if we could
give our young offenders back their pride?
Before I became a politician, I was a teacher. One of my
greatest accomplishments would be those occasions when I could
instil one of my students with pride. Hunting trips for troubled
kids gives them pride. Who would have thought? Well, anyone who
hunts understands this.
Randall Eaton, author of the book called The Sacred Hunt:
Right of Passage, understands this. He was in Canada recently
and did a number of media interviews. He even impressed Valerie
Pringle on Canada AM with the results of his research.
Eaton has proven that taking young boys and girls hunting is not
only good for kids but it can also help rehabilitate young
offenders. That is why I am bringing that up here today.
The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal reported on Mr.
Eaton's visit to Canada. Its article reported that Eaton is an
American author and lecturer with standing in several
universities, “has studied the role of hunting in behavioural
evolution and cultural history. Respect for life starts with the
food chain, and the food chain becomes a love chain when we
participate directly in it”.
1705
Eaton believes hunting can curb teen violence because when a kid
takes an animal's life they discover the consequences of pulling
the trigger and are less likely than anyone to take a human life.
The Toronto Star reported that Eaton spoke about a 13 year
program in Idaho for wayward boys that teaches them the benefits
of self-sufficiency. Eaton said:
I know of three other such programs and I know they have turned
around the lives of seriously aggressive young men. Going out
into the wilderness connects a youth with nature in a profound
way and it also engenders respect for life, paradoxically enough
by taking a life.
On Canada AM Eaton claimed that the Idaho program had an
85% success rate.
This is a program worth looking at. This is a program that
every wildlife federation in every province would be willing to
sponsor and manage.
This is a true young offender program, one that sets kids back
on the right course and one that brings about real change,
societal change. We should not only be thinking of passing more
and more laws. We have been going down that road for the last 30
years and look where it has taken us. We need to try some other
things, things that work.
After waiting seven years for a youth justice act, we finally
have to ask: Is this all we get? I have offered a positive
alternative that the government could incorporate in its
legislation or practice. The bill is too long, too complex and
too expensive. By following my suggestion, it could address all
three of those problems.
In conclusion, I was listening to the government members as they
argued in this debate that it was better to let 10 people go free
than convict one innocent person. I would like to propose that
it is better to rehabilitate 10 young people than to cling to one
ideological system that is not working.
The government's liberal ideas may help one person, but if it
took my proposal, it could help 10 times as many for much less
cost to the justice system.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Health; the hon. member for
Vancouver Island North, the Environment.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the
member opposite speak and I wondered in my own mind what it is
with the reformed Alliance people that they love things American.
During the election we had members opposite talk about a two
tier health system like the American system. We knew they were
going to strip away environmental protection laws, sort of like
the Americans as well. They would rip apart the judicial system.
They would scrap our great charter of rights and freedoms. They
would go and rip apart the supply management system. They would
do all those kinds of things in the name of something great and
good that is American. I just do not understand.
Here we have the audacity of the member opposite to somehow link
our young people with guns. I think what he actually said was
that to set them back on the right road we should give them a
gun. We have to think about this for a minute. We just saw not
so long ago in California, not once but twice, kids walking into
schools with guns. As a former school teacher and a former head
of the Waterloo Regional Police, this is not the Canadian way.
This is not the way we should be going in terms of our young
people, by giving them a gun. It is outrageous and it is not in
keeping with the values of our great country.
My question is simple. Why is it that the reformed Alliance
people always, and this member in particular, want to somehow
connect American style guns with our justice system? It does not
make sense.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member is talking about guns. Last week he was
on about racism and was caught lying in the House and has refused
to apologize—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert has
garnered a great deal of experience in his years here. That word
is unparliamentary and I would ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. John Williams: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.
1710
The Deputy Speaker: We will now continue with the
question and comment period. Is the question of the hon.
parliamentary secretary complete?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, why would we want an
American style system? Why would we go down that path? Why
would that member in particular and the Alliance in general
want to advocate an American style system where kids walk into
schools, pull guns and shoot other kids? Why in God's name would
they advocate that?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where
the member was during my speech. He completely misrepresented
what I said. I do not think his question merits an answer.
The Liberals would rather accept the violence growing in our
society than take an idea that the opposition might offer, run
with it and prove that it actually works, as has been proven in
many parts of the country.
Why would the Liberals want to mock a very good idea that really
could reduce the violence in our society and help rehabilitate a
lot of young people, by labelling it? When we label something in
an attempt to not engage in a decent discussion, it really smacks
of—well, I will let you fill in the blanks there, Mr. Speaker,
because I do not want to engage in the kind of debate where we
just throw labels at each other and we do not debate the ideas
that I have seriously put forward.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
through you, I would just like to ask the member a question.
Your suggestion is, as I understand you—
The Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind the hon. member
to please direct his question through the Chair.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The member's
suggestion, as I understood him, is that somehow gun control has
taken away the ability for hunting trips to take place. I think
the idea of involving youth in hunting activities, target
shooting or anything of that nature is really not much different
than involving them in hockey or other activities in the
community.
I am curious as to why the member would draw the parallel that
somehow gun control prohibits young people from being involved in
that kind of activity.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, again that is not what
I said. I would ask the member to check Hansard and read
it very carefully. A direct answer to what he just asked is that
it is not the same as getting kids involved in hockey. This a
very different program. I would ask the member to go and check
the record because I do not have five minutes to re-explain it.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the broader issue
of dealing with youth rather than getting into the details of the
amendment. I will do that by asking at least four questions, to
which I will give some answers. I understand that in the House
we do not always get answers to questions, so I will try to
provide my own as I go through.
The first question is: With whom are we dealing? It sounds
like a very simple question because obviously we know we are
dealing with youth under 18 years of age. We are not sure
whether that should go down to 12 or 10 years but we are sure
that it is youth under 18 years of age. What does that mean? Who
are these people?
