37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 013
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 14, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| SUZANNE WILSON
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1405
| CANADIAN FLAG
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| MARKHAM
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
| REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| HEATING FUEL REBATE
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1410
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| NIAGARA CENTRE
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| HAZEL MCCALLION
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1415
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| VALENTINE'S DAY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1425
| TELEFILM CANADA
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1440
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GAMES OF LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1445
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1450
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1455
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1500
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1505
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
|
| Bill C-264. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| A DAY FOR HEARTS
|
| Bill C-265. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1515
| CANADA MARRIAGE ACT
|
| Bill C-266. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| PEST CONTROL ACT
|
| Bill C-267. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1520
| CANADA WELL-BEING MEASUREMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-268. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| PETITIONS
|
| RU-486
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Pesticides
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1525
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1715
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1720
1725
1730
1735
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1740
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1745
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
1750
1755
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1800
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
1805
1810
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1815
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1820
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 013
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 14, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CURLING
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was a
great weekend for female athletes from Prince Edward Island.
Lorie Kane winning on the LPGA tour is becoming a regular
occurrence, including her most recent win last Saturday after
setting a tournament record in Hawaii with an 11 under par. Lorie
has become the best female golfer in the world today.
However, history was made last weekend when Summerside native
Suzanne Gaudet led her team to victory at the Canadian Junior
Women's Curling Championships. It was the first time an Island
team has secured the junior women's title.
I should like to take this moment to congratulate skip Suzanne
Gaudet, mate Stefanie Richard, second Robyn MacPhee, lead Kelly
Higgins, and coach Paul Power.
They have brought credit to their community and their province
with their performance and their grace under pressure. I wish
them all the luck as they represent Canada at the 2001 World
Junior Curling Championships from March 15 to March 25 in Ogden,
Utah, where all of Canada will be cheering them on to win the
gold medal.
* * *
SUZANNE WILSON
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to congratulate North Vancouver resident Suzanne
Wilson on the completion of her millennium photo project, Your
House/Our Home.
Here is something that will shock the Liberals: she completed
her project without using a single cent of taxpayer dollars. It
was done entirely with her own money and donations from
supporters.
In Suzanne's own words “The purpose of my year 2000 photo
project, Your House/Our Home, is to leave a photographic and
written record of the homes of families of the city of North
Vancouver in the year 2000”.
In this she has succeeded. Her more than 2,000 photographs and
stories stand as a testament to individual initiative and
creativity. I am proud to be recognizing her today in this
House.
Suzanne's exhibit gets my vote as the best millennium project in
Canada, way ahead of the concrete dinosaurs, herb gardens and
papier mâché pigeons that were approved for funding by the
Liberal government's millennium bureau in 1999 and 2000.
* * *
1405
CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everyone
knows that today is Valentine's Day, but I rise today to reflect
on another truly loved symbol of Canada and Canadians, our
Canadian flag. Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of the first
day that the flag became our country's distinctly Canadian
national symbol.
Much more than a piece of coloured cloth, it is the symbol of a
nation that is recognized around the world. It was 36 years ago
tomorrow that the flag was raised over this building and became
our official symbol for a great nation.
A number of years ago I promoted flag day with a number of our
elementary schools to provide young Canadians with the
opportunity to better understand the significance of our flag. I
am happy to say that this initial undertaking has taken root and
is now an annual tradition for me.
Tomorrow I will celebrate this day with the staff and students
of the Good Shepherd Catholic Elementary School and the Gordon B.
Attersley Public School in my riding. I hope all Canadians can
and will take a few minutes tomorrow to reflect on our flag,
which is the embodiment of our common heritage.
* * *
MARKHAM
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
thank the citizens of Markham for according me such a splendid
electoral victory over the Canadian Alliance on November 27 and
for giving me the opportunity to work on their behalf in years to
come.
I will work with others to preserve and promote Markham's
position as Canada's high tech capital which, roughly translated,
means, look out Ottawa. I will also work with others to
alleviate problems relating to immigration and transportation
gridlock.
More than half of the people of Markham are new Canadians and
the town enjoys a very rapid population growth. As a result, we
have many citizenship celebrations. I will be going to one such
celebration tomorrow, and I look forward to many more in years to
come.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Georges Farrah
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 5, the Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada
announced that our government will be investing in 11 projects in
Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
This injection of close to $2 million in the regional economy
will result in overall investments of some $7 million. In
addition, our government's action will make it possible to create
and maintain some one hundred jobs in Gaspé and the Islands.
These contributions are a concrete example of our government's
commitment to the people of Gaspé and Îles-de—la-Madeleine. They
are a clear illustration of our desire to provide the proper
support for economic recovery in these regions.
* * *
[English]
HEATING FUEL REBATE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's attempt to buy
popularity with Canadians by issuing energy rebate cheques has
been an abysmal failure. All Canadians are directly affected by
high energy costs, but only a handful are eligible for the newest
Liberal slush fund. It is totally irresponsible to issue rebate
cheques to prisoners and the dead while hard pressed millions are
left out in the cold.
What are the priorities of the government? While Canadians
freeze, hepatitis C victims still await money promised them by
the government; our brave merchant marines have waited decades
for compensation and routinely turn to food banks to survive; and
farm families are being driven from the land by a lack of fair
government compensation.
However there is one quick solution to high home heating costs:
remove the GST from all home heating fuels and give all Canadians
a break this winter. Home heating, like food and clothing, is
essential to all.
I urge the government to stop buying votes and start providing
legitimate government services to desperate Canadians.
* * *
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
cardiovascular diseases impose a devastating burden upon
Canadians, accounting for 37% of all deaths annually and placing
a significant hardship and a diminished quality of life on those
who survive and live with these conditions.
The cost of cardiovascular diseases due to direct health care
expenditures, disability, work loss and premature death is
estimated to be over $20 billion annually to the Canadian
economy.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian
Cardiovascular Society are calling for us to look at a concerted
strategy to address such common debilitating conditions as heart
disease and stroke. This strategy would be a first step toward
the creation of a common and integrated nationwide approach to
the prevention and the tracking of these chronic conditions.
I applaud the energy and the efforts of these fine organizations
and urge all my colleagues in parliament to look at their
documentation and support this very fine effort.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is the day we celebrate love, and last night I had a lovely
dream. I dreamed of Cupid. In this strange dream, he wanted to
give me chocolates.
He could not afford to, however, overtaxed as he was with the
GST and an insidious tax on employment.
Then he wanted to express his love, but his ability to express
himself was limited by a gag and by this arrogant bill.
He persisted, however, and wanted to shout his love out loud.
Brave fellow, his heart full of hope, he succeeded in doing so.
He managed to get it out, but there was no one in the unilingual
capital who could understand him.
Poor depressed Cupid, away he went. It seems that he was then
arrested for carrying a bow and arrows when he got stuck in a
traffic jam on one of the bridges. Now he could go to jail,
though he is just a kid. Fortunately, that is when I woke up.
When I got to the office this morning, the second reading of
Bill C-7 was announced. I felt like crying.
* * *
[English]
NIAGARA CENTRE
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to offer my congratulations to my colleagues on their
successful election or re-election to the House. I am looking
forward to working with all members in this 37th parliament.
I wish to thank the citizens of my constituency for placing
their stamp of approval on my candidacy on November 27. I give
special thanks to my family, friends and supporters in my home
town of Thorold for the dedication afforded to me over 15 years
as a city councillor. Their past renewed confidence has allowed
me to gain the experience and political footing required to begin
my service to the larger constituency of Niagara Centre.
The government has brought forward an agenda that speaks to the
issues. I intend to dissect from that agenda those issues of
interest to my constituents, which in turn will allow me an
opportunity to evolve a national perspective so that all
Canadians may be the benefactors of my work and decisions.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada sent a team of scientists to Brazil
to determine if there is any justification for banning Brazilian
beef. I have no doubt that this is not about beef but about the
illegal subsidies which the Brazilian government has provided to
its aircraft manufacturer, Embraer.
The Government of Canada has been granted the right to impose
countermeasures against Brazil but Canada refuses to act. Yet it
insists on hiding behind the veil of mad cow disease, forcing
Mexico and the U.S. also to ban Brazilian beef, which they object
to.
If the government continues in this vein, it will permanently
damage our reputation as a fair trader. To accuse another
country of mad cow disease without any justification could only
be characterized as being deceitful, dishonest and a cheat. I
ask the government to table today all documents that it relied on
to accuse Brazil of the threat of mad cow disease.
I am afraid our trading partners are beginning to think it is
the Canadian government that has mad cow disease.
* * *
HAZEL MCCALLION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, turns 80 years young
today.
Hazel, born on the Gaspé coast, worked in business for 20 years
and entered politics in 1967. Living in Streetsville with her
beloved Sam, she became chair of the planning board, deputy reeve
and then reeve. In 1970 she was elected mayor of Streetsville.
In 1974 the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga were
created. Hazel fought this tenaciously and tried to retain the
identity of Streetsville. She lost the battle but won the war.
Streetsville lives as a vibrant part of Mississauga.
In 1978 she was elected mayor of Mississauga. We all came to
appreciate and respect her dedication and incredible work ethic.
Tonight Mississauga will throw its biggest birthday party ever,
a tribute to a woman who loves her people and her city, a party
thrown by the thousands of people who truly love her. I wish
Hazel a happy birthday and many, many more.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1996
parliament declared February Black History Month. I am honoured
as member of parliament for the Prestons and Cherrybrook to
salute the contributions black Nova Scotians have made to the
country.
Since the first black loyalists arrived to eke out a living on
our rocky shores, black Nova Scotians have battled and still
battle racism, poverty, injustice and ignorance in their struggle
to raise families and build strong communities.
On behalf of the House I salute the many souls past and present
who have tirelessly led the way: artists such as Sylvia Hamilton,
Jerimiah Sparks and Walter Borden; the Happy Quilters of
Cherrybrook; the Nova Scotia Mass Choir; teachers such as Ruth
Johnson; religious leaders like Donald Skier and William P.
Oliver; politicians such as Gordon Earle, Wayne Adams and Yvonne
Atwell; athletes like George Dixon, Ray Downey and Kirk Johnson;
and civil rights activists such as Rocky Jones and Calvin Ruck.
1415
Black Nova Scotians have much to teach all Canadians about the
importance of family and faith as we move forward to create a
better world.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I offer
the House a variation on a theme by Jacques Brel:
Insufficient is love
As something to share
When patronage tales
Are afloat in the air
Insufficient is love
From the Liberal side
When stories of scandals
Float in with the tide
Insufficient is love
When promises die
While taxes like GST
Climb to the sky
Insufficient is love
When the help you would bring
Concerns only bridges
Not one other thing
Insufficient is love
When Heritage flags
Are plastered about
The better to brag
Insufficient is love
When you turn a deaf ear
And gags are the order
Our pleas not to hear
But love will create
Our own promised land
The future is ours
Let us just take a stand
* * *
VALENTINE'S DAY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
Valentine's Day, a day to celebrate love in all its forms, a day
when one realizes that love is something vital to every human
being.
I would like this day to include those to whom life has been
less kind. I would like us to give a special thought to those
who are alone and have no one with whom to share their love, to
children living in violence and deprived of tenderness, hugs and
affection, to our seniors, who are too often forgotten and left
on their own.
Let us make this a day of peace and love. Let us send our wishes
Canada-wide in the hope that Cupid's arrow will bring all
Canadians closer together.
* * *
[English]
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, during
last fall's election the Minister of Industry campaigned
throughout Atlantic Canada making a personal commitment to
shipyard workers in Saint John, Halifax, Dartmouth and St.
John's, Newfoundland, that he would bring in a shipbuilding
report by the middle of January 2001.
Sadly the minister has chosen to delay the release of the report
on shipbuilding. Government sources close to the minister have
confirmed that the report has been completed and it sits on the
minister's desk. Why has the minister not released the report?
Why will the Minister of Industry not table the report in the
House today?
Why does the government continue to ignore the serious problems
facing our shipbuilding industry? Why does it insist on
prolonging the hardships being endured by our shipyard workers
and their families?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition believes that
Canadians want governments to be above suspicion but not above
the law, and so as the Shawinigan file continues to grow we
continue to demand accountability.
Members will remember Mr. Claude Gauthier as the man who bought
the piece of land from the Prime Minister back in 1996 and then
donated $10,000 to his 1997 election campaign. He was also the
gentleman who got the $6 million government contract, even though
he was not qualified, and another $1 million from the
transitional jobs fund. Now it turns out that Mr. Gauthier also
lucked into $9 million worth of immigrant investor funds after
the Prime Minister met with those investors.
Why would the Prime Minister not be concerned about this
conflict of interest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in his assertions when he
alleges a conflict of interest. I repeat that the immigrant
investor program in the province of Quebec is a Quebec provincial
program and is managed by the province. It makes its decisions
on people who are entitled to offer immigrant investor funds. The
rules of the flow of funds are according to the rules of the
Quebec provincial government. The Prime Minister has nothing to
do with those matters and has had nothing to do with those
matters.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he does not agree with either the
ethics counsellor or the auditor general. I want to remind him
that Claude Gauthier bought the land from the Prime Minister that
helped boost the value of his shares in the neighbouring golf
course. He then donated $10,000 to the Prime Minister's election
campaign. During that same period of time, Mr. Gauthier received
$7 million from federal government programs, nearly all of which
the auditor general says he was not entitled to.
How many millions need to go to Mr. Gauthier before the
solicitor general will call for an independent inquiry into this?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to again point out that what the Leader of the
Opposition says about the views of the ethics counsellor are
totally inaccurate with respect to this matter.
In an interview the ethics counsellor made speculative comments
about a hypothetical situation. At the same time, he insisted
that he had not changed his original decision from last November.
He reiterated in January that the Prime Minister was operating
within the rules and that he had not broken any conflict of
interest rules. The ethics counsellor has maintained this
position and the Leader of the Opposition ought to admit that.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister deals with
material that may be up to four years old. It is the ethics
counsellor who finds the Gauthier case questionable. It is the
auditor general who has brought questions about receiving these
funds. It is the ethics counsellor and the auditor general. Why
will they not deal with this basic question of conflict of
interest?
It is very clear that as the items continue to pile up on this
file the questions continue to pile up. I would like to know if
there is actually some other information that the Prime Minister
is aware of that he does not want us to know about, and that is
really the reason he will not allow the solicitor general to move
ahead with an independent investigation.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the short answer is, absolutely not. The Prime Minister
acted correctly and ethically. That was the finding of the
ethics counsellor, which he has reiterated over and over again.
The Leader of the Opposition ought to tell us why he is raising
these matters. Is it because he does not want Canadians to know
that he really believes we are doing a great job on the economy,
a great job on health and a great job on the needs of children?
Why does the Leader of the Opposition not tell us that we deserve
a valentine instead of raising these misleading and false
assertions?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what a farce.
The Prime Minister benefited from the sale of the land adjacent
to the golf course which—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Obviously the excitement of
receiving valentines has struck home. The hon. member for
Edmonton North has the floor and every member will want to hear
her.
Miss Deborah Grey: The Prime Minister benefited from that
very sale of the land that was adjacent to the golf course which
added value to the shares that he was trying to sell in the golf
course itself. The Deputy Prime Minister tries to fog that over,
not to mention the $10,000 political benefit.
I am sure Mr. Gauthier is good to know but it is obvious that
the Prime Minister is better to know. Mr. Gauthier got $7
million from federal programs and another $9 million from
investor immigrant funds. The benefit to him is obvious. Why is
it not obvious to the Prime Minister that he is afraid of this
independent investigation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was already an investigation by the ethics
counsellor who found that the Prime Minister had acted within the
rules. If anybody else wants to carry out an investigation, they
have the independent authority to do that. It is not a matter of
direction one way or another by the Prime Minister or the
solicitor general.
The facts are that the Prime Minister had no interest in the
golf course at the time of the land purchase. I have been
advised that Mr. Gauthier competed for a CIDA contract and won it
because he had the lowest bid. Why does the Alliance Party
refuse to admit this simple fact?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we will not admit it because we know it is simply
not true. It is not true and there is no way that the Deputy
Prime Minister can defend that.
Conflict of interest guidelines are to prevent the appearance of
conflicts, not just to prevent them from actually happening. He
can talk all he likes around the bush about it but it simply will
not add up. The relationship between Claude Gauthier and the
Prime Minister has a very bad appearance.
If these dealings are as innocent as the Deputy Prime Minister
claims daily, then why will the government not just call for an
independent investigation and clear the air?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps talking about the
CIDA project. First, seven companies sent bids to the president
and that company's bid was 30% below the bids by the other
companies. It was a straightforward bidding process.
* * *
1425
[Translation]
TELEFILM CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Telefilm Canada's new feature film policy is aimed primarily at
increasing the market share of Canadian films from 1% to 5%. This
policy ignores the Quebec reality, since the share of producers
and films there is already 6.5%. This then is a Canadian problem
to which a Canadian solution is being applied, without regard to
the industry in Quebec.
I would ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage if she is aware
that Telefilm's new policy achieves only one objective, that of
penalizing those who are already successful, Quebec producers?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say
that the new Canadian feature film policy is designed to promote
the quality, diversity and accessibility of Canadian feature
films to all Canadians.