I was severely shocked about 20 years ago when I walked out to
my backyard in Regina and heard some kindergarten children and
first graders using language that I had never heard in my youth
all the way through high school. I came from the sticks, as the
House can tell, but I had never heard that kind of language.
What I realized was that we live in an age where the age of
participation in violent and vulgar activities is becoming lower
and lower.
It is a declining age of awareness and involvement. We are
dealing with young people who are in that kind of time.
1715
We are also in a time when young people are dealing a lot more
than I ever did with the peer pressure trap. They sometimes get
into situations where they must commit crimes to be in the in
group. They play games of committing certain crimes.
Recently in my city I was at the police station one day and
learned that overnight every colour of Jeep Cherokee had been
stolen because that was the game of the evening for young people.
A Jeep Cherokee of every colour was stolen, joyridden and then
trashed or parked somewhere. That was the game of the evening.
We have had the Oldsmobile gang in Regina. Now I understand it
is the SUVs, the sport utility vehicles, and the Volkswagen
Jettas that are the vehicles to have.
A group of people are doing such things to be in the in groups
in our high schools. There is a group of repeat offenders. A
couple of years ago one offender in our town was up on his 85th
car theft charge. Something is wrong when we allow one young
person to accumulate 85 car thefts charges in one lifetime in one
town. We are in an age of when these things are happening.
We are also dealing with young people who are in some cases
basically rebelling against any authority in their lives. Perhaps
they are out and making a laughing stock of police, teachers,
parents or any authority figure in their lives. That is going
on.
There are also young people out there who are crying out for
some authority to be exercised in their lives. They do not
experience the restraint from teachers and parents that teenagers
require to develop properly. We are dealing with that kind of a
young person.
We are dealing with young people who commit crimes against their
communities. We are also dealing with young people who have been
victims of other young people's crimes. Almost two-thirds of
youth crime is committed against other youths. We need to take a
good look and get an understanding of what kind of person we are
dealing with.
Before I go any further, let me also say who we are not dealing
with. We are not dealing with some of the finest young people
who have ever been born, some very bright students, some keen
personalities, some who have tremendous athletic ability and
academic ability and who participate in many things. We are told
in our town that 80% of the youth crime is done by only 20% of
the youths.
We have some tremendous young people in my riding. I would like
to call attention to a young lady named Brea Burgess, a key
player in the Regina Lady Cougars basketball team for the
University of Regina. They won the national championship a
couple of weeks ago. She attended the Dr. Hanna School as a
young elementary student where my wife teaches and then Thom
Collegiate. I know her parents Laurie and Spencer Burgess are
very happy about this fine young lady who is not a young offender
and who displays all this great talent. I commend those proud
parents for their wonderful daughter.
Just how are we dealing with the youth crime problem? I believe
that we insult their intelligence in the way we deal with the
problem. They understand much more than we give them credit for.
I have an eight year old grandson. I have him come and visit us
and stay with us about one weekend a month. Every once in a
while he puts on the front of being a baby. He tries to convince
me and his grandmother that he is a baby, and yet we know that he
knows much more than that.
1720
It seems to me that somehow the youth of the nation have been
quite successful in duping adults into believing that they are
not intelligent and that they are incapable of making adult
decisions. At the age of 11 or 12 my youngest son, who is now
23, came to me and declared that he had known right from wrong
ever since he was 10 years old or younger. He said when they say
they do not know what they are doing, they are not telling the
truth.
We have young offenders who certainly know how to work the
system. They are smart enough to know that. Some years ago a
man taught me how to finish concrete and he told me that learning
to finish concrete was very simple. He said there was only one
thing required: to be just a little smarter than the concrete.
When it comes to making laws and dealing with young offenders,
perhaps that would be a good guideline for us too: to be just a
little smarter than young people to be able to figure out how to
best help them. I think we are failing them on that point.
Lawmakers, enforcers, teachers and parents all need to be ahead
of our young people.
We insult their intelligence. I believe we also strip them of
responsibility and accountability. We take responsibility and
accountability away from the parents. We take it away from the
teachers. Then we take it away from our young people. We tell
little Johnny, if he is bad, that we will not tell anyone. He
will not be accountable. We do not want him to feel badly about
it. We know he will grow out of it when he gets older. We turn
our heads away and forget that they need a sense of
responsibility and accountability. We simply pretend that they
are innocent little kiddies, too little to understand, and that
is not true.
We take away their opportunity to experience positive peer
pressure, leaving them subject only to the others around them who
are encouraging their offending activity. This is what I mean.
If someone in the community knows what is happening with a young
offender, if someone knows what is going on in his life and that
young offender knows the person knows, there is peer pressure on
him, some kind of community pressure. If he knows the teacher
knows, there is pressure on him. If he knows the other students
know what he is like, there is pressure on him. It seems that we
want to insulate him, protect him and keep him from having any
kind of positive peer pressure, which only throws him to the
negative peer pressure that is readily available.
I have in my hand some notes that were taken this past weekend
as I met with some salvation army officers who had been flown to
somewhere in southern Ontario to meet with the justice minister.
There is a list of oppositions. Let me quickly name three of
them. They oppose the legislation because there is no provision
to make parents responsible. It fails to address the root cause
of youth crime. There is no provision to reverse existing
standards regarding rights.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest
to the member opposite. It seems to me that it was not unlike
the usual position of the reform alliance, that it sees things in
black and white instead of with all the nuances, especially in
such an important area where there are incredible nuances when it
comes to our young people and the protection of society and the
security of our communities, our neighbourhoods, our provinces
and our country.
I remind him, as I remind all members in the House, that not
only is overall crime dropping but crime among our young people
is declining.
Why is that? It is because we have in place and we continue as a
government to put in place the kinds of measures that are
appropriate given the circumstances of the 21st century.
1725
One thing I do know is that our young people have enormous
capability to rehabilitate. Given the right circumstances and
the right assistance, the kind of backing and crime prevention
members of the government have put into place, we are on the
right track.