Currently Telefilm is continuing its consultations with all of
its stakeholders and expects to announce new guidelines by the
end of February.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what concerns me about this diversity criterion is that Canadian
films are going to be required to produce receipts of $240,000,
whereas Quebec films will have to produce $455,000 to meet the
same criteria.
I would ask the minister how she will explain to producers of
Quebec films that they will have to meet criteria that are twice
as high, when they operate in a market three times smaller?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. leader of
the Bloc knows, the Canadian television film policy was brought
together after consultations with many of our Canadian film
producers, including Quebec producers.
Last week when members of the Canadian Film and Television
Production Association met here they applauded the minister on
her new consultations with Telefilm.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the situation
the film industry assistance fund is likely to create will most
certainly be prejudicial to Quebec producers, because they will
be set receipts objectives that are much higher than elsewhere in
Canada.
Is Telefilm Canada's program in its present form not likely to
make Quebec producers the victims of their own success?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon.
member has not heard my response previously.
The minister is continuing her consultations. Telefilm is
continuing its consultations with all film producers across
Canada, including the producers from Quebec. The guidelines will
be announced at the end of the month.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, indeed, it
appears that the head of Telefilm is open to the idea of giving
consideration to Quebec's situation and proposing a program more
suited to the context.
I therefore ask the minister if she intends to support the
approach of head of Telefilm Canada, rather than keep a system
that is considerably more demanding of Quebec producers?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again
what I said previously. When we have concluded all of our
consultations the policy will be presented.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
supreme court of British Columbia is about to hear an appeal of a
NAFTA decision that awarded Metalclad Corporation $17 million in
damages.
Why? Because NAFTA upheld Metalclad's insistence on setting up
a toxic waste sight against the wishes of local citizens and
their democratically elected government. Canada will be an
intervener in the precedent setting case.
Whose side will the government support, the polluters or the
citizens and their right to a healthy environment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as always we will strive to protect the best interests
of all Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
city of Vancouver recently called on the federal government
unanimously to refuse to sign any trade deals that include
investor state provisions similar to NAFTA's chapter 11.
The government is intent on expanding NAFTA to the entire
western hemisphere.
The trade minister hints at concerns about investor state
provisions, but hinting will not provide a lot of protection to
our citizens.
1430
Will the minister make the commitment today that the government
will not under any circumstances sign on to the FTAA or any trade
deal that favours corporations over citizens?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
repeatedly made very clear that Canada is in full support of an
open and transparent process.
We have received a number of written submissions from NGOs. We
continue to receive daily submissions from various stakeholder
groups and Canadians in response to our website. Canada will
ensure that our position is only taken after full consultation
with all Canadians.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
potash exports to Brazil are worth $210 million annually. Health
Canada officials have publicly stated that there is no scientific
justification for banning Brazilian beef.
Brazilian longshoremen have said that beginning tomorrow they
will stop unloading Canadian ships, despite the fact that we have
potash on the water as we speak. Why is the government willing
to jeopardize the potash industries from Sussex, New Brunswick,
to Lanigan, Saskatchewan?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly this issue
is a matter of food safety for Canadians. It is not related to
our dispute with Brazil.
We would find it most regrettable if certain Brazilian
companies, prior to receiving the report from our experts
currently in Brazil, would threaten to boycott Canadian products.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
after many mixed messages from the Russian foreign affairs
department it indicated that after 10 days there would be a
decision whether Andrei Knyazev would be prosecuted for his role
in the fatal accident in Ottawa.
That time has now expired. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs
tell us whether Mr. Knyazev will be prosecuted in Russia for his
actions?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the time estimate given was 10 working
days. That time has not expired yet. I still have every reason
to have confidence in the assurances that were given to me by the
Russian government and its representative in Canada.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has called the Prime Minister's
ownership in the golf course a bad debt and admitted that the
Prime Minister faced a possible loss.
A financial loss is something that the Prime Minister wants to
avoid. Did the Prime Minister avoid a financial loss by getting
benefits for the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor also said of the Prime Minister
that the question at the end of the day was whether he would be
fully reimbursed or whether he would just have to settle for
something. A benefit is not only a financial gain; a benefit is
also escaping a financial loss.
It is clear that the Prime Minister avoided losing his shirt on
the golf course by keeping the Auberge Grand-Mère afloat. If he
can explain his actions, why is he opposed to an independent
investigation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the ethics counsellor
consulted with the trustee and legal adviser to the Prime
Minister. As I understand it, what was done to settle the debt
in question was done in full consultation and with the agreement
of the ethics counsellor.
The hon. member's premise, as always, is totally wrong. He
should do the House and the Canadian people a favour and withdraw
his insinuations. Why not raise some questions of real interest
to Canadians? Why is he not concerned about health? Why is he
not concerned about our legal system? That does not matter to
the opposition any more.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nine months into the financial year,
the government surplus is said to be 59% higher than last year at
the same time.
1435
What is rather embarrassing is that this figure was released
just as the government is about to pass the bill that will allow
it to get its hands on the employment insurance fund without
being accountable to anyone. Under this bill, merely 8% of what
the government took from the unemployed will be given back to
them.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development accept that
one third of the government surplus, which is in excess of $17
billion, comes from the employment insurance fund?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thanks to our fiscal
policies, we will enjoy a large surplus. That is obvious. I want
to congratulate all those Canadians who made a contribution.
As we have always said, premiums and costs were reduced, but we
increased benefits. We are very proud of these results.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the government not feel
embarrassed to use 43 cents of each dollar paid into the
employment insurance plan by employees and employers to pay off
Canada's debt?
Does it not find it despicable to use an insurance paid by
contributors to pay down the accumulated debt, when more than
half of the unemployed do not even qualify for benefits?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before this year, the
reductions in the tax burden of employers and employees totalled
$6.4 billion. This year, these reductions have increased by a
further $1.2 billion. That is very good.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister told the House
that it was okay, in fact it was even justifiable for the Prime
Minister to breach a code of ethics or have a conflict of
interest because he was re-elected.
My question is of interest to Canadians. Why does the Prime
Minister seem to be the only person in our nation who is above an
ethics code, above conflict of interest rules, or even possibly
above the law?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has totally misstated what I said. I
absolutely did not say what he has asserted, and he should
withdraw that. If he does not withdraw it, it undermines and
taints everything else he says in the House now and so long as he
is here, which will not be all that long.
The Prime Minister is living within the code of conduct. That
was confirmed by the ethics counsellor and that is the fact of
the matter.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it could only come from over there. I see the Prime
Minister is in China now expressing his disdain for its ethics in
its justice system, but back at home in our country we are told
he is above his own code of ethics. How does the Prime Minister
justify not practising in Canada what he is preaching in China?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The Prime Minister is not
living outside his own code of ethics. He is living within that
code of ethics, as confirmed by the ethics counsellor.
We should be proud of our Prime Minister speaking up in China
for human rights, instead of spouting the kind of nonsense the
Alliance member is trying to abuse the House with today.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite what
the Deputy Prime Minister would have us think, the Bloc Quebecois
represents the views shared by all Quebecers with respect to the
free trade area of the Americas.
In a unanimous—and I emphasize the term “unanimous”—report,
the institutions committee of the Quebec National Assembly is
calling on the Government of Canada to periodically report on the
progress of negotiations in the sectoral working groups.
How does the government think that Quebecers and Canadians can
form an opinion on the validity of the Canadian positions if they
do not know what is on the table, if they have not seen the basic
texts being negotiated?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it must be four or five times now
that I have offered the member and his colleagues a briefing
session on the Summit of the Americas, so that they will be
better informed before asking such questions.
1440
The offer still stands. We are prepared to brief him, if he
wants. We are prepared to give briefing sessions as soon as
possible, for the member's benefit.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
already told the House that what we need are not briefing
sessions, but the basic texts. That having been said, the
institutions committee of the Quebec National Assembly is asking
“That the final accord of the free trade area of the Americas be
submitted to the elected bodies of Canada before being ratified
by the federal government”.
Will the government promise, as the U.S congress has done, that
the final accord of the free trade area of the Americas will be
debated and voted on in the House?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to our information, as soon as our documents are
finished they are published on the Internet. They are in the
public domain, and we will continue with this open policy.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister again today said that the province of
Quebec administered the investor immigration fund.
What he failed to mention was that the province of Quebec had
nothing to do with where those funds went. That responsibility
was in the hands of brokers who met with the Prime Minister just
days before millions of dollars started to flow to Shawinigan.
How is it that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot see this as a
conflict of interest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member cannot see that the
brokers carry out their activities under the rules set by the
province of Quebec in its immigrant investor program.
The Prime Minister said very clearly that he never discussed any
project or proposal under the Quebec immigrant investor program
with any of the brokers in question.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said very clearly that the shares
were in a blind trust back in 1993. We now know that those
shares were in his hands in 1996. They were in his possession;
they were his shares in 1996.
Is it not true that the only blind trust here is Liberal blind
trust in a Prime Minister on unethical grounds?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I listen and look at the hon. member I know the
basis for the quotation “None are so blind as those who cannot
see”.
He cannot see that the Prime Minister did not own the shares at
the relevant time in 1996. The ethics counsellor confirmed to
the industry committee of the House that the Prime Minister did
not own those shares.
If the hon. member wants to maintain the respect of the House,
he should withdraw his unwarranted and inaccurate assertion in
this regard.
* * *
[Translation]
GAMES OF LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is the reaction of the minister responsible for the
IV Games of la Francophonie, which are to be held in Ottawa-Hull,
to yesterday's statement by the Bloc Quebecois to the effect that
Franco-Ontarians are not worthy to host those games next summer?
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it most regrettable that a statement was made by
a Bloc Quebecois MP yesterday, claiming that our minority status
here in Ottawa does not give us the right, as francophones in
this country, to host the Games of La Francophonie. We are
full-fledged citizens, regardless of what the Bloc wants to make
us out to be.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns
the greatest possible threat to human rights, and that is nuclear
war.
The Chinese government has strongly condemned the proposed U.S.
national missile defence system that would breach the ABM treaty,
destroy the non-proliferation treaty and ignite a new global arms
race.
Did the Prime Minister in his meeting yesterday with the Chinese
leadership make it very clear that Canada also opposes the
destructive new star wars scheme and that Canada will not
participate in any way in this scheme? If not, why not? When
will Canada finally get off the fence and say no to the national
missile defence system?
1445
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I can tell, the New Democratic Party says no
to everything with the United States except possibly for trade in
automobiles.
That being said, I think it is fair for us to say that it is as
appropriate to give the United States, as it has asked us to do,
the time to define what the project is that is being described as
national missile defence—it has indicated that it has not done
that yet—and the time it has asked for to take up what its plans
are, not only with its allies but with the Russians and the
Chinese. It has recognized with us that it is overall global
security that we want to achieve, not just continental security.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. In the
November election there were problems with thousands of people
being left off the voters' list across the country. I think this
is a problem that all members of parliament agree on.
In light of that I would like to ask the minister whether or not
he is willing to bring in amendments to the Canada Elections Act
to deal with these problems to ensure that no Canadian citizen
will be denied his or her democratic right in a future election
campaign.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this
excellent question. Many Canadians, particularly candidates and
eventually members of parliament, were quite rightly upset
because too many Canadians were left off the voters' list.
Once the chief electoral officer tables his report in the House,
the report will be sent to the parliamentary committee. I have
asked the chair of the committee personally that this be one of
the items studied to see how we can improve the list. I agree
with the hon. member who raised the question.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, a
moment ago the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about retaining the
respect of the House. One way in which he could do that is to
lay upon the table facts which would help the House come to a
judgment about the Prime Minister's activities.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister table the recommendations of all
executive searches performed over the last four years for the
Business Development Bank by the firm Spencer Stuart Canada?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we seem to have a competition today between which of the
leaders, the leader of the Alliance or the leader of the
Conservatives, will be the real leader of the opposition.
One leader is best known for his wetsuit and the other is just
all wet. He asked questions two days ago about this issue and
discovered there were not two search teams but ten search teams.
The leader of the Conservative Party continues to make
allegations which are unsubstantiated. Whether he is fishing,
playing hockey or simply fooling around, it is time to get
serious and real on this important question.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the questions keep getting asked and the answers keep being
avoided. The government owes it to the people of Canada and to
the Parliament of Canada to lay facts on the table about the
behaviour of the Prime Minister.
Let me quote the Prime Minister's speech in 1994 in which he
said “I promised Canadians we would provide an open and
accountable government, and we have”.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister, in the interests of open and
accountable government, table all documents relating to the
transaction between the Prime Minister and the Akimbo Development
Corporation respecting shares in the Grand-Mère Golf Club?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the simple fact is that the Prime Minister sold his
shares before becoming Prime Minister.
I am advised that all relevant documentation has been reviewed
by the ethics counsellor who told the industry committee of the
House on May 6, 1999, that he had seen the agreement of sale. He
described it as follows: “It is unambiguous in language. It is
fairly simple. There is no basis for anybody trying to say that
there was an option aspect to it. It was a sale and it was an
unsecured sale. I know the Prime Minister does not own the
shares and has not owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which
from my point of view is the only—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark—Carleton.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, several days ago the ethics counsellor stated that the
Prime Minister's shares in the Shawinigan golf course were not in
a blind trust.
Why then did the industry minister publicly state that those
shares were in a blind trust?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a scrum outside the House I made reference to the
shares being in a blind trust and then within two sentences
corrected myself and referred to assets being looked after by
trustees.
1450
With reference to the request for information to be tabled, the
leader of the Conservative Party knows much ofthat information
is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act.He also knows
that if I were to table that information, I would have to tender
my resignation 10 seconds later.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want to make sure that government appointments
and government programs are equally available to all Canadians in
all provinces.
Does the industry minister consider it fair or ethical that the
Prime Minister could interfere with the Business Development
Bank, with the immigrant investor fund or with any other
organization to direct funds for his personal benefit?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would not consider it fair and I am happy to report
that it did not happen. Those are the facts.
What is happening here on the basis of no evidence and no new
information is a systematic attempt to use parliament through
allegations and through smear to injure the character of somebody
who has served the House and the country for 38 years. That is
what is happening here. Members opposite know it and we know it
on this side of the House as well.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A visit to the websites of the diplomatic missions in Ottawa
reveals that 75% of them have no French content, while the
remaining 25% contain less French than English.
Is the minister aware that this situation does not reflect the
reality of Canada's two official languages?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, not long ago the
website with the most French content in the world was the
SchoolNet site. He will therefore accept that I am extremely
aware of the importance of our bilingual reality. We are going
to ensure that both languages are equally represented on the
website.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the minister that my question related to the embassies
located here in Ottawa.
In the same vein, can the minister tell us whether he intends to
suggest to the embassies that they use both of Canada's official
languages, thus enabling Quebecers and the francophones of Canada
to communicate with embassies in their own language?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister may recall
saying “The Prime Minister did not own shares at any relevant
time”. This is just wrong.
Canadians know that the Prime Minister owned shares at the time
when he met with immigrant investors. Canadians know that he
owned the shares at the time he recruited funding support from
the president of the Business Development Bank.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. If these are not
relevant times, what are?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is as out to lunch in the Alliance Party
as he was in the Conservative Party.
He is quite wrong in saying that the Prime Minister solicited
investor funds or solicited funds from the Business Development
Bank. This was confirmed by the ethics counsellor. What I said
yesterday is correct and what he says today is wrong.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us see if it is as foggy over the Grand Banks.
Last week we asked about the Prime Minister's stake in the hotel
Grand-Mère and the industry minister replied, and I quote from
Hansard, “There were no private benefits by the Prime
Minister whatsoever”.
That statement counters the ethics counsellor's own words. It
serves to heighten the suspicion of the Canadian people about the
Prime Minister, his leader. Why does he not clear the air today
and clarify the erroneous statements that he made in the House
last week?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member why he does not clarify and
withdraw the erroneous statements on which he bases his question.
The ethics counsellor did not find what the hon. member asserts.
The ethics counsellor found that the Prime Minister acted
perfectly correctly and perfectly properly.
* * *
1455
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Recently Canada
established diplomatic relations with North Korea. The regime in
Pyongyang is signalling its interest in modernizing its economy
with the latest technology.
Given the fact that North Korea's missile and nuclear program
has contributed to uncertainty in the region and that it has
withdrawn from the International Atomic Energy Agency, how will
Canada approach engagement with this regime in terms of trade,
regional security issues. and the need to encourage and promote
North Korea into rejoining the atomic energy agency?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me say that I think all members of the House
recognize that President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea won the
Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in opening up the Korean
peninsula and building peace there, very deservedly so.
Canada has followed his encouragement in establishing diplomatic
relations with the north. That provides us with an increased
opportunity to work with the North Koreans in advancing Canadian
values, including democratic rights, human rights, economic
development and trade issues.
On the specific matter of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, Canada annually co-ordinates a resolution before the
agency at an annual meeting concerning North Korea. We will
continue to do so.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. The Morricetown Band Council in my riding receives
nominal roll funding from his department to pay for its students
enrolled in School District No. 54.
That money has been transferred to the band from the department,
and yet the band refused to pay its commitment of over
three-quarters of a million dollars owed to the school board.
Why has the minister or his officials not intervened in this
case and forced the band council to meet its commitments instead
of withholding federal money meant to pay schooling costs?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know the
particulars of the case, but I will tell the member that the
policy of the Government of Canada, as it relates to Indian
affairs and the agreement we have with the province of British
Columbia, is that if a first nation does not pay its tuition
agreement to a board the Government of Canada through the
department of Indian affairs will intervene to see that money is
paid.
At this point there may be some particulars of the case which
would not enable us to resolve that issue at this point. I will
take that under advisement and get back to the hon. member.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister should know. We have tried to contact his
department in Vancouver with no response or no resolution. My
concern is for the education of the 120 children of the
Morricetown band affected by this and for the huge shortfall the
school board is encountering.
If the minister cannot force the band council to use its federal
funding earmarked for education to pay its schooling commitments,
why give the band council responsibility for the money in the
first place? Where is the accountability?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without knowing the details
of the case I just want to make it very clear to the member and
his party opposite that we well know, because we listened to this
during the last campaign, they take the view automatically that
somehow a first nation is wrong, no matter what occurs across the
country. Without looking at the details that party believes that
first nation people cannot run their own affairs.
Sometimes when those funds are held back by the first nation
band council it is because the board itself is not meeting its
commitment to those children.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
far from abating, the war between motorcycle gangs is entering a
new phase. Yesterday's shooting in the middle of the autoroute
is a very clear sign that these gangs will do anything to achieve
their ends.
The minister has said that she intended to table anti-gang
legislation quickly. Could she, who seems more inclined to put
young people rather than the real criminals in prison, tell us
when exactly she intends to table anti-gang legislation so that
Canada may have a real law?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is fully
aware, the solicitor general and I have been consulting with
provincial and territorial counterparts. We have been consulting
with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As the solicitor general and I have made plain, we will be
bringing forward a package of amendments to the criminal code as
well as resource and enforcement measures as soon as our
consultations are concluded.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's Ottawa Sun reported that Mr. Norman Ryan, a
veteran of the second world war, only recently received his
medals from Veterans Affairs Canada, some 55 years after the
war's end.
1500
Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the House why this
veteran had to wait so long and how we could make sure others are
not caught in this situation?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate
situation. Obviously Veterans Affairs Canada wants to make sure
that veterans who have merited decorations and medals receive
them as quickly as possible.
Sometimes we do not have the forwarding address of a veteran,
but I want to give this assurance: every time we get a request
we will follow up immediately. I would invite all veterans who
have not received their decorations or their medals to contact
Veterans Affairs Canada and we will make sure they get them
immediately.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, even the government's own scientists
have claimed that there is no threat to the health of Canadians
from Brazilian beef. This is about political interference, not
food safety.
Years of effort to have world trade decisions based on science
and not politics is flying out the window. Did the minister of
agriculture approve of this reckless action before it happened or
was it the idea of so-called Captain Canada, otherwise known as
our industry minister? Who was it?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts
straight. The two people who spoke out on this matter were in a
department of government that was not dealing with it. It was
not part of their files and quite frankly they had no business
speaking out on a file in which they were not involved.
The decision was made based on our concern, obviously not the
concern of those on the other side, for the health of the people
of Canada. We will stick by that decision and we will conduct a
risk assessment as necessary.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the veterans
affairs minister. Merchant mariners in Canada have been fighting
for over 55 years for proper compensation. In fact prior to the
last election the government tried to ram through a bill, but it
died on the order paper.
Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the House and all
Canadians, especially our beloved merchant mariners, when they
could expect to see the final instalment of their compensation,
which is so duly owed to those brave men and women?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over 14,000 applications
have been received and processed. Roughly one-half or a little
fewer than 7,000 cheques have been sent out as the first payment.
We will review roughly 2,500 applications. Once we know what
the numbers are, we will then know how much we need in order to
make a second payment. It is at that point in time that I
promise to go back to see if there is any more money.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Karen Moustgaard
Jespersen, Minister of the Interior of Denmark.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, during question period today the Minister of Industry
referred to a document he had in his hands that contained the
names of the executive search firms retained by the Business
Development Bank.
He again went on to say that the search firms had been referred
to in the questions that had been asked over the last couple of
days about who had done what searches on behalf of the bank to
fill those executive positions.
I would ask if the minister would table those lists for us
today.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the list of names has already been made available to
the media, I would be very happy to make it available to the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, something I
consider very serious happened in question period.
The member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, in putting a question to
the government House leader, the member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, knowingly altered remarks I had
made in this House yesterday, remarks I could read back to you in
their entirety, if I may, since they were made pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
I will then insist that these remarks, in which I am made to say
that the region did not deserve to hold the Games of La
Francophonie, be withdrawn from Hansard. I also insist on an
apology from the two members who interpreted remarks I never
made.
1505
Here is the statement that I made yesterday under Standing Order
31:
In 2001 Canada will be hosting the IVth Games of la
Francophonie. They will be held in Ottawa, the capital and a
unilingual English city.
This is true. These games will be held in Hull and also in
Ottawa, which is unilingual.
First, according to Statistics Canada, 91% of the population of
the city of Ottawa speak English only—
This is from Statistics Canada. Furthermore, again according to
Statistics Canada, less than 10% of the population of the city of
Ottawa is francophone.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Obviously, there is a disagreement
concerning the facts in this case, but the hon. member raised a
point of order. I wonder what part of the standing orders is at
issue here. I still have not figured it out.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is
simply that the House was misled by members who attributed to me
comments that I never made by targeting the statement that I made
under Standing Order 31, which is found on page 598 of
yesterday's Hansard, dated Tuesday, February 13, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, you will be able to see that what was said in the
House was inaccurate and that my integrity and honesty have been
impugned. I ask these two members of parliament to withdraw their
comments and to apologize.
The Speaker: The hon. member has made his point.
Unfortunately, in the House there are often times when one member
quotes another but notfully. We had several examples during Oral
Question Period today. Often, in questions and answers, different
portions of the same letter or article are quoted.
I do not consider it a point of order when a member makes a
statement in the House concerning something that was said
elsewhere or even here in the House. There may be disagreement
among the members concerning the interpretation of remarks but
it is not up to the Speaker to rule that this is a point of order
or to require members to rephrase.
If the two members who spoke on this topic wish to withdraw what
they said, that is a decision for them to make, but this is not,
in my view, a point of order.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while I bow
to the wisdom of your ruling, I would just like to raise one
point not mentioned by my colleague.
The member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac attributed to my
colleague something he never said, to the effect that the
francophones in Ottawa were unworthy of hosting the Games of la
Francophonie.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely serious accusation which could
mislead all those now listening, and which did not arise from
anything my colleague said but solely from the desire of the
member and of the government House leader to twist our words, to
make us look bad to francophones in the rest of Canada, when it
is absolutely false, unfair and wrong, and they must apologize.
The Speaker: The Speaker does not recall a reference to a
particular member during the question or during the answer.
I will look at the blues today, and if I have anything to
add, I will get back to the House tomorrow or the next day.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Since a few members have indicated to me
that the ruling I delivered yesterday on the question of
privilege raised by the member for Sarnia—Lambton had led to
some confusion, I wish to provide clarification immediately.
[English]
At page 609 of Debates I stated:
In addressing this most unfortunate situation the board has been
guided by the usual principles of human resource management—
1510
The text should go on to read:
I thank hon. members for their attention.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 24(2) of the Auditor General
Act, I have the honour to present 28 sustainable development
strategies, in both official languages, on behalf of the
government.
These strategies are one of the means through which departments
and agencies of government are taking decisive action to ensure
that the environment, the economy and society are considered in
policy and program decisions in an integrated manner. This is a
clear demonstration of the government's strong support for the
advancement of sustainable development in Canada and abroad.
In the spirit of sustainable development I have decided not to
have paper distribution of these strategies to members of the
House and senators unless requested. Members and senators will
receive an information pamphlet on how to obtain them from the
Internet if they need that assistance or, if they wish, they may
ask for a hard copy.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House reports from
the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
concerning the 46th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, which
was held in London and Edinburgh from September 20 to September
29; the 12th Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar, which was held
in Bermuda from October 14 to October 22; and the 23rd Canadian
Regional Seminar which was held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, from
October 19 to October 26, 2000.
* * *
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-264, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act (marriage between persons of the same
sex).
He said: Mr. Speaker, today being Valentine's Day, the day that
we celebrate love and romance, it is timely that I table the bill
that would amend federal law to clearly recognize same sex
marriages, the right of gay and lesbian people to marry their
partners if they choose to do so.
The bill reflects the inclusive spirit of the charter of rights
as well as recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings, and celebrates
the diversity of Canadian families. It in no way threatens
traditional heterosexual marriage or religious traditions.
Rather, it acknowledges that our relationships as gay and lesbian
people are just as strong, just as loving, just as committed as
any others. Canada should follow the lead of the Netherlands in
recognizing same sex civil marriages.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will indulge me on this special
Valentine's Day by allowing me to wish Happy Valentine's Day to
my partner Max across the land in Burnaby, British Columbia.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
A DAY FOR HEARTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-265, an act establishing A Day for
Hearts: Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it being St. Valentine's Day, I think it
is most appropriate to introduce the bill today. A Day for
Hearts is the short title. The purpose of the bill is to raise
awareness. Hopefully that will focus on the problem of
congenital heart disease, which affects approximately 4,200
newborn children every year, one in every one hundred children
born.
The purpose of the bill is to raise awareness. Throughout
Canada in each and every year beginning in the year 2002, the
14th day of February shall be known under the name of A Day for
Hearts: Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
CANADA MARRIAGE ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act in order to protect the legal
definition of marriage by invoking section 33 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today being St. Valentine's Day, it is my
pleasure to introduce a bill to amend the Marriage (Prohibited
Degrees) Act in order to protect the legal definition of marriage
by invoking section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
The bill is consistent with a motion passed by the House on June
8, 1999, confirming the definition of marriage as a union of a
man and woman, although not consistent with official NDP policy,
nor the publicly stated policy of the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, nor in fact the leader of the New Democratic
Party.
It is my hope that the bill will eventually be voted on and
passed in the House in order to entrench in law the definition of
marriage.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PEST CONTROL ACT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to prohibit the use of
chemical pesticides for non-essential purposes.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, titled an act
to prohibit the use of chemical pesticides for non-essential
purposes, is to place a moratorium on the cosmetic use of
chemical pesticides in the home and garden and on recreational
facilities, until scientific evidence that shows such use is
safe has been presented to parliament and concurred in by a
parliamentary committee.
[English]
The bill aims to shift the dangerous burden of proof. As things
actually stand, the public good bears the burden of proof. We
abundantly spray the pesticides in our yards and playgrounds,
which are chemicals designed to kill. Yet, we have no evidence,
scientific or medical, that accurately demonstrates their safety.
Thus we spray these pesticides at the expense of the health of
Canadians.
The bill would reverse this situation by requiring proof of
pesticide safety, which would have to be submitted to parliament
and approved in committee before allowing their use.
[Translation]
I strongly urge this House to consider this bill, the basic
purpose of which is to put the health of Canadians before
anything else.
[English]
Let us, as parliamentarians, give a valentine to all Canadians
by adopting the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1520
CANADA WELL-BEING MEASUREMENT ACT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to develop and
provide for the publication of measures to inform Canadians about
the health and well-being of people, communities and ecosystems
in Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today on St.
Valentine's Day to present to the House a bill entitled the
Canada well-being measurement act. The greatest testimony to
love is giving the next generation the protection, education and
the necessary assets so that it may take its flight into the
world.
[Translation]
It is significant, therefore, that the Canada well-being
measurement bill is being introduced in the House on Valentine's
Day.
The purpose of the bill is to expand the way we measure the
well-being of the country, so that it will encompass social,
economic and environmental factors. These factors affect the
health of Canada's people, communities and ecosystems.
[English]
Such factors will increase awareness of challenges and successes
facing our country and will thereby enable the people of Canada
and the House to steer more carefully toward a secure and
satisfying future.
[Translation]
I offer this bill as a Valentine's Day gift to our beloved young
people and to all future generations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
RU-486
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the
House a petition from close to 500 concerned citizens in my
riding of Cambridge.
They wish to draw to the attention of the House that the
chemical RU-486 kills the human fetus in the first two months of
pregnancy and is now being tested in Canada. There are a number
of dangerous side effects to this drug and it poses a serious
threat to the health of the mother.
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada
not introduce changes to the current legislation or protocol that
would allow the RU-486 method of abortion to be licensed in
Canada.
I wish a happy Valentine's Day to my wife, my daughter and my
granddaughter.
PESTICIDES
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again it is my honour to table two petitions in
the House calling for a moratorium on the cosmetic use of
pesticides, one of which was actually taken by an elector in my
riding.
As with my private member's bill, the issue of the non-essential
use of pesticides, or what we like to call cosmetic use of
pesticides, is a significant danger to the health of Canadians.
We do not have the science or the medical proof to show that it
is not dangerous. We are putting our children's lives and
pregnant mothers in danger. We are calling for a moratorium on
the cosmetic use of pesticides.
It is with great honour that I table these two petitions that
support my private member's bill. I call on the House to adopt
the legislation and to do it quickly.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition on behalf of the citizens of Grand Bend in the London
area.
They urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT, as
it has a negative impact both on the health of people and on our
ecosystem at large.
* * *
1525
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved 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.
She said: Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 2001, I introduced into
the House the government's proposed youth criminal justice act.
Those who have been following the issue will be well aware of the
extensive groundwork that supports this initiative.
The government's commitment to reforming the youth justice
system is longstanding and firm. We reiterated our intention
during the last election campaign and again most recently in the
Speech from the Throne.
Bill C-7 has benefited from the extensive review accorded its
previous incarnations, Bill C-68 and Bill C-3. Consultations
before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs were
exhaustive. As Minister of Justice, I heard from the provinces
and the territories. I have met with and listened to individuals
and groups who work in the youth justice system.
Bill C-7 retains the overall direction and all key elements but
includes amendments from the consultation process which will
reduce complexity, provide greater clarity and improve
flexibility for the provinces.
[Translation]
We have examined all of the recommendations in great detail over
the past months. We compared certain recommendations relating to
the provinces' capacity to administer the youth justice system
better.
[English]
I will not accept the rhetoric from the benches opposite and
elsewhere that this piece of legislation is too tough or that it
is not tough enough. Those who seek to reduce the discussion of
youth justice to such a simplistic paradigm feed misconception.
Canadians want a system that prevents crime by addressing the
circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour,
that rehabilitates young people who commit offences and safely
reintegrates them into the community, and ensures that a young
person is subject to meaningful and appropriate consequences for
his or her offending behaviour. Canadians across the country
know that this is the most effective way to achieve the long term
protection of society. Bill C-7 constructs a youth justice
system which will do just that.
It is also abundantly clear that Canadians are committed to
supporting children and youth. They are firm in their belief
that as a society we must do everything we can to help young
people avoid crime in the first place and to get their lives back
on track if they do run afoul of the law.
I will take this opportunity to outline the approach of the
proposed youth criminal justice system and why it will be a
marked improvement over the current system. With 16 years of the
Young Offenders Act under our belts, experience has demonstrated
what measures are most effective and where the system needs to be
improved.
Let me now address why we believe new youth justice legislation
is necessary. Some of the key weaknesses of the YOA are, first,
the YOA does not reflect a coherent youth justice philosophy. Its
principles are unclear and conflicting and do not effectively
guide decision makers in the youth justice system.
1530
Unlike the YOA, the proposed youth criminal justice act provides
guidance on the priority that should be given to key principles.
For example, the new legislation makes clear that the nature of
the system's response to a youth's offending behaviour should
reflect the needs and individual circumstances of the youth.
However, the needs or social welfare problems of a young person
should not result in longer or more severe penalties than those
which are fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the
offence committed.
Other principles of the youth criminal justice act emphasize
that the objectives of the youth system are to prevent crime,
rehabilitate and reintegrate young persons into society, and
ensure meaningful consequences for offences committed by young
people. Pursuing and achieving these objectives is the best way
to protect society.
The youth justice system must reflect the fact that young
persons lack the maturity of adults. This includes an emphasis
on rehabilitation and reintegration and holding them accountable
in a manner consistent with their reduced level of maturity.
Interventions with young persons must be fair and proportionate,
encourage the repair of harm done, and involve parents and others
in the young person's rehabilitation and reintegration.
As we also know, the existing YOA has resulted in the highest
youth incarceration rate in the western world, including our
neighbours to the south, the United States. Young persons in
Canada often receive harsher custodial sentences than adults
receive for the same type of offence. Almost 80% of custodial
sentences are for non-violent offences. Many non-violent first
offenders found guilty of less serious offences such as minor
theft are sentenced to custody.
The proposed youth criminal justice act is intended to reduce
the unacceptably high level of youth incarceration that has
occurred under the Young Offenders Act. The preamble to the new
legislation states clearly that the youth justice system should
reserve its most serious interventions for the most serious
crimes and thereby reduce its over-reliance on incarceration.
In contrast to the YOA, the new legislation provides that
custody is to be reserved primarily for violent offenders and
serious repeat offenders. The new youth justice legislation
recognizes that non-custodial sentences can often provide more
meaningful consequences and be more effective in rehabilitating
young persons.