Instead of making criminals out of young people as they would
do, instead of dropping the age and making them pay and pay big,
that real vengeance mentality which it seems only the reform
alliance people have, and instead of trying to do those kinds of
things in the most audacious fashion, we should be doing the
things we are doing at present: rehabilitating with crime
prevention and the kinds of programs necessary.
Would publishing names, for example, as they would do, embarrass
the parents? Would it embarrass siblings so that when they go to
school they get it rubbed in their faces? I do not think so.
That is not our Canada. It is not my Canada. I do not believe
it is most Canadians' Canada. We want to ensure a good and
balanced system. We want an equilibrium kind of system and that
is what the government is presenting today.
Given the member's speech and his background, why do members of
the reform alliance party in general want to fearmonger and scare
Canadians into somehow believing that crime is out of control
when it is not? What do they hope to gain by that kind of
nonsense?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I regret to interrupt but when the hon. member is asking
questions with respect to the official opposition of Canada he
always refers to it as the reform alliance. He should address it
by its proper name, the Canadian Alliance, so that at least he is
referring to the right party in the spirit of asking the
question.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a point of
order, but certainly I think everyone recognizes that each party
should be called by its official name.
Mr. Larry Spencer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon.
member across understands. I certainly am not a vengeful person.
I am a grandfather and a father. I have worked with youth in the
community for years. My wife is two years away from retirement
as a school teacher. Many of her friends and my friends are
school teachers. I hear what they say. I hear what is going on
in the school grounds and the school systems as they deal with
young people. I am friends with RCMP people and many others in
my community.
It is the consensus of the people I know that young people are
not being done a favour by being allowed to operate under a veil
of secrecy. Peer pressure is very powerful in the life of a
young person. If we do this properly we will allow some positive
community pressure to come to bear on the young person and on the
family.
As for the statistics, who is to say what the crime rates really
are? In our town if there is a near riot of young people outside
my window, which happens many times, or there is fighting going
on and an exchange of drugs, if we call the police they do not
come because they know there is no use dealing with young people
under the Young Offenders Act.
Last summer I was approached by four young people in my own
front yard and threatened simply because I wrote down a licence
number. Night after night in that park there are drug exchanges
and the police will not even bother because they know it involves
young people and there is no use dealing with them.
1730
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would
like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Mississauga West.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, especially since I have taken
a keen interest in the debate surrounding the proposed reform of
the youth criminal justice act.
I got involved by reading and listening carefully to the
concerns expressed by stakeholders in Quebec and by meeting with
concerned stakeholders at the Centre jeunesse
Chaudière—Appalaches last week. I am pleased to have been able
to gather additional information on the substance of Bill C-7. I
have thus been able to rectify some of the ideas which have been
circulating regarding the scope of Bill C-7.
I am now in a position to say that the bill, which builds on
the strengths of the current act which Quebec has taken advantage
of, has allowed the province not only to follow through with the
elements of its approach which have proved successful, but also
to improve on its approach.
To illustrate what I am saying I will review some of the
fundamental principles underlying Bill C-7. In parallel I will
highlight some of the opposition's criticisms.
According to the Quebec coalition, this reform is not necessary.
It suggests that the problem, if there is a problem, is the
result of the Young Offenders Act not being properly implemented
by some jurisdictions. Data from studies carried out over the
last few years and extensive consultations with the provinces,
territories and various specialists in the area have identified
several problems in the way the current youth justice system is
working.
It bears reminding, among others, that Canada has the highest
rate of young offenders in custody, the highest one in the
industrialized countries, higher yet than in the U.S. It is also
four times higher than that for adults. Average sentence length
for minor offences is longer for young offenders than for adults.
In spite of an approach which, in many regards, is consistent
with the goals of Bill C-7, Quebec is not an exception to the
rule with regard to the identified problems.
Quebec has the second highest rate of custody for young persons
found guilty of a first minor offence. The average custody
sentence in Quebec is longer than the national average and the
second longest in Canada. In fact, what is surprising is that
the rate of participation in alternative measures is higher in
western Canada than it is in Quebec.
To solve these problems, Bill C-7 focuses on diversion measures
that still aim at making young persons more responsible.
Bill C-7 is based on experiments carried out in various European
countries as well as in Australia and New Zealand, that show
that informal measures focusing on responsibility for one's own
actions and restitution have more impact than formal court
proceedings not only on the level of responsibility the young
person is ready to acknowledge but also on the recidivism rate,
which is almost nil.
The federal government's main goal in its reform is to reduce
the use of the formal system in order to fight youth crime. We
are providing various options and better tools to the workers on
the front line, so that minor offences can be dealt with
responsibly outside the court system.
What does that mean in real terms? The opposition argues that
Quebec will no longer be able to take the appropriate measure at
the appropriate time to fight early signs of delinquent
behaviour.
The opposition uses examples of young people committing multiple
shoplifting offences saying that the only possible intervention
by a police officer would be a warning, thereby ridiculing
police intervention and leading people to believe that Bill C-7
does not allow for effective intervention.
The most troubling thing about these remarks is that they are
based on the assumption that custody can be used to rehabilitate
young offenders and to turn them into responsible persons. This
assumption goes against what can be learned from criminology
research and what has been seen in other countries that have
chosen less repressive measures to make their young offenders
more responsible.
The bill favours diversion measures. These may vary, but they
must be aimed at turning the young offender into a responsible
person, at repairing any harm done and at rehabilitating him or
her, which means changing his or her criminal behaviour as soon
as it emerges.
1735
In the case of shoplifting, to use the same example as the
opposition, a police officer can exercise discretion under Bill
C-7, which is not the case under the current legislation.
The police officer must first decide whether or not to make an
arrest. If the decision is made to arrest the young offender,
the police officer must then determine if the young offender
qualifies for diversion measures or if he or she must be
charged.
If charges are brought, the police officer must choose between
release and temporary custody. If he or she chooses release, he
or she will have to determine the conditions of such release.