We also believe that the Young Offenders Act has resulted in the
overuse of the court for minor cases that can be better dealt
with outside the court. The effect is often court delay and an
inability of the courts to focus on more serious cases.
Experience in Canada and other countries has shown that measures
outside the court process can provide effective and timely
responses to less serious youth crime. Although the YOA permits
the use of alternative measures, over 15 years of experience
under the YOA indicates that it does not provide enough
legislative direction regarding their use.
The proposed youth criminal justice act is intended to enable
the courts to focus on serious youth crimes by increasing the use
of effective and timely non-court responses to less serious
offences. These extra-judicial measures provide meaningful
consequences such as requiring the young person to repair the
harm to the victim. They also enable early intervention with
young people as well as the opportunity for the broader community
to play an important role in developing community based responses
to youth crime.
Some of the provisions in the new youth justice legislation that
encourage the use of extra-judicial measures in appropriate less
serious cases include: a presumption that extra-judicial measures
should be used with first time non-violent offenders and specific
authority for police and prosecutors to use a range of
extra-judicial measures, informal warnings, police cautions,
crown cautions and referral to community programs.
In addition, the existing YOA has resulted in disparities and
unfairness in youth sentencing. Sentences under the YOA often do
not reflect the seriousness of the offence. There is often
significant disparity between what similarly situated youth
receive for similar offences.
1535
As I mentioned earlier, youth often receive more severe
penalties than adults receive for the same type of offence. Some
young persons are sentenced on the basis of their needs or social
welfare problems and receive longer or more severe penalties than
that which would be fair and proportionate to the seriousness of
the offence committed.
To reverse the current unfairness the new law provides that the
consequences imposed on a young person must not be greater than
those which would be appropriate for an adult in similar
circumstances. The new sentencing provisions also emphasize that
every sentence must focus on rehabilitating and reintegrating the
young person into the community. This requires that the needs of
the young person be addressed within the timeframe stipulated by
the courts.
Also, the existing Young Offenders Act fails to ensure effective
reintegration of a young person after being released from
custody. A weakness of the existing legislation is that a young
person can be released from custody with no required supervision
and support to assist that young person in making the transition
back to his or her community. The new legislation includes
provisions to assist the young person's reintegration into the
community.
The new youth justice legislation requires that all periods of
custody be followed by a period of supervision and support in the
community. At the time of sentencing the judge will state in
open court the portion of time that is to be served in custody
and the portion to be served in the community. Breaching
conditions of the community supervision could result in the young
person being returned to custody.
Further, the existing Young Offenders Act process for transfer
to the adult system has resulted in unfairness, complexity and
unacceptable delay. The current process violates basic fairness
by providing that a young person be transferred to an adult court
before being found guilty of any offence. It has also resulted
in wide differences among provinces in the number of transfers of
young persons to the adult system.
For example, in 1998-99 Manitoba led the country in transfers,
transferring 29 youths to adult court. Quebec was second,
transferring 23 young persons to adult court, while Ontario
transferred only six people to adult court in the same year.
The new youth justice legislation contains significant changes
that address the unfairness of the current transfer process
including the elimination of the transfer process. Instead, the
youth court has the authority to impose an adult sentence in
certain circumstances. The hearing on the appropriateness of an
adult sentence will take place only after the youth has actually
been found guilty. The assurance is that should a young person
receive an adult sentence, it is to be presumed that if the young
person is under 18 he or she will serve the adult sentence in a
youth facility.
The existing Young Offenders Act also fails to make a clear
distinction between serious violent offences and less serious
offences. This is a basic theme that underlies many of the other
problems with the YOA such as the high rate of youth
incarceration and the overuse of the court for less serious
offences. When a youth justice system fails to clearly
differentiate between serious violent offences and less serious
offences, it is not surprising that public confidence in the
system is weakened.
The proposed youth justice legislation consistently makes this
important distinction at key points throughout the legislation.
It is reflected in the fundamental principles in the preamble and
declaration of principles, the front end options, the sentencing
principles, the rules on adult sentencing and the provisions
regarding release from custody.
Unlike the existing Young Offenders Act, a basic policy
direction of the new legislation is that serious violent offences
are to be treated seriously and less serious offences are to be
dealt with through less intrusive yet still meaningful
consequences.
Also, the existing Young Offenders Act fails to recognize the
concerns and interests of victims in an adequate way. In
contrast to the existing legislation, the proposed youth justice
legislation recognizes the concerns and interests of victims and
clarifies the role of victims in the youth justice process.
1540
The following are key provisions in the legislation. The
principles of the act specifically provide that victims are to be
treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect for their dignity
and privacy. They also should be given information about the
proceedings and an opportunity to participate and be heard if
they so choose.
Victims have a right of access to youth court records and may be
given access to other records. The victim's role in community
based approaches such as conferences is encouraged. If a young
person is dealt with by an extra-judicial sanction, the victim of
the offence has a right to be informed of how the offence has
been dealt with.
In developing new youth justice legislation it is important to
recognize the limits of legislation and to have reasonable
expectations about what legislation can accomplish. That is why
the new youth justice legislation is only one part of the
government's much broader approach to youth crime and the renewal
of Canada's youth justice system.
Increased federal funding, crime prevention efforts, effective
programs, innovative approaches and research are all part of the
broader strategy for the fair and effective renewal of Canada's
youth justice system. This legislation is the first step in the
renewal of that system.
Partnerships with other sectors such as education, child welfare
and mental health, improvements to aboriginal communities, and
appropriate implementation by provinces and territories will be
equally important in achieving the goals of the youth justice
legislation. The government is committed to ensuring that
Canadians are well served by their youth justice system.
In conclusion I encourage all colleagues on both sides of the
House to support Bill C-7 as an integral part of our initiative
to ensure that all Canadians, especially young Canadians, have a
fair, effective and just youth justice system.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is seldom that we have ministers before the House
making presentations such as the one we heard today. I think it
would be in order for us to seek unanimous consent to be able to
ask questions of the minister.
The Speaker: It is certainly in order to ask. Is there
unanimous consent to permit a period of questions to the
minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-7,
the bill that has been introduced by the Minister of Justice to
replace the Young Offenders Act. None other than the current
Minister of Justice has characterized the Young Offenders Act as
“easily the most unpopular piece of federal legislation”.
Although the government makes much of the fact that the violent
youth crime rate appears to have dropped to some small degree
over the last two years, the Canadian public has not been fooled.
The violent youth crime rate is still over 300% greater than it
was three decades ago.
In addition, it is my experience that citizens, embittered and
disillusioned with the failure of the Young Offenders Act to
address their serious concerns in respect to crime, have in many
cases simply stopped reporting crime. Is it any surprise then
that the figures may have shown a small drop in the crime rate
over the last two years?
According to this type of measurement and statistical analysis,
I am only surprised that the government has not been funding more
studies on how to encourage citizens to stop reporting crimes.
According to this type of Liberal thought process, the crime rate
would be reduced to zero if they could only figure out how to
stop people from reporting crime to police.
Although the suggestion may seem ridiculous, it is a type of
thought process the Liberals often employ. During the recent
election, for example, when the Prime Minister announced that the
65 cent dollar was good for Canadian farmers because it created
markets for their products, one farmer in my constituency told me
that if that were the case maybe we should have a 10 cent dollar
because it would make our economy six times as strong.
Another farmer said that it did not matter what the dollar was
at if it cost $120 Canadian to get an acre of land ready and he
could only get $60 Canadian when he sold the produce from that
acre. Furthermore, the Prime Minister failed to consider that much of
the machinery and other supplies that the farmers purchase come
from the United States. A 65 cent Canadian dollar does not help
with those purchases. Liberal economics are great if one could
only figure out a way to ignore reality.
1545
The same is true of Liberal criminal justice policy. How could
it be that the Young Offenders Act, the object of so much study
and consultation prior to its implementation, turned into such a
failure? Committees across Canada considered how to replace the
Juvenile Delinquents Act. Experts in the social sciences, law
enforcement officials, prosecutors and ordinary citizens turned
out at these committee hearings to provide input into an act that
was to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, an act that had been
on the books since approximately 1908.
As a prosecutor from Brandon, Manitoba responsible for
prosecutions in the youth court in the western judicial district
of Manitoba, I participated in those hearings about creating a
new act. I recall making a presentation before the committee in
Winnipeg, chaired I seem to recall, by the now retired former
Chief Judge Harold Gyles. Although I had only recently graduated
from law school, it was apparent to me that the Juvenile
Delinquents Act, and indeed the proposed Young Offenders Act, was
seriously flawed and that all we were doing was breeding
successive generations of criminals.
Unless serious steps were taken to break this cycle, the new act
which would become the Young Offenders Act would be doomed to
failure.
The Young Offenders Act seemed to be on the right track but at
its onset there were a number of problems already apparent.
Perhaps the greatest of these had to do with the failure to make
any provisions for the youth under the age of 12. The Young
Offenders Act prohibits any legal proceedings against youth under
the age of 12.
The theory seemed sound: refer under 12 year old children to the
child welfare system to be dealt with there. The problem was
that the child welfare system was not, and still is not, equipped
to deal with children whose criminal conduct brought them to the
attention of the authorities. In fact, what happened was the
child welfare authorities did not have the appropriate resources
or legal authority to deal with these children, many of them
violent and seriously disturbed. This is especially true with
those children that we have now come to know as children
suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome.
With the bar against being able to proceed against children to
bring them to youth court under the age of 12, these children who
were 9, 10 and 11 years old slipped between the cracks of a child
welfare system that was unable to deal with their serious
problems and a Young Offenders Act that prohibited a court from
offering them any help.
I do not speak of these matters simply as a matter of hearsay. I
was not only involved as a prosecutor in youth court during the
late 1970s, but during the first half of the 1980s. For five or
six years some of my responsibilities on behalf of the attorney
general of Manitoba involved acting on behalf of the director of
child welfare in northern Manitoba, primarily in the Thompson
area where I had the privilege of working with many fine child
care workers and judges who did their best in very difficult
circumstances.
One such judge was Judge Kimmelman who spent many years on
circuit in the north, both as a youth court judge dealing with
matters under the Young Offenders Act and as a family court judge
dealing with matters under the Child Welfare Act. People like
Judge Kimmelman are to be commended. However despite the very
novel and inventive procedures and dispositions that they
utilized, the legal tools and resources that they were provided
with were simply not sufficient.
The failures of the Juvenile Delinquents Act were simply
continued under the new Young Offenders Act.
1550
Under the Young Offenders Act children are falling between the
cracks of the child welfare system and the young offender system.
Children under the age of 12 fail to receive help, either through
the courts or through the child welfare system. For all the
shortcomings of the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, it still
provided for a measure of accountability for youth under the age
of 12 so that they could be helped or dealt with by the courts.
The Young Offenders Act provides no such alternative with the
result that by the time many seriously disturbed children reach
the age of 12 anti-social and, indeed, criminal patterns and
conduct have already been established. The Young Offenders Act
only succeeded in breeding a younger, more anti-social
lawbreaker. The time spent in youth court between ages 12 and 18
was spent honing the skills that many children first put to use
when they were under age 12. By the time these youth reach 18
and sometimes much earlier, the only alternative, regrettably, is
a much harsher and punitive adult system. By the misguided
desire to help these children by shielding them from
responsibility and accountability, we have only succeeded in
ensuring a pattern of criminal behaviour.
It was not that the Young Offenders Act did not spout the
appropriate rhetoric about rehabilitation, deterrence and
denunciation, principles that all of us would agree are necessary
for the success of any criminal justice system, it was simply
that the act was substantially flawed from its inception.
Furthermore, in dealing with the Young Offenders Act, and now
dealing with this new bill, there is no practical commitment by
the Liberal government to follow through with the implementation
of the programs that are required in order to ensure that the
rhetoric is carried out.
When the Young Offenders Act first came in, the government of
the day committed itself to a 50:50 cost sharing arrangement with
the provinces. The federal government soon abandoned its
commitment to this partnership. As a consequence, the federal
Liberal government has become at best a 25% financial partner
offloading the lion's share of the financial and social
responsibility on to the provinces that now shoulder on average
75% of the costs of running this program.
This is a strange state of affairs. One can understand, from a
constitutional point of view, why the federal government has
abandoned its financial commitment to medicare where it also used
to be a 50% partner. However, in the case of medicare it is
clear that it at least has the excuse that medicare is a
provincial constitutional responsibility.
In the case of medicare, the federal government has simply
involved itself in an area of provincial constitutional
authority, and as my colleagues in the Bloc or others would say
improperly so, by virtue of its spending power. However, in the
area of youth crime this is clearly a matter of federal
constitutional authority.
The provinces are involved in the programming and prosecutions
under the Young Offenders Act, as they are in the prosecution of
the criminal code, by virtue of their consent. I believe they
provide this consent as an example of co-operative federalism,
recognizing that in many cases provinces and local administration
of these programs is important to their success.
Given that youth crime is a federal area of responsibility, it
is curious that the federal Liberal government would announce
that it is not prepared to contribute at least half of the
funding for the operation of this program.
1555
Very recently the Minister of Justice said that the federal
government would not match the provincial contribution on a 50:50
basis because she said that the federal government could not
afford the cost of the new programs she is implementing under her
act. Instead, she indicated that the federal government would
simply throw in an additional $207 million over three years to
help with the implementation of the new act. Yet, even though
she says that she does not have the money to carry out federal
constitutional responsibilities, she expects the provinces to
come up with the money for her plan.
Preliminary estimates from the province indicate that the
initial implementation costs will exceed $100 million. This does
not include the ongoing additional costs that will be incurred by
the provinces in administering the new act. It is clear that the
$207 million new dollars over three years that the federal
Liberals have put on the table will barely cover the first three
years of additional new costs and will do nothing to meet the
ongoing costs to the provinces after these first three years.
When this funding dries up after three years, the federal
Liberal government will become much less than a 25% partner in
this federal program, leaving the provinces to pick up the
additional costs on an ongoing basis.
In this financial context, and that is why I spent the time to
develop this context, it is clear what the real reason is for the
Liberal government to exercise jurisdiction in respect to
children under the age of 12. By refusing to extend even the
rehabilitative powers of the youth court to children under the
age of 12, the federal Liberals are attempting to dump 100% of
the costs on to the provinces in respect to these children. This
has nothing to do with protecting children from the punitive
powers of the court. It is simply a cynical device to ensure
that the federal government can escape any financial
responsibility for children under the age of 12.
If in fact the government is truly concerned that children under
the age of 12 not be incarcerated, it need simply deny the judges
the power to impose custodial sentences to those under the age of
12 while allowing the judges to retain the power to implement the
rehabilitative measures available under the act to other
children. However, the government has chosen not to do so
because it is simply looking for a way to escape its financial
and constitutional responsibilities.
Given the cynical attempt to escape financial responsibility,
not only in respect to children under the age of 12 years but in
respect to a fair division of the cost regarding children over
the age of 12, I am surprised that the provinces have not simply
advised the federal Liberal government that they refuse their
consent to administer and prosecute this legislation and that
they will no longer accept the delegation of this responsibility,
financial or otherwise.
There is no constitutional obligation for any of the provinces
to shoulder this responsibility. If the minister takes issue
with my opinion that in a federal state one level of government
cannot ask another level of government to shoulder its financial
responsibilities without that government's consent, I would
invite her to speak to her lawyers and indeed refer the matter to
the courts on a reference.
I am only surprised that no province has indicated its intention
to take this matter to its court of appeal given the lack of
financial commitment to the legislation and its programs by the
Liberal government. It demonstrates that while the federal
Liberal government has given up on co-operative federalism and
continues to implement its policies onto the provinces through
government by ransom, it is to the credit of the provinces that
they continue to make efforts to ensure that co-operative
federalism remains alive, albeit on a life-support system.
1600
As indicated earlier, it is not that Bill C-7 does not pay
appropriate lip service to the principles required by any modern
justice system. One simply needs to read the introductory
preamble to the bill to see that it says all the right things.
Indeed, as a judge recently stated “The bill attempts to be all
things to all people”. Unfortunately, the grandiose
introduction is simply a cover for another effort that is doomed
to failure.
In attempting to be all things to all people, the Liberals have
produced a bill that is costly, complex and cumbersome. It will
serve only the interests of those who wish to profit from legal
litigation involving the children of Canada. Not only will the
children suffer, but also the provinces will be required to
increase legal aid budgets, another program where the federal
Liberals are diligently seeking to avoid their fiscal
responsibility.
Although other members will no doubt wish to examine and comment
on specific provisions of the bill, I also want to comment on
some of these provisions, even briefly, in addition to the
comments I have already made.
The first issue I wish to discuss in this context is the
reluctance of the minister to provide for publication of names of
young offenders who live in anonymity in the community. While
all of us agree that the principles of rehabilitation and
deterrence do not always require the disclosure of a young
offender's identity to the public, it is clear that the very
restrictive disclosure provisions often serve the interests of
youthful criminal predators living in our community.
Seniors, schoolteachers and administrators, parents of
vulnerable children, and the vulnerable children themselves have
a legitimate and compelling interest in knowing who the dangerous
youthful predators are in their community. Yet the provisions of
the bill restrict to an unwarranted degree the ability to notify
the public of this danger. The balance in the legislation
favours the rights of the dangerous criminal over the rights of
victims and potential victims.
Moving on to another point, in Manitoba, for example, we have an
extensive system of alternative measures to deal with young
offenders. During my time as provincial justice minister I was
proud to develop and expand many of these initiatives. Provided
that the type of offender who participated in these measures was
carefully controlled and provided that the court always retained
overall authority and jurisdiction, these measures could be
extremely successful in providing appropriate support to young
offenders.
For the most part these measures were implemented through the
participation of police officers, probation officers and youth
justice committees. However, it was apparent after many years of
experience that violent repeat offenders would not be appropriate
candidates for any type of extrajudicial measure.
Bill C-7 ignores the profitable experience of provinces like
Manitoba with extensive extrajudicial measures. Instead, the
bill ignores this experience by allowing access to alternative
measures by violent offenders and minimizing the supervisory
authority of the courts. While alternative measures are often
appropriate, they need to be administered in an appropriate
context.
It should be the court system that should direct if alternative
measures are to be implemented. In any event, the court should
always be involved when considering such measures in the case of
violent repeat offenders so that it can be satisfied that the
public will be protected.
The last provision I wish to specifically comment on is the
provision that would provide for the early release of offenders
from custodial institutions despite the fact that they may still
present a danger to the public. While it is commendable that
youth in custody are rewarded for good behaviour, the Canadian
Alliance Party has grave concerns over trying to emulate the
failing adult federal parole system.
1605
Early release must be contingent upon the demonstration of good
behaviour and the satisfaction of the custodial authorities that
the offender has been rehabilitated before there can be any
consideration of early release.
As a country and as a people, we have only a short period of
time to work with these youths while they are under the
jurisdiction of the act, and every effort must be made to
rehabilitate where rehabilitation is still feasible. Mandatory
parole should not be an option where the youth is not
rehabilitated and there is still time left on a court imposed
sentence.
In conclusion, our party still has grave concerns about the
bill. Not only has there been a lack of consultation and,
indeed, a deliberate exclusion of provincial attorneys general in
respect of the development of the provisions of the bill, not
only has there been a failure by the Liberal government to
provide adequate funding for its legislation, there has also been
a stubborn refusal to consider any suggestions for amending its
provisions.
A few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice continued to defend
the bill on the simplistic basis that some members say it is too
tough while members of the Canadian Alliance think it is not
tough enough. Therefore she reasons that the bill must be just
right.
This is not a story about the three bears tasting porridge. The
bill impacts on the safety and quality of life of millions of
Canadians. As such, it requires greater justification from the
minister than the political equivalent of Goldilocks and the
three bears.
The real question that needs to be answered is not whether the
legislation is too soft or too tough. The real question is
whether the legislation will be effective in meeting key goals of
rehabilitation, deterrence and denunciation of crime.
For the reasons that I have outlined, and for additional reasons
that my colleagues in the Alliance will raise in their comments,
this bill will not be effective in meeting these key and crucial
goals.
In my opinion, the failure to consult provincial authorities in
a meaningful way and the failure of the federal Liberals to
provide appropriate funding will be the key reasons for the
failure of the bill. Unless the concerns of the provinces are
considered and the appropriate financial agreements are in place,
the bill will quickly find its way to being characterized in the
not so distant future, perhaps by the same Minister of Justice,
as easily the most unpopular piece of federal legislation.
While popularity is not always the hallmark of great
legislation, the dangers that the bill presents will give rise to
far greater concerns than whether it is popular or not. I
believe these concerns will impact adversely on the safety of our
citizens and, indeed, on the rehabilitation of our youthful
offenders.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to try yet again, and perhaps with examples, to convince
the Minister of Justice that she is off track with her bill,
seeming in a way to want to criminalize young people in
difficulty with the law.
Quite honestly, I listened very carefully to the minister's
speech and equally attentively to the member of the Canadian
Alliance representing the riding of Provencher.
1610
It seems to me that everyone in the House should see very
clearly that there are two faces to Canada. There are two
visions completely opposed. In a matter such as that of young
offenders, it is obvious.
If I understand what the member of the Canadian Alliance had to
say, the bill does not go far enough. There are shortcomings and
things that do not work. We should be far more severe with
young people involved in crime. We should even lower the age of
responsibility below the age of 12. We should make changes to
try to get better control over these young people. There is the
whole issue of the victim. It must be made more complex.
For the Bloc Quebecois and, quite honestly, for the vast
majority of Quebecers—I know that these days the expression
consensus is a bit overworked—if there is one subject of real
consensus, it is the treatment of young offenders.
Regardless of political stripe in Quebec—this is even more true
in the national assembly—Péquistes, members of the Action
Démocratique or Liberals, the members of the national assembly
unanimously passed a resolution calling on the minister to
suspend consideration of Bill C-3, now C-7—and I will come back to
this shortly—in order to visit the provinces, look at the issue
and see what does not work.
In Quebec, in short, the Young Offenders Act is properly
applied with good results. I will come back to this in a bit.
After checking with the Quebec departments of justice and public
security and other agencies in Quebec, the minister decided not
to travel throughout the country to see what was going on in the
provinces, and particularly in Quebec.
Some department officials met with the members of the coalition
and the agencies that enforce the Young Offenders Act on a daily
basis, but the minister did not go to Quebec to see what was
going on over there and to find out why Quebec was getting such
remarkable results. Why was there a consensus in Quebec? It was
to tell the minister “We do not want the YOA to be amended or
repealed because it is working for us. The problem, if there is
one, is not with the legislation but rather with the way it is
enforced in other provinces”.
The minister did not come to Quebec but the officials she sent
were there to do a sales job. They were not proposing a social
vision, an educational approach or a rehabilitation program but
rather a product. They were simply trying to sell a product. I
will come back to that later on because there are limits to
what one can say and what one can try to sell to Quebecers on
such an important issue.
Of course there are times in the House when we are tempted to
play politics. We are in politics, not in religion. However, on
this issue I have never tried to influence groups and get them
to take part in our political games. They have always been free
to do whatever they wanted to do and to say whatever they felt
like saying. These agencies held press conferences and wrote to
newspapers.
I never tried to apply pressure as the Department of Justice is
trying to do now and tried to do in September, October and
November.
Indeed, people in the Department of Justice were not involved in
the election campaign. They were out in the field and they even
promised money to certain organizations. There is nothing they
did not try to do to convince certain members of the coalition,
certain groups that work with the Young Offenders Act on a daily
basis, to support the minister's amendments.
Right now I think the minister and the people in her department
have failed. Time will tell. As for me, my opinion has not
changed with regard to these bills, whether it is Bill C-68,
Bill C-3 or Bill C-7.
1615
When a bill is ill-conceived from the very beginning, one can
try to improve it by whatever means but it will still remain an
ill-conceived bill. Such is the case with Bill C-7.
The bill proposed by the minister is based on false premises.
Alliance and Liberal members saw an opportunity to play politics
at the expense of young people with delinquency problems that
are sometimes serious. Using certain complicitous tabloids and
certain ads, they managed to make a big fuss about certain
crimes of a rather vicious nature, I agree, but nevertheless
extremely rare.
It goes without saying that the idea of a grandson hitting his
grandmother to get a few dollars is unbearable. However beyond the
specific and individual incidents covered by the media, the
facts are actually very different. And this has to be said.
Juvenile crime has been in constant decline for a number of
years. According to the data compiled by the Department of
Justice, last year in the year 2000, the juvenile crime rate
was the lowest of the past 20 years. Just since 1997, youth
crimes—and these figures are taken from reports published by the
Department of Justice—involving homicides have dropped by 9%.
Do not try to tell us, as the member for Provencher seems to be
doing, that these figures have been fudged because the crimes
were not reported. We are talking about confirmed homicides.
Files were opened and police investigations were conducted. The
figures show that since 1997 homicides committed by young
offenders have dropped by 9%.
There has also been an 8% drop in robberies and a 1% drop in
sexual assaults. Some might say that a 1% drop is not much, but
at least the number of these crimes has been going down over the
past four or five years. As for crimes in general, the drop is
around 1.2%.
What is most striking when we look at these statistics is
that since 1997 the juvenile crime rate in Quebec has dropped
by 23%. I agree that this is not enough but it is a significant
reduction.
Quebec—and I am using the data published by the Department of
Justice—has the lowest crime rate in Canada.
In Quebec, the recidivism rate is the lowest in Canada. The
number of cases where a file is referred to the court and young
criminals are remanded in custody is also the lowest in Canada.
The former minister of justice and now Minister of Health even
said once that Quebec was a model for the way it implements
the Young Offenders Act.
The then minister of justice even said that since Quebec was
enforcing the Young Offenders Act properly, and the financial
programs linked to the Young Offenders Act did not favour the
approach taken by Quebec, Quebec was in fact being penalized. As
a result of Quebec enforcing the act properly, the federal
government now owes Quebec about $850 million in constant dollars
of 1997.
1620
The federal program linked to the act is built in such a way
that it encourages erecting concrete walls, putting bars in
windows and imprisoning young offenders, instead of
rehabilitating them and ensuring their reintegration.
Quebec was simply implementing the policy statement in section 3
of the Young Offenders Act, which put the emphasis on the needs
of young people. It said that we had to focus on the
rehabilitation and reintegration of young people in order to
protect society in the long run. This is what we have been doing
for years.
In Quebec because we abide by and enforce the law correctly and
efficiently, we are being penalized in terms of the distribution
of funding for the enforcement of an act that was not passed by
Quebec but by the federal government.
To justify the Liberal government's approach, to justify the
position adopted by the Liberal minister who is a member from
western Canada, a member from Alberta, a province where the
Canadian Alliance is known to be strong—bearing in mind that,
based on its own statistics, her department recognized that there
was no need to amend the Young Offenders Act because it was not
the act, but its enforcement that was the problem—to justify
those amendments, they went on a crusade a long time ago.
There is misinformation. The original premises are wrong. The
wrong data are knowingly being used. Department of Justice
officials, among others, have suggested in press conferences
that things are worse than they really are. There is an attempt
to lead people away from a clear understanding of the act, which
needs to be enforced. Some figures are even being fiddled with,
and I will explain what I mean.
I am very saddened to see that the Minister of Justice herself
is using these figures when she knows very well that they have
no value. Then there is the poll carried out by the Department of
Justice. This poll was authorized by the Liberals and paid for
with our taxes, and public servants did a sales job on it.
Mr. Speaker, you might tell me that I do not have as much
experience as you, as I have only been a member of parliament since
1993, but I have always held federal public servants in high
esteem.
I have always greatly respected them for the non-partisan nature
of their work.
Overall, until seeing what is going on within the Department of
Justice, I was generally very satisfied with the work being done
by the public servants. However, as far as justice is concerned,
particularly in the area of young offenders, their work is no
longer fair-minded, it is totally partisan.
As far as Yolande Viau is concerned—I am taking the time to
give her name, and have no qualms about doing so, since I have
laid a very formal complaint with her superior, but what she was
doing was supposedly normal—when she tells us about the poll,
when she says that 58% of Quebecers agree with the federal
approach, she is lying. It is not honest to say that.
If the poll is examined in any sort of detail and with any sort
of honesty and informed knowledge, one realizes that the
department, and Ms. Viau in particular, cannot reach those
conclusions. Why? Because according to the same poll only 10%
of Quebecers can give at least three of the amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. There cannot, therefore, be more than 10%
who approve of such a law.
1625
Closer scrutiny of the poll reveals that 10% of Quebecers are
opposed to the minister's bill. Are these the same 10% who can
list at least three components of the bill? Are they opposed
because the more they are familiar with it, the more they oppose
it? No doubt.
This, however, is an indication of the unacceptable lack of
rigour in a department like the Department of Justice,
particularly in connection with an issue that affects young
offenders, young people in trouble with the law.
I would hope that Ms. Viau and the Minister of Justice will not
use this sort of tactic again. It is my opinion that Ms. Viau
is playing politics in her interpretation of these figures, that
she is selling her line, some sort of commodity, in this case, a
bill.
In addition, she said when she met the press “Go ask the
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la
jeunesse du Québec about whether they are as good as all that in
applying the law”. Yes, because they had financial problems,
but that is a whole other matter.
If Ms. Viau had any intellectual honesty, she would have taken
the brief submitted by the Commission des droits de la personne
et des droits de la jeunesse, when its representatives testified
before the committee, and she would have seen what the
commission had to say on this with respect to the Young
Offenders Act.
For the benefit of Ms. Viau and the minister, I will quote from
what the commission said in its brief to the committee:
By focusing the new legislation on the seriousness of the
offence, the implication is, necessarily, that the present law
does not significantly respond to juvenile delinquency,
especially when the offence is of a greater objective gravity.
Further on, it reads:
The imbalance created by new legislation based solely on the
principles of public protection and the responsibility of the
young offender compromises all the work done to date with young
people in difficulty.
That is the true message of the commission.
I am not distorting the facts. I am just quoting from a brief
the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la
jeunesse has submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, which examined the bill.
If I may briefly outline the background, this is not the first
time the minister tries to impose her views through a bill such
as this one.
Bill C-68 was introduced on March 11, 1999, as everybody will
recall. Then we had Bill C-3, which was introduced and read for
the first time on October 14, 2000. The purpose has always been
the same, that is to make the Young Offenders Act tougher and
to revoke a piece of legislation that is very effective in
Quebec, for the sake of heeding just English speaking Canada's
views.
The minister then realized her bill was severely flawed and did
not make sense.
She tabled 172 amendments in the House. About 60 witnesses, half
of them from Quebec, appeared before the committee dealing with
the bill.
Witnesses from Quebec submitted to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights at least 15 briefs. Not a single
witness from Quebec supported the justice minister's position.
Not a single group mentioned that the minister was right to
revoke and throw away an effective piece of legislation like the
one on young offenders.
1630
Of course we had witnesses from western Canada who came to tell
us that we should lower the age even more and that we should
even let children in diapers have criminal records. I
exaggerate but not much considering what I heard during the
committee hearings. This is not the solution.
The debate went on for several months. I tried by all kinds of
means, including endless speeches, to convince the minister.
Many editorials and articles were written on the subject in
Quebec and in English Canada. If I had the time I would like to
read them.
Lawyers, practitioners, experts, professors, criminologists,
psychologists and all kinds of people came to tell the minister
that she had it all wrong.
After the last federal election the minister introduced a brand
new bill, Bill C-7. It has a new number but it is not new at
all since it is a carbon copy of old Bill C-3. The 172
amendments moved by the government have simply been incorporated
into the bill.
A bill that has so many flaws cannot be corrected by way of
amendments. What we need to do is scrap it and draft a brand new
bill. While that is being done, the minister should travel
around and consult the people who work with young offenders,
with young people in trouble with the law.
The minister would see that she is going the wrong way. I will
surely have an opportunity later on to give specific examples.
Whenever she has the chance, the minister says “The hon. member
from the Bloc Quebecois never gives any specific examples”.
However, I gave her several examples. Over the course of 27
hours of debates, in the speeches I made in committee, I gave
several examples showing that the new bill would make it
impossible to keep the approach taken in Quebec with young
people in trouble with the law.
I asked questions in the House. Yes, we have time constraints
and we cannot get into details but the examples I gave showed
that with the changes put forward by the minister it would no
longer be possible to take the educational and rehabilitative
approach developed in Quebec over the last 20 years.
It is wrong to claim that there is some flexibility. Too much in
the bill is automatic to give provinces a minimum of
flexibility. The minister does not seem to understand or, rather,
she does not want to understand that. I think this is a better
explanation.
What is the approach in Quebec? Are there any members in
the House who are at least aware of what it is? One might say
that it is based on rehabilitation and reintegration.
In every case, the young person is given priority. Each case is
considered individually. In each case, we look at what we should
give the young person in question to rehabilitate him as quickly
as possible. There is a reason for this, since in section 3 of
the Young Offenders Act, the declaration of principle clearly
states that young persons are not adults and that they must be
treated accordingly. Indeed, young persons are human beings in
training. They cannot be treated as if they were adults, even in
very serious cases.
Yes, there are hopeless cases. Yes, there are cases where a young
offender is a bum and will remain a bum.
1635
In some murder cases, the young offender does not deserve the
same treatment as the one used for rehabilitating young people.
However the current Young Offenders Act does allow the provinces to
decide to have a young person tried in adult court. This is not
hypocritical, this is clear. We know where we are going. It is
true that we apply this in Quebec.
Perhaps we may contradict the minister's numbers, because
according to the Department of Justice in Quebec City it is not
true that 23 cases were referred last year. I am convinced that
more cases are referred in Quebec than in Ontario but perhaps
not 23.
Why are more cases referred in Quebec? Simply because there is a
difference in treatment in Quebec. A young person who under the
referral principle is tried in adult court and sentenced will
not end up in the same place as a young person who is treated as
such. However, in the western provinces, whether a young
offender is dealt with under the law as a young person or as an
adult in adult court, he will often end up in the same place
and get the same treatment, that is no treatment at all.
In Quebec there is a difference. We invest in a young person
who has a chance of being rehabilitated. In Quebec the repeat
offender rate is the lowest in Canada because we enforce the
law. We do what the law allows us to do. We apply the statement
of principles that puts the emphasis on the young person's
needs.