If the police officer decides to make the young person take
responsibility through a diversion program, he can choose, based
on the circumstances of the offence and on the young offender,
between a warning, a caution, a referral to a specialized
educational program—for example to learn behavioural skills—or a
referral to a community organization that can help the young
person not to commit other offences. What is meant here is
community work and other measures.
In a case of shoplifting, the police officer would probably give
a warning or administer a caution after seeing that the goods
were given back, to ensure that the young offender has taken
responsibility and has made reparation. The warning or caution
is given verbally and in writing, through a letter and a
follow-up with the parents, to inform them of the young person's
actions, of the measures taken and of the possible consequences
should he commit other offences. This is the rehabilitation
component.
Experience shows that the majority of young offenders who are
subjected to this follow up do not commit other offences. Most
parents take measures with regard to their young offender, thus
increasing the chances for complete rehabilitation.
Such measures will be compiled in an automated retrieval system
that will be accessible by other police forces through an
agreement on the exchange of information. A $9 million budget
was allocated to the various jurisdictions to put in place or to
improve the recording and management systems of automated files.
If a young person commits other offences, the police officer can
lay charges or resort to extrajudicial measures.
These are more formal extrajudicial measures, ones that
translate into structured programs customized to correct the
delinquent behaviour, hold the young person accountable, and
have him or her make amends for the harm caused.
If the police officer opts for the laying of charges, it is then
up to the crown attorney to take the case before the court or to
have a program of extrajudicial sanctions drawn up. Once again,
there will be follow up with the parents.
Another presumption that is worrisome to opponents of Bill C-7 is
the suggestion that making a young person accountable for his or
her actions must of necessity involve diversion, a judge and
cautions. Such a presumption ignores the powers of front line
interveners and the effectiveness of their interventions, and
underestimates the community's capacity to correct criminal
behaviours as soon as they first manifest themselves.
Bill C-7 gives precedence to accountability outside of the formal
system for less serious offences, because this is more effective
and less costly, particularly since it allows intervention
immediately after the offence has been committed and makes it
possible for victims and communities to be involved in the
process of healing and of social learning.
Obviously, such an approach requires the introduction of new
tools and new resources. One might well believe that, with the
$221 million offered to Quebec over five years under the youth
justice services funding program, including over $25 million for
implementation of the youth criminal justice act, Quebec would
be in a position to establish customized programs to hold young
offenders accountable, provide them with effective
rehabilitation, and successfully reintegrate them into society.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened attentively and with interest to the speech by the
member for Beauce. He said that he was making a comparison with
the opposition, the nasty opposition. Everything was fine. If I
listen to the other member who spoke before him, they are the
only holders of the truth here in Canada, and maybe even in the
universe. I can understand that they do not agree with us and
that they have questions.
1740
The hon. member began his speech by saying that he had been at
his local youth centre, the Maison des jeunes. Now that he has
tried to tell us why he was opposed, I would like him to tell us
why members of the Bloc Quebecois are not the only people in
Quebec opposed to Bill C-7. Many organizations are also opposed,
such as the Association des maisons de jeunes du Québec, leading
criminologists from the Université de Montréal, the Innu, the
Jeune Barreau du Québec, the Association des avocats de la
défense, as well as crown attorneys, the Quebec National
Assembly—which, through a resolution unanimously supported by
the Liberal and PQ members, opposed it—the Centres jeunesse du
Québec, the Institut Pinel, the Centre de criminologie du Québec,
the Association des policiers et des pompiers du Québec, and
CLSCs from throughout Quebec, plus another 20 or so groups.
Is it that everyone has misunderstood and that he is right, or
is there a difference between the two?
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out that I
made no mention of a nasty opposition. That was certainly not
my intention.
Second, I acknowledged in my remarks that the coalition
representing all the groups mentioned by the hon. member was
opposed.
However, since the bill on young offenders was first tabled, the
Liberal caucus has worked to improve it. We have worked with
the Minister of Justice and with the various stakeholders to
ensure that our young people have the best means possible
available to help salvage them in the system.
I have no doubt that Bill C-7 will prove indispensable. We
certainly do not think this bill is perfect. Perfection does
not exist.
It will, however, improve the present system and enable people
to salvage young people and make them better contributors to
society.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauce
says that the Liberal caucus, particularly the Quebec Liberal
caucus, clearly understood the objections of the individuals and
associations that I mentioned earlier. They consulted in good
faith and they amended the bill of the Minister of Justice.
Can the hon. member tell us if, after this long consultation
process to introduce improvements and amendments, the coalition
and the groups that I mentioned earlier are now in agreement
with Bill C-7?
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to
make a correction by saying that I did not meet with the Maison
des jeunes but, rather, with the Centres jeunesse de
Chaudière—Appalaches—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: They are opposed to Bill C-7.
Mr. Claude Drouin: The member for Berthier—Montcalm is talking
while I am giving my reply. If he will let me conclude, he will
understand.
I was saying that it is these Centres jeunesse that are
responsible and they provided some arguments to the effect that
there may be problems with Bill C-7.
However, we demonstrated, with statistics to back it up, that
there was room for improvement and we are convinced that Bill
C-7 will serve as a tool.
I am convinced that Quebec will be able to make good use of it
and remain a leader in certain areas, while improving the
situation in others, since it is in last place or next to last
place in certain areas. I think there is room for improvement
when it comes to helping our young people.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are some critics from Quebec who feel that Bill C-7 is too
tough. On the other hand there is no hesitation in Quebec of
utilizing the current transfer provisions under the Young
Offenders Act to transfer young offenders from youth court to
adult court.
Could the member for Beauce please explain this phenomenon and
elaborate briefly on the current transfer provisions under Bill
C-7?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Statistics for 1997-1998 show that Quebec and Manitoba were tied
in first place for the number of transfers of young persons to
adult courts, with 23. In 1998-1999, Quebec came in second, still
with 23 transfers, behind Manitoba, while Ontario only had six.