This statement of principles was interpreted by the higher
courts and it took about 15 years for the Supreme Court of
Canada to hand down a clear ruling on what a young offender is
entitled to.
It took 15 years to assess what the real needs of young people
are. Everything that has been accomplished so far is being
thrown out today. The intent of the law is being completely
changed. From now on the young offenders' needs, the underlying
principle of the Young Offenders Act, will no longer be the
guiding principle in interpreting the act, in guiding youth
court judges in sentencing young offenders, it will be the
seriousness of the offence, as we said at the beginning.
This whole bill is focused on the seriousness of the offence.
Even though there have been attempts to include all sorts of
details and to use the word “need” in the bill, this in no way
changes the fact that the courts will interpret it based on the
principle of the seriousness of the offence. This runs counter
to Quebec's approach, which is focused on the needs of the young
offenders.
Moreover, in this new act the minister wants to impose on
Quebec, which is all about the seriousness of the offence, there
is a whole series of automatic sentences preventing those who
want to hand down the appropriate sentence to young offenders
from doing so. The young offenders will even have the right, not
currently available to them, to avoid rehabilitation.
In many cases, if a young offender is given the choice between
serving his time inside, as they say, or going to a rehab centre
and working on his case, what will he choose? He will choose to
serve his time.
It is much easier to do two-thirds of an eight year prison
sentence than to do eight months in a rehabilitation centre
where one has to work with psychologists and other professionals
who will ask questions and work hard to turn one into a
responsible citizen who realizes what he has done.
It is much easier for a youth to do his time, read books and
count the days left until his release than for him to try to
find out what his problem is and why he acted the way he did.
1640
Now that is exactly what the minister is handing to our youth
on a silver platter and crown attorneys will no longer even
have the opportunity to compel the young offender to go through
all that.
The bill is unacceptable for several reasons. The
youth justice system the minister is proposing looks
increasingly like adult justice. This so-called youth criminal
justice act, which will turn our youth into criminals, looks
more and more like the criminal code.
If the application of the criminal code were a big success with
adults, I might think that the government is trying to achieve
the same results with young offenders but it is the opposite.
The application of the criminal code is, in many respects, a
disaster but the government wants to impose it on young
offenders. Some expressions were changed but these were cosmetic
changes.
Under Bill C-7, young offenders no longer face penalties.
Instead, they are liable to face them. Bill C-7 now imposes
sentences. The legislation no longer reprimands a young
offender, it corrects his behaviour. It includes extrajudicial
measures instead of extrajudicial sanctions. This is all very
nice, and while it is good to include terminology that is less
aggressive, the meaning of the act remains the same.
The minister says that she understood Quebec's demands, but she
did not understand anything, in my opinion.
We did not want changes to the wording or synonyms. We simply
wanted the minister not to touch the act.
I mentioned that under the bill it is impossible to review
each case based on its own merits. Certain types of crime are
stereotyped and compartmentalized: this sentence applies to that
crime and that sentence applies this other crime. Where is the
flexibility that would allow Quebec to have its own approach?
All the experts and even lawyers agree that the bill will
promote legal quibbling. Those who have been to the courthouse
realize that there is no benefit in it.
It is an extremely complex bill that no one will understand.
The bill took something out of the existing act, which was made
for young people and also parents, since there are parents who
take an active interest in what young people experiencing
problems are doing. It is not just thugs who end up in court. It
is not just young people without parents.
A bill as complex as Bill C-7 will not be understood except by
judges and lawyers who will have a field day.
The bill does not help the cause of justice for young people or
the society.
I will give other examples and I hope some public servants are
listening if the minister is not. With this bill Quebec will have to change its
approach.
I spoke earlier about the whole philosophy underlying the bill
and I want to come back to this briefly. The current Young
Offenders Act talks about the needs of young persons. The basic
principle of Bill C-7 is the seriousness of the offence committed
by the young offender.
So far the precedents make the needs of the young offenders the
first priority. The case law leans that way. It has established
some models particular to Quebec on rehabilitation. The
philosophy behind the bill is completely different. It deals with
the seriousness of the offence and hands down harsher
sentences. Like it or not, the case law would change at the same
time.
The principle of uniformity of sentencing was in Bill C-3. We are
no longer talking about uniformity of sentencing but rather
about similar sentences in a given region. What does a region
correspond to in criminal law?
1645
Is Quebec a region? Is Ontario a region? Are the maritimes a
region? In any case, when lower courts interpret what the
legislator meant with regard to the seriousness of the offence,
it will go to the higher courts and on to the supreme court.
When these cases come back before the lower courts, the case law
will impact on Quebec if Bill C-7 is fully enforced.
I also said with regard to minor offences—because things are very
compartmentalized in the bill—that at present when a young
person is caught shoplifting or scribbling graffiti, the police
open a file.
That file is immediately referred to the crown attorney. He or
she examines the reports contained in the file and may determine
that the source of the problem is a street gang or perhaps the
young person's parents. He or she takes appropriate action
immediately to get that young person away from the situation
causing the problem.
With Bill C-7, as introduced by the Minister of Justice, the
crown attorney will never see the file and will certainly not be
able to force that young person to enter a rehabilitation
program. The reason for that is that the minister's bill
provides for a whole series of successive measures.
If the first offence is a minor offence, like shoplifting, the
police will only give a warning.
If the same young person travels to the neighbouring town and is
caught shoplifting again the same day, he or she will be given
another warning. Where will that be recorded? If at some point
the offences become more serious, for example large graffiti
involving some violence, a cautionary letter will be sent to the
parents. The crown attorney will never find out.
The bill would prevent Quebec from doing the right thing at the
right time. It is better to invest as soon as the first offence
is committed, when it is not serious, than after three or four
years of delinquency in a neighbourhood, a town or a region. If
the minister's bill becomes law, the whole rehabilitative
approach used in Quebec in cases involving minor offences would
no longer be possible.
As for cases involving major crimes, the minister's approach is
just as harmful. If young offenders are treated as adults, they
will also have the same rights as adults. With the minister's
new bill, a young person receiving an adult sentence of eight
years in prison would get out after serving two-thirds of that
sentence, whether he or she is rehabilitated or not.
The approach used in Quebec is to send these young people to a
rehabilitation centre. When they get out, they are
rehabilitated. Statistics show that the recidivism rate is less
than 1%. Is this what the minister wants? Is the minister
telling us the approach used in Quebec would be maintained with
her bill? No, we would no longer be able to do that. The approach
used in Quebec would no longer be possible.
Let us talk about the delays the minister's new bill would
entail. We now have appearances in court and preliminary
inquiries, and trials by judge and jury. Lots of things are
fictitious in the bill. We are told that the youth justice
court would deal with serious crime, but if one reads the bill
one realizes that it is not the judges of the youth justice
court who would hear these cases but judges of the superior
court acting as judges of the youth justice court.
There are lots of fictitious things which the minister does not
seem to grasp. In the end, the youth court would be influenced.
There would be an influence on case law. There would be an
influence on the Quebec approach, which has been very effective.
I will conclude. We have in the House right now Liberal members
from Quebec, the Ministers responsible for International trade,
Treasury Board, Finance, National Revenue, and
Intergovernmental Affairs. We also have the new member for Laval
East and the members for Brome-Missisquoi, Ahuntsic, and
Gatineau. I hope they will stand up for Quebec and for the
Quebec consensus on this bill, and I hope that they will talk
some sense into the minister.
1650
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this is my first opportunity to participate in this debate in my
new capacity as justice critic for the New Democratic Party. I
listened intently to those who preceded me and I signal my
intention to listen intently in committee and to try to learn as
much as I can.
Even though I might not always agree, I would like to learn as
much as I can from my colleagues on the committee who are more
experienced than I. To that end I listened to the minister, to
the member for Provencher, to the former minister of justice in
my own province, and to my colleague from Quebec.
This is the third time the bill has been introduced in the
House. It was at one point known as Bill C-68, then as Bill C-3,
and now as Bill C-7. Noting that the bill has been before the
House before, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor as
NDP justice critic, the former member for Sydney—Victoria, Mr.
Peter Mancini. Unfortunately he was not re-elected and therefore
could not continue as our justice critic. He had the opportunity
to put forward our party's position and he put it forward well
the last time he spoke to the bill in the second reading context
on October 21, 1999.
It is unfortunate that the bill has not gone ahead. As with
various other projects of the Liberal government, a combination
of government delay, lack of will and an opposition resistance
that has its own merits, has meant that the government has not
been able to act. We collectively have been unable to act to
possibly improve the Young Offenders Act which we all know to be
deficient.
We now have some 15 years of experience with the Young Offenders
Act and it has not lived up to expectations. I am one of the few
people in the House who was here when it was debated and brought
in as a replacement for the former juvenile delinquents act.
There was great expectation at that time that the Young Offenders
Act would be a great improvement on the older legislation which I
think went back to the turn of the century, if I remember
correctly.
The fact that the Young Offenders Act has not worked out the way
many people thought it would and the fact that we now have before
us a new bill should perhaps give us pause and make us all a bit
humble when we realize that the act did not work. Youth crime,
even though it may have gone down in some respects in the past
few years, is certainly up overall when we consider what the
statistics would have looked like when the Young Offenders Act
was brought in or prior to that.
1655
If acts of parliament alone were enough the problem would have
been solved by now, but we still have problems. The minister, by
her own description, has tried to strike a balance between those
who want her to be tougher and those who want her to seek more
and better alternatives to incarceration, particularly with
respect to young non-violent offenders in the first and hopefully
last stages of their encounter with the criminal justice system.
In the coming days and weeks as we debate it further in the
House and as we get into committee, I think the debate will be on
whether it is true that the minister has struck an appropriate
balance or whether she is, as the criticism has been levelled at
her, trying to be all things to all people without really coming
up with an effective piece of legislation. I will certainly be
trying to make my own judgment in that respect in the context of
our overall opposition to the bill, to which I will speak
shortly.
The minister has said she has tried to make the bill more
flexible, particularly in respect to the amendments that have
been introduced since the last time it was before the House. I
understand there has been some attempt to try and satisfy some of
the concerns raised by the Bloc Quebecois as to the ability of
the youth criminal justice system in Quebec to continue to do
what it is doing now, which by all accounts is a comparatively
successful attempt to deal with youth crime.
Some people have said, and I have no reason to doubt them, that
Quebec is one of the few provinces that has been able to do with
the Young Offenders Act what was intended when it was first
brought in. Whether this is true or not, it is certainly the
case if we look at rates of youth crime and the approach the
province of Quebec is taking.
To give credit where credit is due, it is fair to say that
Quebec is doing something right. It may not be reproducible in
an uncritical way in every province because Quebec, after all, is
a distinct society. It may be that things which are possible in
Quebec are not as possible in other provinces, but certainly it
would seem to me that we have much to learn from the approach
taken in Quebec.
If the bill is not flexible enough at this point, if it can be
demonstrated that it is so inflexible as to render impossible the
ability of Quebec to keep doing the things it is doing right,
then surely that is a criticism the minister should take
seriously.
One of the inadequacies identified in the current Young
Offenders Act has been what my predecessor referred to when he
was speaking in the House as an absence of discretion. I will
quote from Mr. Mancini who said on October 21, 1999:
We know, and again I can give some evidence of my own, that in
many cases what happened with the old Young Offenders Act is that
there was an absence of discretion, that police officers, school
teachers and people who routinely came in contact with young
people ended up referring matters to the courts, even if they
were the most simple matters where some cautioning or some
exercise of discretion may well have dealt with the matters.
I have seen in the courts young people coming in charged with
damage to property because they got into an argument with a
schoolmate over a school locker or where young people end up in
court on trespassing charges because they walked across a
neighbour's lawn. There is no need to clog the courts up with
these kinds of offences when we have serious matters that have to
go before the courts.
I think that is a particularly insightful criticism of the Young
Offenders Act.
I think it points to the heart of the matter when it comes to
finding the right spirit in dealing with young people.
1700
I am reminded, as I often am with justice matters, of a person
in my family, my grandfather, Alex Taylor, who was the chief of
police in Transcona for many years, and before that a constable.
Subsequent to being the chief of police, he became a justice of
the peace. Although he has been gone for 40 years, I still run
into people on the doorstep who say “your grandfather gave me a
boot in the rear end once when I needed it”, or “your
grandfather took me home once when he could have taken me to
jail” or “your grandfather put me in jail for the night when I
needed a lesson”. This was long before there was a charter.
All these things demonstrate to me a certain amount of
discretion, mercy and exercise of judgment when it comes to young
people that sometimes can only be exercised by people who know
the community, or who know the family or who know that young
person.
In that context, I make the argument for more and better
community policing. Our young people should be policed by people
who know them and who know their communities. They should not be
policed in the impersonal way that they are now so often policed
in our larger cities where police do not work in the communities
they live in or where they are transferred all over the place and
nobody knows anybody anymore.
It seems to me that this absence of discretion is a key element
of what is wrong with the Young Offenders Act. However, there
was another absence, and this is one that I like to also dwell
on. There was an absence not just of discretion, but of
resources to deal with the process that was set up by the Young
Offenders Act. We see that same mistake repeated in the new
youth criminal justice bill. This is one of our fundamental
concerns.
As has been said by members who spoke earlier, the act is quite
complex, cumbersome and lays new responsibilities down for the
provinces. It introduces new layers at the same time it does
a good thing by introducing discretion. It does not introduce
the resources to make the exercise of that discretion happen in a
way which would be both constructive and speedy.
One thing we all know, and I think all the literature agrees on,
is that when it comes to young people, it is important that there
be as short a time as possible between the action and the
consequences. What the minister has done is create a process by
virtue of the increased complexity of the process and the lack of
resources committed to making that complexity work, if that is
possible. By doing this, the minister may well have created a
situation where the length of time between action and consequence
has been stretched out even further. It would seem that this is
indeed one of the key criticisms that will be brought to bear on
this legislation.
The complexity was alluded to by the Alliance critic but
probably not as explicitly as I would have expressed it. That
might have to do with the fact that the Alliance critic is a
lawyer. He alluded to the fact that this was going to be a
field day for the litigious. I think what meant was that this
could well be the biggest job creation program for lawyers that
we have seen in a long time. However, it is not the first job
creation program for lawyers that I have seen go through this
place.
1705
For example and as I understand it, the reverse onus provisions
change the existing situation whereby the state now has to argue
for youth between the ages of 14 and 17 to be brought before
adult court. Under this new law it will be the youths themselves
who will have to say why they should not be advanced. This is
debatable in itself.
Leaving that aside for a moment, who is going to make these
arguments on behalf of these 14 to 17 years olds? Are they going
to make the arguments themselves? These arguments are going to
have to be made either by the lawyers who their parents hire or,
given the fact that a great percentage of the youths who get into
such trouble do not have parents who can afford lawyers, it is
going to mean a whole new dimension of legal aid and costs which
have been put on the provinces without the added resources.
What we see is a pattern of downloading costs onto the provinces
which is quite unacceptable. Unfortunately, it is part of
pattern that we have seen not just in justice but in other areas,
for instance medicare. The federal government wants to set the
rules, but it allows its participation financially in the
administration of those rules to constantly erode. At the moment
the federal government is only participating to the tune of about
25%. That is high compared to health care which is 9% to 13%,
depending on whose figures we believe.
There are other things that I could have spoken about, but time
flies while having fun talking about the Young Offenders Act.
One of the things the bill does not do and I am glad that it
does not do, and I want to put this on the record, is it does not
deal with children under 12 in the context of the bill. That is
a position taken by the federal NDP, which we continue to
support. It does not mean there should not be a strategy for
dealing with children under 12. One of the things that the
Manitoba NDP government is looking at very seriously is how to
deal with young offenders 10 and 11 years old, both in the
context of what they do themselves and also what they are led to
do by others who are using their young age to their advantage.
It was mentioned earlier that one of the virtues of the old
piece of legislation, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, was that it
dealt with children under the age of 12. We need to find,
subsequent to this bill, a way for the federal and provincial
levels to co-operate in facing up to the fact that we have a
problem, in more cases than we would care to admit perhaps, with
children at that very young level. We need co-ordinated
federal-provincial strategy for dealing with that. It should be,
at least as I see it at the moment, outside the ambit of the way
we deal with 12 to 18 year olds.
I want to say that we support the release of names in some
circumstances, but we believe that in this respect there should
still be a role for judges in exercising discretion as to when
and in what circumstances names should be released. The reason
we have judges is to make these kinds of judgments. It is
consistent with our overall argument that there ought to be more
discretion built into the system not just for judges but also for
police officers.
1710
The rest of my speech will address the fact that not only do we
need to be, in an appropriate sense, tough on crime, we also need
to be tough on the causes of crime. Had I another 20 minutes, I
would certainly go into all the social and economic measures
which I think would help to support families and to create and
reinforce the kind of values in our society that would go a long
way in preventing young offenders from offending in the first
place.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to make sure people are in
their usual seats, if they want to seek the floor. Is the member
for Wild Rose in his usual seat?
Mr. Myron Thompson: That's what is says here.
The Deputy Speaker: Well, he is then in his proper seat.
I just cannot seem to keep track of all the real estate movement
that goes on in this place from time to time.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have made a lot of mistakes in my life, but I have
always managed to sit where I am supposed to.
I appreciate the comments from the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona. It is too bad that he did not have more
time to speak on the causes. I am going to give him an
opportunity to do so.
I know in his region in Winnipeg that a very serious problem is
developing regarding gangs, particularly youth gangs. There is
one particular gang that comes to mind. I think it is called The
Deuce. What I know about these gangs is a number of adults are
actually exploiting these children to benefit their own processes
of drug dealing, prostitution or whatever it may be.
Personally, I am really sick of seeing pimps, who are pimping
young girls even under 15 years of age, getting a slap on the
wrist when they are picked up by the police and taken to court. I
am also tired of drug dealers who are distributing to these young
people and getting another slap on the wrist. They are
exploiting our youth to unbelievable proportions.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that particular
aspect. I know it is a serious problem in most of our major
cities.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that
although the Chair may regard him that way, I have never regarded
the hon. member for Wild Rose as a piece of real estate.
I acknowledge the concern that the hon. member has raised. It
is a very real concern to the people of Winnipeg, and as he
indicated, to people in other cities.
In Winnipeg we certainly have a problem with youth gangs.
However, it is not just with youth gangs. Sometimes it is a
mistake to assume that all these gangs are people who would fall
within the age group of the Young Offenders Act. There are an
awful lot of older adults involved in these gangs as well. These
adults use young people to their advantage, people who are old
enough to be covered by the act and people who are younger.
I said earlier, that the Manitoba NDP government is concerned
with trying to find ways to deal with that issue. That is also
why earlier in a previous parliament, I brought in a private
member's bill dealing with anti-gang legislation. It seems to me
that this is one of the things that we have to address. We of
course know that our colleagues from Quebec are very concerned
about that because of their own experience. It would seem to me
that one of the things the government should look at is bringing
in anti-gang legislation of some kind that would give it a better
handle and a better instrument with which to deal with these
problems.
Finally, I would like to say a bit of what I think about the
conditions that sometimes lead to crime. We need to recognize
the links between social conditions and crime, while at the same
time creating a renewed sense of individual responsibility for
one's actions. A deficient upbringing of one kind or another may
be an explanation but in the end it is no excuse for morally
reprehensible actions.
It is true that unemployment, inner city decay, drug addiction,
child abuse, child poverty and an ever widening gap between the
most and least prosperous in society create certain negative
factors. However, it is also true that some of the most
frightening and senseless acts of violence are committed by
people who are not socially or environmentally deprived.
1715
A very real problem is that too many Canadians are growing up in
a moral vacuum, where the very notion of right and wrong seems to
be called into question. This morally deprived environment, I
believe, is partly the product of the violence and the
shamelessness of modern TV programming and media advertising, but
that is only part of the problem.
Our entire culture has become one which emphasizes the bottom
line and self-interest over everything, so it is not that some of
these kids who offend do not have values. They do. They have
picked up the vulgar, materialistic and individualistic morals of
the marketplace that they are bombarded with and they are
applying them to every aspect of their lives. It is something we
should all be concerned about.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona in regard to the statistics he is referring
to. In particular, I heard in his speech and also in other
speeches that the province of Quebec has a very low rate of youth
offences and youth crime.
I know from my 30 years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
that I filled out statistics in the very forms that we are
talking about here. I know that those statistics can be quite
easily manipulated by the criteria and by the number of diversion
programs where youths are pushed away from the statistics forms
prior to them actually being recorded as having offended against
the criminal code or some other issue. I would like the member
to comment on that.
Also, I think the relationship in regard to youth crime being so
low in Quebec is not accurate, because Quebec has a massive
problem with organized crime. Organized crime is right down into
the individual public schools and the junior highs and high
schools in Quebec.
I do not have the statistics for this, but in my opinion youth
crime is being grossly understated in the province of Quebec. I
have given the reasons why I say that: because of the criteria
that are given to the police to record the statistics and because
of the fact that there is a massive organized crime problem in
Quebec. In my experience, organized criminals start out as youth
and move into assisting those who are at the middle levels of
organized crime.
As a result, we have to be cautious in accepting that the
programs and the diversion methods in the province of Quebec are
those that should be applied to the whole country.
I would ask the member to comment on the points I have raised if
in fact that is what he is advocating
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was simply reporting
what I understand to be a consensus in terms of the analysis of
what has happened in Quebec.
I certainly would not quarrel with the member and his contention
that Quebec has an organized crime problem. Everyone
acknowledges that, and so does the Bloc, but whether that in some
way counters the other observation that is often made about
Quebec, which is that in terms of its youth criminal justice
system it has been doing something right, I do not necessarily
see the connection. If the member has a study on that to show
me, I would be willing to look at it, but at this point I would
certainly tend to stand by what I had to say.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by congratulating my colleague for
Winnipeg—Transcona and fellow House leader on his first speech
on a justice bill as a new member of the justice committee.
I would certainly agree with your earlier assessment, Mr.
Speaker. He has never been accused of being short in either
stature or loquaciousness.
This is a very important piece of legislation that is before the
House. It is a bill that has reappeared in a very similar
fashion to that form which it took in the last parliament. This
bill, I would suggest, is of such importance that I am hoping
that both through the process that we are currently embarking on
in the Chamber and in committee we will have ample opportunity to
bring forward meaningful amendments.
1720
All previous speakers have alluded as well to their party's
position and their hope and desire that we will have an
opportunity to improve upon this legislation.
I want to say right at the outset that the philosophy behind
this bill and the attempt to focus and to front-end load efforts
at early intervention and at preventative measures for youth who
are embarking upon a potential life in crime, who are heading
down the road of involvement in the criminal justice system, is
the correct approach. To that end, the bill does try to steer
the current justice system in that direction. The failings,
however, become very obvious when one starts to examine the text
of the bill itself.
First there is the simple physical appearance of the bill. It
appears voluminous when compared to the existing legislation. It
is in fact almost double the size of the current Young Offenders
Act. The current Young Offenders Act has been much maligned and
criticized in its 17 years. It is now maturing and is almost an
adult now, under the old definition.
This particular bill in its current form is so complex, so
convoluted and cumbersome that were it to be enacted in its
current form, the delays, the interpretations, the legal jargon
and the manipulations that would result would be astronomical.
As committee members during the previous parliament, we heard
numerous opinions on how the bill would work in its practical
application. We heard learned judges say they did not understand
it. Judges with years of experience in interpreting the current
act read the legislation and said they could not understand how
it would work in application. That is frightening when the bill
appears on the precipice of going into operation.
There are a number of other specific elements of the bill that I
would like to address in my remarks, but I do also want to
acknowledge the attempted changes put in place by the government
and the Department of Justice. They do speak specifically to one
of the issues that was identified, most obviously by the Bloc
Quebecois. The changes speak to the issue of how justice is
being administered currently in the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
I am very pleased with the present situation in the area of
justice in Quebec. The situation in Quebec is clear. Quebec is
ahead of the other provinces as far as its approach to justice
is concerned.
[English]
It is a model as to how the past system can be worked in a very
positive fashion because of the emphasis the province of Quebec
puts on this proactive and forward looking attempt at identifying
youth at risk early in the process.
Again, this is the failing of the bill, for the simple reason
that unlike the way the current legislation is being administered
in Quebec, this bill will create a false sense of security. The
bill, while raising expectations that the emphasis will be there,
does not provide the support. The bill does not put in place
resources to allow this expectation to be fulfilled while
downloading—the word used by my colleague from the NDP—the
expectation that youth workers, police, judges, probation
officers, all those involved in the administration at the front
lines of justice, will be asked to intervene in a child's life at
an early stage, which they are currently doing.
However, they will not be given that backup. They will not be
provided with the resources, the time, the effort or the programs
needed to administer the bill. That is almost worse. It is
almost worse to raise expectations and then not provide the
resources. That is the major failing of the bill itself, coupled
with the complexity.
My friend and others in the Chamber have mentioned the
discretion that is involved in the administration of this new
legislation. There is nothing wrong with having a healthy degree
of discretion, but the bill itself in many instances takes away
the discretion and creates a new level of process, a new level of
sentencing, for example, wherein the concept of early release,
statutory release, which is one of the major failings of the
current adult system, is now being interjected into our youth
court system.
1725
We in the previous parliament also looked at removing mandatory
release from the current adult system, so it is ironic that the
Department of Justice in its wisdom has come back and presented
before the House a bill that puts in place a system that is
highly questionable and arguably puts Canadians in danger. The
department is putting this into the youth system.
It also puts in place a very interesting and, I would suggest,
flawed process of identifying violent versus non-violent
offences. There will be a sort of informal hearing to determine
whether the case is going to be tried as a violent or non-violent
offence. I would suggest that again this is a misplaced use of
discretion.
There is also another interesting element of discretion, whereby
police officers are going to be encouraged to use their
discretion on the street in exercising justice, which they do
every day. They are going to be encouraged to on occasion
administer a couple of boots in the rear end, as was referenced
in a story by the member from Winnipeg—Transcona about his
grandfather, I believe, to a young person who may be involved in
what we will call a minor mischief offence such as vandalism, we
will say. I have a friend back in Nova Scotia, a defence lawyer
from Antigonish named Hector MacIsaac, who calls this the Matt
Dillon style of justice that police often administer, in their
wisdom and with measured and tempered discretion.
The problem with this system is that, first, there is no
tracking of the number of times a young person may be brought
home, marched into a parent's living room and counselled by the
officer.
Second, there is also no ability for the officers to do this
under the current restraints that they are experiencing. We are
now asking police officers to take the time to be youth workers,
counsellors, in some cases surrogate parents, and to sit down and
explain to the young person that this is unacceptable and
potentially criminal behaviour. It is not that a lot of police
officers are not currently trying to do this, but again it raises
the bar of expectations and yet there is no delivery under this
act to provide the backup and the resources.
The current system does not have any of these new, innovative
and proactive provisions. It is being funded at less than 50% in
many provinces right now, much less than the 50% which was the
original intent of the Young Offenders Act. The original
intention of parliament was that the federal government would
pick up at least 50% of the administrative costs of youth
justice. That is not happening, and in some provinces funding is
abysmally low.
The consistency element of the act is also something that is
extremely important. I agree that there has been an attempt by
the minister in this current act to accommodate provinces like
Quebec that want to have discretion. I know in that an ideal
world the Bloc would like to be able to opt out completely, not
only out of this bill but many other bills. However, having that
type of discretion, where the sentencing range could be
extraordinary if this were to be permitted, is extremely
troublesome, I suggest, particularly in the context of youth.
Consistency is extremely important for youth in the
administration of justice. Consistency and a firm approach at
times when they are needed are very important in sending that
message to a young person.
Deterrence and denunciation are two words that are constantly
left out of the discussion around this bill, yet they appear
daily in courts throughout the land. Denouncing and deterring
young people from repeating the behaviour, along with sending a
message to like-minded youth, should very much be the intent of
the bill. It is not verboten in any way, shape or form to have a
message of specific or general deterrence. It is accepted
practice. It is accepted practice in the adult courts and in the
language that is currently used in youth courts.
One of the other important contexts to keep in mind here is the
delay that is involved in the administering of justice.
Young people need to be held accountable in close proximity for
the behaviour that is the subject of the criminal charges.
Currently we see lengthy delays between the time of charge,
arraignment and trial. The new legislation will expand that
delay exponentially. It is accepted among practitioners, those
on the frontlines, those who will be administering the bill, that
this will create new loopholes. It was referred to as a make
work program for lawyers.
1730
I have a lot of friends in the legal community who are smiling
with glee. They are counting their billable hours in
anticipation of the legislation coming into effect. It will
allow delays. There is an old saying that delay is the deadliest
form of denial. It is particularly acute and exaggerated with a
young person.
The consequences, if there are to be some after due process,
must come in close proximity to the actions. To make an
impression in a young person's mind, it is particularly important
that delay be avoided when possible. That is not to say that
cases should be rushed, but the streamlining and common sense
approach in legislation like this is critical. It is critical
for public confidence and for those administrators, whether they
be lawyers, most importantly judges, police or probation
officers, that the bill be understandable and that the public be
able to decipher the legislation. That certainly is not achieved
in the bill.
It reminds me in the broader context that perhaps we should have
a separate committee in this place that would look at somehow
making all legislation more understandable to those who would be
most affected by it. That again is a major failing of the
legislation.
Its complexity has been compared to the revenue act. One person
said it was tougher than Chinese arithmetic. The bill has many
cross-references and new sections. There are all sorts of ways
to manoeuvre through the bill which will create endless delays
and in many ways thwart the course of justice.
Statistics are often referred to in the debate about youth crime
being up or youth crime being down. The most important
verification of what is happening on the street is to talk to the
police, the court workers and those on the frontlines who are
administering the law. They will tell us that violent crime is
up.
Violent crime, particularly that committed by young women, is on
the rise. The use of weapons in violent crimes is increasing.
That is a disturbing trend that is not directly addressed by the
legislation. He concept of somehow defining violent versus
non-violent versus serious violent offences blurs the entire
issue, so much so that in one of the sections so-called simple
assault is not deemed a violent offence. That is perverse.
Statistics Canada also highlights another weakness in the
system. Based on August 2000 statistics, almost half of
convicted youth in 1998-99 were merely placed on probation.
Three-quarters of custodial sentences were for three months or
less and 90% were for six months or less. Two per cent of
convicted offenders got more than a year. Only .1% of youth
crimes made it to adult court through the transfer provisions.
This puts it in a different context because much of the debate
will get blurred in the rhetoric of whether it is a tougher or
weaker bill. The statistics bear out that we are not currently
throwing young people in jail at an alarming rate. That is not
the intention of the legislation.
There has to be injected in all of this an element of
accountability and protection of the public.
These are two fundamental cornerstones of any justice system,
particularly youth justice.
1735
The element of accountability has often been lost. Currently
the perception held by young people, and many who view the young
offender system as not protecting them, is that it protects young
people who are being brought into the system, as opposed to
victims and those who have suffered at the hands of a young
person who transgressed the law.
Repeat offences are a big problem when it comes to youth. I
have seen many instances where it takes five, six, or seven court
appearances before a young person is given a custodial sentence.
In fact, 48% of those convicted had at least one previous
conviction. There is very often a trend of escalating behaviour
that leads to a life of crime. It demonstrates the point that
early intervention and perhaps an attempt at restorative justice
or alternative measures should be pursued, highlighting the need
for resources.
Frontline victims groups and police officers are upset that the
definition of common assault, as I have alluded to earlier, is
not considered to be violent. There is another element in terms
of who is covered by the act. There is a lot of distortion about
the position of the Progressive Conservative Party and others who
have taken a similar stance, that those under the age of 12
should be included in such a way that they could benefit from the
provisions aimed at extricating a young person from a life of
crime.
I certainly believe there is merit in having earlier
intervention and the ability to avail a young person of programs
aimed at drug dependency and at violent behaviour. Young people
are often victims and in homes where they have been subjected to
terrible abuses.
Why should we not have a transfer provision that takes children
at the age of 10 or 11 and puts them into a system where they
could avail themselves of those programs; not to hammer them, not
to throw them in jail with other young people where we know they
are often able to learn from older youth about more sophisticated
crime, but to get them into programs?
That discretion is there on the part of a judge. It is not
intended to take young people and put them in an adult court
system. We can currently take a youth and put him or her into an
adult system. Why should we not be able to take children who
have involved themselves in serious behaviour and put them into
the youth system?
There are recent examples. An 11 year old boy in Edmonton
walked into a bank in broad daylight and proceeded to rob it.
Instances were reported of 12 and 13 year old girls in Calgary
who beat an elderly woman in her own home. The 12 and 13 year
olds were charged with robbery. Nothing could be done to the 11
year old.
Children under 12 and older youths are expected to be dealt with
through provincially administered programs which are supposed to
be receiving funding from the government. That funding level has
not been met.
The front end preventive measures are very much a positive
element of the bill. Other important changes could be made that
will send the message of deterrence. They should be included in
the bill and in the language of the text. The positive changes
in this area of law and law enforcement are extremely important.
We are committed to working with all parties and all members of
the committee to try to improve the youth court system; to try to
build safer communities, which this entire process is supposed to
be aimed at; and to try to give law enforcement agents, those who
are to administer the law and the stakeholders the resources they
need. We will be submitting those amendments at the committee
stage where we will be speaking to them there.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his fine
delivery. A common trend has developed across Canada which is
generally called bullying by an older student or a bigger student
on the playground or on the way from home. Often this is
assault, but when I follow through on such cases the particular
individual is never charged with assault.
At the present time the school, the staff and the principal are
restricted in what they can and cannot do. This phenomenon is
growing.
It is a national phenomenon that we need to stop. I would like
my learned friend to comment on that, because it does lead to
more offences later on.
1740
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from
Souris—Moose Mountain for the question. The issue that he
speaks to, assaults taking place on school grounds, is something
that I have seen and is one that, sadly, I think we have all
heard of. What often happens is that a judge, as part of the
sentence, will put in a probation order that the young person who
has engaged in the bullying behaviour must attend school, where
he has been, in many cases, inciting problems and engaging in
assaults against other people.