Some measures will provide alternatives to young persons to
facilitate their reintegration into society with as little
damage as possible.
1745
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are a number of things that are obvious when we debate
young offenders. The summary of the bill suggests that we want
to try to increase public confidence in the youth justice system.
One of the difficulties with that is there are certain crimes
that occur in society that we take greater offence with than
others. We had a debate in the House on the sex offender
registry and there can be no crime more repugnant than that.
When young people get into trouble with the law, they cannot be
named and they appear to get a slap on the wrist, headlines
scream. People get upset and the flames get fanned. We get the
impression that the Young Offenders Act, which the bill is
designed to replace, will not solve the problems. Young people
will be running amok committing crimes, raping, pillaging,
murdering and building a society that will fall apart.
The reality is that the vast majority of young people who commit
crimes do not commit rape, assault, aggravated assault, attempted
murder or murder. Surely to goodness we can arrive at an
agreement on that. The vast majority of young people who do
commit crimes, commit crimes that need to be dealt with seriously
but dealt with in some new creative way rather than just
punishment. We as a society should perhaps look at solutions on
how to properly rehabilitate.
A member opposite spoke about a young offender in western Canada
who had been charged with 85 car thefts. That is absurd and
absolutely ridiculous. We need to find out why that is
happening. We need to put a system in place that would allow
society to address the problems that this young person is
obviously having.
Perhaps we could agree that many of the people who commit youth
crimes have other problems. They may have been abused or they
may have grown up in a less than supportive family. There is no
justification by any means, but perhaps there is an explanation
as to why the young person went against the law. That is not
what we talk about in this place. We talk about throwing away
the key after three strikes.
I will check Hansard but I made notes on one of the
speeches made by a member who quoted from a study. It stated
that kids did not shoot up schools before gun control. He quoted
another study that said that kids who have been taught how to use
guns show more maturity and better attitudes. The member went on
to say that there are programs being recommended by himself and
others that would teach our kids how to kill an animal. They
believe that it will somehow teach our young people the
consequences of pulling the trigger.
Let me be clear here. I have nothing against hunting
whatsoever. My oldest son, much to my amazement, hunts bears
with a bow and arrow. I do not know how in the world he ever got
into that, but he loves it and he is a good sportsman. He will
go out with a gun with some friends and hunt for deer at the
appropriate time.
There is no background of that in my family, but that is his
choice. I have no difficulty whatsoever with that practice.
1750
I also recognize that hunting is an activity. That was the
point that I was trying to make for the hon. member. It was the
same issue as involving a young person in any organized activity.
However, to suggest that gun control in some perverse way is
preventing hunting clubs and other organizations from organizing
hunting expeditions or taking young people out and teaching them
how to target shoot is just absurd.
If that is what people in some parts of rural Canada want to do
to get their children involved in an activity, by all means. The
difference is that under gun control they will be using a weapon
that is registered. Is that awful? Maybe that would also teach
them that it is no big deal and that maybe their parents should
get over that fact.
I heard an hon. member say that he had heard some language that
he could not imagine, that he had never heard before. I am
sitting here thinking, what could they have said? We know all of
the big bad words. I raised three boys and, as a result of that,
I had the wonderful opportunity and privilege of having young
children around our house all the time. We were involved in all
the different activities in the community. I am afraid I have to
admit that the odd time we may have heard something a little
stronger than ah, shucks come out of the mouths of some of these
young competitive individuals.
Did any of them go astray? We had young children come through
our lives who got into trouble with the law, who may have been
mixed up in some drugs. Fortunately in most of the cases that I
have seen the services have been there in the community. Whether
it was through the home, church, school, social services or
working with the police, the services have been there in the
community to help these young children get their lives back
together again.
I almost sit and marvel at the naiveté of some members who say
they have never heard bad language like that. The society our
children have grown up in is dramatically different from our own.
Times were fairly simple for those of us who grew up in the 50s
and 60s compared to what these young children go through today.
Today everything is instantaneous. There is instant
gratification. They watch the news at night or play video games
and they see the violence. These are realities. Are we supposed
to put our young people in cocoons and say that they will never
be exposed to any of these kinds of problems? Are we supposed to
dwell on the fact, as one member opposite did, that somehow it
was different in our day? Of course it was different in our day.
That is why we need to change the bill.
If young offenders get charged with serious violent crimes,
should we name them? Should we put their picture on the front
page? I think not. The bill would not allow that to happen.
However, if they are convicted of a crime and they in turn
receive an adult sentence, to be served in a youth facility,
because there is absolutely no sense in putting young convicted
criminals together with adult criminals as we would simply turn
out an adult criminal, or if they have escaped and are considered
dangerous, then their names could be publicized. Simply throwing
their names out, destroying their lives, and then finding out
that they are innocent is not something that is based on justice
at any age, and surely it is not based on justice in terms of
Canada's youth.
There are many very positive points in the bill. I wish we
could talk about the positive stories of our young people instead
of scaremongering and dwelling on the problems that are there.
The bill will help fix many of these problems to ensure that
young people who do run afoul of the law have an opportunity to
get their lives back together again.
1755
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I could not help but notice from the lobby the member's
speech. He was saying that he did not want to restrict hunting
and that he did not want to cause problems for hunters.
I do not know if the hon. member owns firearms himself. I will
let him know that his government has spent in excess of $600
million so far of taxpayer money. If I divide that by 30 million
people, that is $20 for every man, woman and child. Not every
man, woman and child owns a firearm. Looking at the number of
firearm owners, we could be looking at $100 per firearm owner.
Looking at what firearm owners are spending independently;
looking at trigger locks the government is telling them they have
to use; looking at a firearm's acquisition certificate, which is
something I have applied for; and looking at the hunter education
courses the government asks people to take, that is all money as
well. A person is looking at several hundred dollars for owning
of one firearm.
For the hon. member to stand in the House and say that even
though he wants to impose a restriction of several hundred
dollars for any firearm owned, that somehow that is not a
restriction is ludicrous.
By the same token, I will lay the blame at his feet for some of
the criminal problems in the country. His government dabbles
around with criminal justice instead of coming up with a sex
offender registry. It does not go ahead and get rid of early
parole for rapists and other types of offenders. It does not
change the law. His own members in the House want to come up
with consecutive sentences so that people who commit multiple
crimes do not serve one single sentence but instead serve
multiple criminal convictions one on top of the other for their
offences. When it will not act on some of the various criminal
provisions, it in a sense creates a hothouse environment for
criminals to breed in, to be attracted to. Hence we see those
types of people abusing those laws.
His government will not go ahead and crack down on child
pornography and pedophilia. It allows people to possess these
things and to profit from keeping the avails of these types of
activities. It only encourages these types of activities.
How could he say that several hundred dollars for owning one
firearm is not a restriction? How could he claim that he is
doing a good job on criminal justice when all these other
provisions for getting at the real problem of crime are let go by
his government?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is almost incredulous
and astounding. I thought we were dealing with the young
offenders situation, the new bill for Canadian youth justice.
My hon. friend's party's official name is the Canadian
Conservative Reform Alliance Party or something like that. I did
not know we were dealing with their views on gun control. How
could a party with any credibility whatsoever stand up, speaker
after speaker, to talk about all these issues as if they somehow
cause youth crime?
How could members in the House stand by statements made by a
member that kids did not shoot up schools before gun control? We
are supposed to extrapolate from that twisted logic that somehow
the minute we brought in gun control and Charlton Heston was busy
writing their policy manuals, kids ran out and obtained guns
because of gun control and started shooting their peers in class.
That is just bizarre.
It demonstrates the major difference between the government and
the opposition. If they want to lay the blame for gun control at
my feet, they can lay it at my feet. They can put it on my
shoulders and I will stand truly tall and proud. I will say that
Canadians want and believe in gun control. They do not believe
in the American style system as espoused by Charlton Heston and
other people like some members opposite.
1800
I heard nothing about youth justice in that question and I think
the bill addresses many of the deficiencies in youth justice.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate on Bill C-7, the Liberal government's
latest attempt to replace the Young Offenders Act with new youth
criminal justice legislation.
All my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have tried hard to
improve the youth criminal justice legislation. In particular, I
would commend my neighbour, the hon. member for Surrey North, for
his contribution in this area.
The bill provides principles, procedures and protections for the
prosecution of young persons under criminal and other federal
laws. It is the third attempt by the government to bring forth
young offenders legislation. The bill, with very few changes, is
the same as what has been introduced previously. This version of
the bill has been updated just to include over 160 technical
amendments from the last government.
Here are some specifics. The list of offences for which adult
sentences may be imposed is severely limited. The goal of
sentencing is solely to contribute to the protection of society
by having meaningful consequences for young persons which promote
rehabilitation and reintegration, so the goal of protection of
society is hardly a concern.
Even for offences that could be treated in adult court, the
judge must first consider the least restrictive sentence and only
impose adult sentencing as a last resort. Maximum sentencing has
not changed for youth sentencing purposes. It is still ten years
for murder, with six years in custody and four years under
supervision in the community; seven years for second degree
murder, with four years in custody and three years under
supervision; three years for any offence having an adult sentence
of life imprisonment, with two years in custody and one year
under supervision for all others.
The deterrent that society demands and needs to cause resistance
to commit a crime is effectively not there. Rather, the lack of
serious consequences, commonly called the slap on the wrist, acts
as a motivation for the youth to commit a crime or for the youth
to be used to commit a crime.
I will read from the Canadian Alliance policy book, which of
course is dictated by our grassroots membership, unlike the
policies of any other political party in the House. Sections 28
and 30 state:
We will make providing safety and security for Canadians, their
families and their property the overriding objective of the
criminal justice system. We will support rehabilitation programs
designed to safely restore offenders to society.
We will introduce measures to hold young lawbreakers accountable
to their victims and the larger community. We recognize that
custody is not always the most effective way of dealing with
young offenders. Detention facilities for youth will be separate
and emphasize skills training, responsibility, and community
service. Violent or serious repeat offenders 14 and over will be
tried as adults, as will all offenders 16 and over.
In various ways this legislation seems to place the safety and
security of Canadians behind the interest in rehabilitating and
reintegrating the offenders back into society.
We have attempted to encourage the government to amend the bill
to make it clear that protection of the public is to be the
paramount principle behind this legislation, but the minister
refuses.
1805
The legislation does not ensure that violent or serious repeat
offenders will be tried as adults. We have proposed amendments
to previous portions of the bill to limit extrajudicial measures
to first time non-violent offenders. This means no court, no
criminal record and community designed informal types of
sanctions or punishment. Again the minister refuses to accede to
this request. Repeat and violent offenders may never have to see
court, be convicted and receive a criminal record.
It was the justice committee and the Canadian Alliance through
its former version, the Reform Party, that first endorsed
alternative measures for first time non-violent offenders. The
minister claims credit, but she once again fails to restrict this
form of conditional sentencing. It is open to repeat offenders
and it is open to violent offenders.
The list of presumptive offences for which an adult sentence may
be imposed is severely restricted. The list includes murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It
does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking,
aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious
violent offences.
In Bill C-7 the minister has further weakened the legislation by
limiting presumptive offence procedure even more. Through clause
61, any province may decide that only 15 year old or even 16 year
old offenders who commit offences such as murder could be
transferred to adult court, while 10 year olds and 11 year olds
would still not be held criminally responsible for their crimes.
The legislation will create a patchwork or checkerboard system
of youth justice, as many of its provisions permit the provinces
undue discretion in whether to seek adult sentencing, in
publication of names and in access to records, to name just a
few.
The legislation provides some movement toward victims' rights,
but even they are not ensured and are still woefully inadequate.
The government has not been open to change for any aspect of the
legislation except for some technical amendments. All of the
opposition parties except the Bloc presented substantive
amendments to the former bill, Bill C-3. Those amendments did
not receive debate in parliament and do not appear to have been
considered by the government. In fact, the government is not
serious about discussion, so the Liberals are ignoring those
amendments.
The provinces would be tasked to administer this legal
nightmare, but the federal government does not seem to care. The
Liberals have promised $206 million over the first three years
for the implementation of the bill, but this would not even come
close to meeting the responsibility of providing 50% of the
funding for the youth justice system. The Liberals have allowed
federal funding to slip to about 20%. The provinces have to
carry the can financially for these proposals, costs of which are
going to dramatically rise through legal argument and procedure.
An initial review of Bill C-7 indicates that the government has
made it even weaker, likely to appease the Quebec government and
the Bloc Quebecois. For instance, the presumptive offence
provision that moves youths 14 years of age and older
automatically to adult court for murder, et cetera, now permits
the provinces, Quebec in this case, to raise the age to restrict
the transfer to only 15 year old or 16 year old offenders.
Restrictions on naming of violent offenders are still not taken
into consideration. The bill still has an emphasis on attempting
to understand the circumstances underlying the criminal behaviour
and rehabilitation and reintegration. Protection of the public
takes second fiddle. Denunciation and deterrence seem to be
foreign words for the government.
1810
If the legislation passes, its complexity and its loopholes will
cause horrendous delays. The costs to our youth criminal justice
process in legal bills will be phenomenal.
In conclusion I would like to say that the official opposition
carries on with its job of holding the flashlight and showing the
Liberals their darkness. We gave the Liberal members a chance to
improve on the legislation. They should look at our amendments
through the lens of issues, not political stripes.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the member who spoke to perhaps expand a
little on one of the recommendations the Canadian Alliance was
bringing forward, and I certainly want to congratulate my
seatmate, the member for Surrey North, for all the work he has
done on the issue and for the expertise he brings to the table
when we are discussing this matter.
One of the things we in our party want implemented is that we
want to let Canadians know who the repeat violent offenders are
who get charged under the new act. We feel that Canadians and
society in general have a right to know that. We are saying that
if it is a serious crime or if it is a repeat crime, we should be
publishing the name of the offender.
I would just like the member to expand a bit on that and to
perhaps let the House know of some of the instances he is
familiar with in his own riding where publishing the names has
been something that Canadians have been asking for.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his excellent question. We all hear some horrendous stories
in our communities. Unfortunately, youth are involved in many of
them. Not all youth are bad. Many youth are very good and very
well behaved and they understand what is good, what is bad, what
is wrong and what is right. However, some youth who are involved
in those activities may be well known to the police or at least
the community understands those instances.
In Surrey Central some time ago an old man who was a war veteran
was beaten to death. He had 104 stitches on his face and body
and died of his injuries. The police force did its job. They
got hold of the people responsible for the incident. To my
dismay, and to the dismay of many other members in the community,
some youths were involved in the incident, youths who had already
had dealings with the police.
If the Young Offenders Act had been improved as suggested by my
colleague and by us on this side of the House—we are trying our
best to make improvements and to suggest amendments—then
probably those offenders would have been known. Those offenders
would have had some sort of repercussions from or consequences of
what they had done in the past.
This is a very important issue. We would like to see the
government look through the lens of issues, as I said, and make
those amendments and improvements to the bill and really make it
an effective bill to protect society and our communities.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made
earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and
put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second
reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1840
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Cummins
| Day
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Sauvageau
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 78
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Discepola
|
Farrah
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Ianno
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
LeBlanc
| Loubier
| Marcil
| Matthews
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Paquette
| Perron
| Peterson
| Provenzano
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill
is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another
act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of
Bill C-12.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek
it you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Alliance members present
vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members
are in favour of the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members present in the
House will vote against the motion.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members support
the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| .Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Robillard
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 160
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Breitkreuz
| Burton
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Day
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Gallant
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McNally
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Toews
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 53
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Discepola
|
Farrah
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Ianno
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
LeBlanc
| Loubier
| Marcil
| Matthews
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Paquette
| Perron
| Peterson
| Provenzano
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill
is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on February 2, I asked the Minister
of Health a question about the critical shortage of MRI scanners
in Canada today.
I referred to the example of Ontario where the wait lists have
increased to 12,000 people per year. In Ottawa hospitals alone
the waiting list is 7,000 individuals. This is but one example
of the critical shortage of essential medical services available
to Canadians today. It is merely the tip of the iceberg of a
much larger problem of the lack of access to health care.
It is a profound tragedy that today there is an expanding gap
between the resources and the demand. The situation is only
getting worse. For example, in my province of British Columbia
between 1998 and 1999, the waiting lists for a knee replacement
increased by 69% and for hip replacements by 90%.
Across the board Canadians are not getting access to health
care. The reason is we have more expensive technologies and an
aging population. The population over the age of 65 will double
in the next 20 years. The outcome of this will be that the
government will be forced to ration.
As a result of that, the poor and middle class will pay the heavy
price of the lack of access to essential health care services.
1845
It may be fine for us to stick our heads in the sand and believe
that we only have a small problem or to throw money at the
situation and believe it will be resolved. The absolute inaction
of the government and its failure to work with the provinces is
hurting the poor and middle class.
In the hospital where I work, the waiting time to see an
orthopaedic surgeon is three and a half years. Imagine if we
were the patients who needed a total knee replacement. Imagine
if we had twisted a knee or tore a ligament in our knee which
required a scope. Imagine having to wait three and a half years
just to see the orthopaedic surgeon.
We have to make some changes. I am proposing that the
government do the following. For heaven's sake, act. The
government is not acting on this or having a rational debate on
the most important issue affecting Canadians.
I beg the government to do the following. Call together the
public health care professionals, intellectuals and academics to
build a plan to save our health care system, dealing not only
with the issue of how we fund health care but also with the
medical manpower crisis. With respect to surgeons, 42% of them
are over the age of 55. With respect to gynaecologists and
neurosurgeons, 40% of them are over the age of 55.
We have a critical lack of medical manpower in all medical
specialities. We will have a lack of 110,000 nurses in the next
ten years. This would be almost palatable if we saw action on
resolving this issue. but unfortunately we do not see it.
Again, I plead with the government to pull together its
provincial counterparts and sort these problems out now. It
could develop a plan of action to deal with the funding crisis.
It could develop the best practices from around the world.
Prevention could be looked at.
The government could implement the national headstart program
which the House passed in 1998. It is a pragmatic solution that
will save people's lives and a great deal of money. It focuses
on making sure the children have their basic needs met in the
first six to eight years of life. As a result there will be a
massive decrease in the demands that we place on our health care
system.
In closing, I would ask for the help of the Government of Canada
to act on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell our colleague
the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that the government is
fully aware that in some regions of the country access to
medical equipment is a problem.
This is why the government created a $1 billion medical
equipment fund last September, in order to enable the provinces
and territories to buy and install diagnostic and treatment
equipment.
[English]
These funds, which were allocated on an equal per capita basis,
have been made available through a trust arrangement since
October 23, 2000. As of last week Ontario, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia
have already withdrawn their full allocation, but not the other
provinces.
[Translation]
Judging by recent announcements made in Quebec, British Columbia
and Ontario, it is quite clear that diagnostic equipment,
including magnetic resonance imaging equipment, is a high
priority for many provinces.
[English]
As part of the first minister's agreement in September 2000,
governments committed to providing appropriate and timely access
to diagnostic treatment services. This $1 billion infusion of
funds, specifically for medical equipment, is in addition to the
substantial increase in cash transfers to the provinces and
territories by more than $21 billion over the next five years.
[Translation]
Since the administration and delivery of health care services is
clearly the responsibility of the provinces and territories,
each government will determine its priorities with regard to
investments in medical equipment. In keeping with the
accountability provisions of the first ministers' agreement and
of the trust fund, provinces will report publicly on the use of
these funds.
[English]
The Government of Canada views timely access to needed
diagnostic and treatment services as a high priority.
1850
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 2 I asked the
Minister of the Environment an important question. The minister
was not here and neither was his junior minister which is
unacceptable. Here is the background to my original question,
and I still want an answer.
On February 17 the minister unfairly compared the gas fired
cogeneration plant in Campbell River on Vancouver Island with the
proposed Sumas 2 plant in Washington state. The minister
incorrectly stated that the Vancouver Island plant was ten times
as polluting per unit of power and that the province of B.C.
should do better.
The minister criticized the province as if he did not know that
as part of a thorough environmental review, his own officials
were part of the project approval. I have the approval letter
right here. It is from Environment Canada, dated February 25,
1998 and is addressed to the provincial environment office. It
says that:
I would say that is a pretty strong endorsement.
The $220 million Campbell River plant was approved in 1998 and
construction is now complete. It is scheduled to go operational
next month, and now the minister is criticizing it.
The real facts are as follows. The polluter label does not
apply because this project will, in combination with boiler shut
downs at the pulp mill, reduce overall nitrous oxides, sulphur
dioxide and carbon monoxide from current levels.
The new steam source means that Elk Falls can shut down two
wood-oil fired burners and reduce the use of a gas fired boiler.
This reduces the mill energy requirements and total emissions. In
addition, sulphur emissions were originally projected based on a
much higher sulphur content in the natural gas supply locally
than has been demonstrated to be the actual case. The Vancouver
Island plant compares very favourably for sulphur dioxide
emissions once this correct sulphur content is taken into
account.
The minister is apparently totally unaware of this fact. The
$240 million project is environmentally sound, creates jobs and
helps the economics of the pulp mill. It is no wonder that it
received great endorsements from all sectors, until these
unfortunate statements by the minister which have outraged the
mayor of Campbell River, baffled me and the provincial MLA.
The mayor wrote to the minister on February 19 consequent to the
unwarranted criticisms the minister made a couple of days
earlier. It is now five weeks later and the minister has still
not responded to this letter in any way. The minister has done
Vancouver Island a great disservice and particularly my
community.
When will the minister retract his unsubstantiated, incorrect
and irresponsible criticisms of an enlightened energy project
known as the island cogeneration project?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada has
no statutory decision making role for the island cogeneration
project.
This project was reviewed, assessed and approved in 1997-98
under the provincial environmental assessment act. Under that
assessment process, Environment Canada officials provided review
comments in relation to a number of issues in which the federal
government has an interest, such as greenhouse gases that result
in climate change. Environment Canada was satisfied with the
greenhouse gas aspects of the environmental review.
The Sumas 2 power plant proposed for Whatcom county, just south
of the international border in the Fraser Valley, is a
controversial project notwithstanding the proposed use of some of
the cleanest air emission control technologies available.
Many Canadians have expressed their opposition to that proposed
power plant, as has the Minister of the Environment, because of
concerns about the effect of air pollution on human health.
The island cogeneration project will have higher emissions of
air pollutants that affect human health per unit of electrical
production than the proposed Sumas 2 project.
1855
Given this, U.S. businessmen, legislators and the media have
begun to allege that Canadian opposition to the Sumas power plant
project is hypocritical. If we wish Canadian criticism of U.S.
energy proposals such as Sumas 2 to be credible, the clean
technologies available, such as those proposed for Sumas 2, will
have to be adopted and used at Canadian facilities such as Island
Cogeneration.
This is the challenge the Minister of Environment has already
put to the province of British Columbia and to the greater
Vancouver regional district.
Look around outside. The air pollution is clearly visible. The
health effects are insidious and hidden but real nonetheless.
The pollution affects not only our major urban cities but many
smaller communities, particularly those in the valleys—
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.56 p.m.)