I am also concerned about the issue of swarming. I would very
much like to see a specific section in our current criminal code
that addresses swarming. This is extremely dangerous behaviour,
where a gang mentality takes over. Young people lose their
anonymity and light into an unsuspecting victim and assault them
in a serious way. We have seen, in British Columbia, the sad
case of Rena Virk. There are other examples where young people
engage in these extremely horrific assaults of swarming. Jonathan
Wamback is another tragic example. We would very much like to
see the insertion of a specific code section that identifies this
and has a specific, perhaps mandatory, minimum sentence that
would be imposed for those who engage in swarming.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member opposite is critical of the period of supervision
following a custodial sentence. Does he not feel that this is
eminently more superior than the present system where, at the end
of an individual's period of custody, the door is open and out he
walks? Does he not feel that a period of supervision will assist
the aims of rehabilitation and reintegration, especially when
that period is not statutory and is set by the sentencing judge?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary may have misinterpreted my position. I completely
agree that supervision after release is fine. There is the
ability of a judge to currently impose a period of incarceration
and probation. It has to be considered as part of the entire
sentence that is being meted out.
Certainly the issue of being released cold into the community is
part of this broader issue of statutory release. However, that
is one of the failings. We are setting young people up if we
inject this current system that exists in the adult system into
the youth court system.
I do agree that the probationary period, the supervision that
occurs, is perhaps equally important in order to see that there
is no recidivism, no sliding back into the criminal behaviour.
That is why the following conditions are so important: must not
associate; must refrain from the use of or possession of drugs
and alcohol; must attend counselling; and must stay away from
certain people, including the victim. That is why those
conditions are there. They are part of the whole rehabilitative
process.
That is absolutely consistent with the Conservative Party's
policy on this. We in no way, shape or form back away from the
importance of rehabilitation and the importance of long term
supervision for young people, if and when necessary.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my hon. colleague. We talk about addressing
the needs of young people, more of whom seem to be getting
involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Instead of
addressing it through legislation, does he not think that one of
the ways in which we could perhaps solve this problem, or at
least partially solve the problem, is by addressing the
educational, social and recreational needs of many of these
people? I believe governments generally have abandoned our young
people when it comes to leisure and recreational needs. I would
like his comments on that.
1745
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and
colleague from St. John's West. He raises a terrific point. This
is part of the broader debate about what can be done on the
preventive side of things.
He would be very quick to agree that youth programs, whether
they be music programs or sport and recreation programs that he
has referenced, are absolutely the direction we should be headed
in when it comes to the administration of youth justice. This is
where the emphasis should be. This is where the money should be
spent.
The programs, if administered properly, will pay huge dividends
in the future. The difficulty is that it is hard to gauge. It
is hard to display in a statistical fashion the preventive
approach. It is hard to say that if we spend the money now it
will save x number of dollars in the future.
It is very clear that when young people have something to do and
something to occupy their time they are not hanging out on street
corners. They are not engaging in drug use. They are not
breaking into the homes of the elderly. Those programs teach
important values to young people. They teach them self-respect
and respect for their community.
I could not agree more with my hon. friend that this is where we
should focus much of the debate and much of our time, energy and
resources, in the pursuit of a system for youth justice that
works for the country.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Quadra.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7, the
youth criminal justice act. Before I begin, I would like to
congratulate my colleagues in the Quebec caucus for the great
work they did in suggesting amendments to Bill C-3. It must be
pointed out that thanks to their efforts and the valuable input
from stakeholders we are able to introduce a bill which offers a
balance between the need to protect society and the needs of
adolescents, who will be responsible for the society of tomorrow.
I have looked at Bill C-7 using the eye's of a lawyer, one who
has had experience in Young Offenders Act cases, and I find that
it respects the rights of young people more and leaves more
leeway for the frontline workers, including the police and
community organizations involved in crime prevention in the
regions.
The preamble of the bill sets out society's responsibility to
address the developmental challenges and the needs of young
persons and to guide them to adulthood. It also provides the
need to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes.
I was staggered to hear the Bloc Quebecois critic say that it
was preferable to have an adolescent's record handled by the
crown prosecutor. He said “Mr. Speaker, currently, when an
adolescent commits a minor offence, the matter is referred to
the crown prosecutor, who determines whether the young person
needs help. If so, the Quebec system rehabilitates him
immediately”.
Why would a crown prosecutor be in a better position to decide
the future of a young person than a neighbourhood police officer
or a community agency long involved in the field? Why the
outcry when clause 6 proposes letting the police decide whether
“to take no further action, warn the young person, administer a
caution,—or, with the consent of the young person, refer the
young person to a program or agency in the community that may
assist the young person not to commit offences”.
What is the problem with wanting the young person to be treated
in his community instead of sending him to detention when he
commits a minor offence?
For the sceptics, I add that clause 7 of the bill gives the
attorney general or any other minister the authority to
establish a program authorizing the police to administer
cautions to young persons instead of starting judicial
proceedings.
1750
In my riding of Laval East, the Centre Défi-jeunesse in
Saint-François is set in a middle income community where the
social structure is 91% focused on the family. Young people aged
13 to 18 represent 10% of the population and are especially hard
hit since they have to deal with issues like welfare and single
parent families or are trying to make it on their own on a low
income.
The Centre Défi-jeunesse Saint-François was established in 1992,
eight years ago already, to extend a helping hand to young people
with emotional, social and relationship problems linked to their
family, social or criminal situation or to their substance abuse.
The organization can rely on well-known supporters like the
Saint-François police department, the CLSC des Milles-Îles, the
Fleur Soleil school and the merchants of the Promenades de
Saint-François shopping centre located nearby.
The organization recently launched a project called Défi sans
violence, spearheaded by community police officers and nurses
from the CLSC. They were able to reach 400 young people. It is
because our government believes in prevention that it has
provided almost $32 million to crime prevention programs,
including more than $4 million in Quebec.
The Centre Défi-jeunesse just received $50,000 for its project
called Rassembler les deux mondes. It would be able to send a
facilitator to Iqualuit, the capital of Nunavut, to give
workshops on violence and crime prevention in collaboration with
organizations working in the field.
Others projects will be coming soon.
I spoke to the director, Mrs. Talbot, who told me that thanks to
that experience, young people have learned to work with police
officers and now the rapport between the two groups is nothing
short of extraordinary.
Under Bill C-7, it would no longer be possible to place in
custody a first time young offender who commits a minor offence.
Why should we absolutely incarcerate a young person who commits a
minor offence? Do people realize what it means to have an open
file in a youth court? Do they realize what it means for parents
who have to parade before the court when there are other
solutions? If this is what is currently going on in Quebec, let
us debate the issue.
I know crown attorneys who work at the youth court. I would
rather trust the police officer walking the beat in a
neighbourhood because, in my opinion, he certainly has a better
idea of what is going on than the crown attorney in his ivory
tower at the courthouse, if only because the latter is often
overburdened following all kinds of budget cuts.
I also think that we can better rehabilitate young offenders by
putting them, as provided under clause 6, in the hands of
stakeholders or experts in the community who know criminal gangs
and street gangs in that area.
In this morning's edition of Le Devoir, the following title is
eloquent:
The article mentions that:
The picture is not rosy in the youth assistance network.
Rehabilitation centres are constantly clogged up. The
administrative component takes precedence over the clinical
component and the legal component, takes precedence over social
law.
In October, Quebec's Commission des droits de la personne et de
la jeunesse condemned the repressive nature of the living
conditions imposed on young people in youth centres. Such is the
situation of Quebec's network.
I would like our friends opposite to reflect on Quebec minister
Gilles Baril's view on an approach that judicializes young people
too quickly.
1755
I would like the members opposite to think before they argue in
favour of the status quo, giving as their reason that Quebec has
a low crime rate. It is too simplistic to claim that because
Quebec's crime rate is very low, the system is working well in
Quebec. Some caution is in order.
Who is telling us that this reduction in violent crimes by young
people in Quebec is not due to the work of our neighbourhood
police, our community crime prevention organizations and our
stakeholders, such as the Centre de défi-jeunesse de
Saint-François, which has been working for eight years in the
area of youth crime prevention?
What we must realize, and this is fundamental, is that the most
prevalent crime among young people is theft. In the case of
violent crimes, simple assault, the less serious kind, tops the
list.
Who is telling us that we cannot attribute this drop in violence
to the zero tolerance policy enforced by our police officers in
Quebec, to the schools and to other stakeholders?
This is what the Bar said in its brief on Bill C-3. It
never said that crime was down because of the intervention of
crown attorneys and the incarceration of young first time
offenders.
What minister Baril revealed to Quebec was not just the reality
of the situation, but I would add that the reality is worse
still. If members were to take a stroll through the youth
courts, they would see that the system is not working at all.
Members should ask young people how many times they have had to
appear in court, how many times their case has been rescheduled
because of the backlog, how many times they have had to miss
school and their parents have had to miss work to appear before
the youth court only to be told to come back another day.
In conclusion, I think—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but I attempted, through the means at my disposal, to indicate
that her time was almost up, and the fact is it has run now out.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I find it most distressing that a Quebec MP should try to cast
aspersions on the great success of Quebec's justice system for
young people.
I find what she has had to say very dangerous. She has
deliberately mixed up the jurisdiction over the administration of
justice and the federal jurisdiction. I have never said that the
Quebec system worked like a charm but I have said that it worked
well.
An hon. member: Better.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If there are administrative problems
today in the youth centres, why is that? It is because at the
present time the government over there owes $850 million for the
application of the Young Offenders Act, as the former minister of
justice even admitted.
Let the hon. member not try to preach to the government of
Quebec. Let her look at what is going on within the Liberal
government.
When she says she has practiced youth law, I would have some
doubts about how effective she was judging by what she said
here. She has just said that the Commission des services
juridiques du Québec lied when it said it was opposed to the
minister's bill.
What do the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the teaching
federations, the school of criminology of the University of
Montreal, legal community centres, defence lawyers, prosecutors,
the Institut Pinel, the Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Association des chefs de pompiers du Québec and many others I
could name have to say? They say that the minister and the hon.
member are mistaken in saying that the Young Offenders Act is a
good law. They say Bill C-7 should never see the light of day.
That is what Quebec says.
1800
Quebec wants something very simple, and if the member really
wants to defend Quebec, if she really wants to defend groups like
Défi sans violence, if she really wants the bill passed quickly,
she should put pressure on the minister to include the right for
Quebec to opt out, no ifs, ands or buts, and the bill will be
passed and in her hands in five minutes.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm realize that the bill would generate
significant additional moneys for Quebec since the amounts given
to that province for the administration of justice would finally
be adjusted, rising from 17% to 23%?
Quebec would get $200 million out of the $951 million allocated
to the youth justice system.
It is not me but Quebec minister Baril who said that changes are
necessary to put the youth justice network back on track.
I do not understand why the opposition boasts about
judicializing youth cases on the first offence and claims to be
proud to do so. It is time someone stood up for young people.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether she
is doing it on purpose but the member is getting her facts mixed
up.
Quebec has the highest rate of decriminalization for young
offenders in all of Canada. Quebec has the lowest rate of
incarceration in all of Canada. Quebec has the lowest crime rate
in all of Canada. Quebec has the lowest recidivism rate in all of
Canada.
My question is quite simple. Next time, before the member gives
a speech, will she at least take the time not only to read the
minister's bill and the ministerial briefing notes, but also
briefs presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights? She would realize that what she is saying is pure
nonsense.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Speaker, I can see my colleague
is somewhat disturbed by my position. I think it is about time
that it be known that when a crown prosecutor makes a decision
regarding a young offender, he necessarily opens a file in youth
court. What follows after that? It follows that the young
offender must appear before the court, plead one way or another
and so on.
Mr. Richard Marceau: No, this is not true.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, this is not true.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry, but the time
allotted for questions and comments has expired.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to first address the constituents of Vancouver—Quadra
who have entrusted with me the duty of coming to work with
government on the important public policy issues to Canadians, as
well as to work across party lines. That will be the spirit of
my remarks today.
Vancouver—Quadra has unparalleled physical beauty, cultural
diversity, prosperity, the greatest research university linking
us to the new economy in Canada, as well as three major hospitals
dealing with women's health, children's health and a teaching
hospital. Of course it never rains in Vancouver either.
The issues of youth justice, protection of the public and the
best interests of children and youth are immensely important to
Canadians. Today, I would like to briefly address the principles
behind Bill C-7, as well as the common cause that I see
developing over the last 20 years toward dealing with this issue
in a holistic and realistic way. These issues did not start with
this debate or this bill. These issues have been going on for at
least 25 years, since I have been practising law.
The Berger royal commission on children in the 1970s in
British Columbia identified unified family courts, the important
configuration of the youth justice system with the child welfare
system and the use of community accountability panels. We have
been working across the country at different levels of success to
try to apply these principles over time, but not with requisite
success. In my respectful submission, we are reaching toward
that situation with this bill, the capacity actually to move
forward on the key principles that I think people throughout the
House agree on.
1805
The principle of prevention is absolutely critical. I would
like to mention one aspect of prevention which is the root cause
of youth crime. If we look at the root cause of poverty, the
despair that it causes, the levels of despair in impoverished and
many native communities, we understand that that despair
underlies the overrepresentation of native people in the criminal
justice system. The throne speech has directed its intention
toward resolving that. The most serious indicator of despair in
an impoverished community is the youth suicide rate. The bill
together with youth social services must come together to deal
with youth suicide.
Accountability is absolutely critical. However, it is critical
that we target accountability so that we know where victim
reconciliation or mediation, community accountability or
community service can be most effective. As the member said
earlier, it can be a much rougher time for people to face their
own community, or the victim, or their own family or do community
service immediately and directly related to what they were
involved with.
Responsibility and accountability are also critically important.
We have to distinguish punishment from the need to rehabilitate
and reintegrate youth into our society. No matter how serious
the crime, and there are very serious youth criminals as all
members know, people will get out. We must not allow monsters
back into our society. We must stress serious rehabilitation and
reintegration. This bill addresses some of those issues.
Let me briefly address the issue of where there is a common
cause. I heard it addressed across the spectrum today. We must
address youth crime in terms of continuums along a number of
dimensions. There is a dimension of age. There is a dimension
of severity of crime. There is a dimension of social and mental
health needs of that offender. There is a degree of common cause
that I believe is developing.
For youths under 12 years old, there are differences being
expressed in the House but the objectives are the same. It is to
protect society as well as to ensure that the interests of the
youth, their families and communities are looked after.
I read the debates of last year on the former bill. A member of
the Canadian Alliance was debating the issue of youth under 12. I
found some real reasoning in it and it was a good reason. I have
not heard that today. It was bring young offenders perhaps into
the purview of the courts so they can be protected from being
victimized by elder criminals. By doing that, it would keep them
away from the criminal element. That is a valid point of view. I
do not think it is widely felt that children under 12 years old
should be in the criminal justice system, but they must be dealt
with through social services and child protection law. I note
that the province of Manitoba is developing comprehensive
criteria to deal with the issue.
Diversion of non-violent young offenders is absolutely critical.
We have had over 20 years of experience in Canada with discretion
being properly exercised in many areas, in pilot projects, by
police officers involved in community policing and by
prosecutors. The hon. member for Provencher mentioned that he
was prosecuting under the Juvenile Delinquents Act in the
seventies.
I was public defending at that time and I remember thinking that
being a public defender was where a person could get in and do
some justice. I quickly found out that the police and the
prosecution in properly exercising their discretion had the
greatest opportunity at an early stage, for non-violent and
particularly young offenders, to do justice and make sure that
there was accountability, that recidivism was stopped and that
young offenders would get away from a history of crime.
If we are going to go to court, this new bill provides judges
with a range of tools which are important, including making sure
there is an interdisciplinary approach, ensuring that parents are
brought to proceedings and take financial responsibility, if
necessary.
1810
If someone is to be sentenced, the provisions for adult
sentencing for the most serious crimes or repeat offenders is
entirely appropriate. It is well targeted at that specific need.
If incarceration is necessary, let us have intensive
rehabilitation services made available. If someone is to be
released then intensive supervision provisions are absolutely
essential.
Although over the last 20 years we have heard rhetoric at levels
that would suggest a great division among the parties on critical
issues that are important to Canadians, I think there is a great
deal of common cause. These issues are absolutely critical to
move forward with the bill, but the differences are more at the
margins at this stage rather than in the fundamentals.
We have heard a particular issue of fundamental difference being
expressed by the hon. member speaking for the Bloc and members of
the Canadian Alliance with regard to lowering the age for
presumptive adult sentencing. That option and flexibility are
open to the province of Quebec.
I would submit and respectfully say that we should get on with
the bill. There is enough common cause. It is a critical issue
and we should not waste more time. The bill builds on the
experience of the last 20 years. It brings together a lot of
very important and vital issues that have been raised on both
sides of the House. Let us get on with it. The differences at
the margins can properly be dealt with in implementation and not
in delaying the passage of this important bill.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Yesterday, shortly after 10 o'clock, I
tabled a notice of motion for concurrence in a committee report.
I see from the notice paper today that the notice of motion is
not shown on the order paper. The reason may relate to the fact
that minutes before I tabled the notice I had also sought
unanimous consent to have concurrence in the report and the Table
may have confused the two.
I believe the Table does have the written notice of motion and I
would ask that the order paper be corrected to show that the
notice of motion was indeed introduced yesterday morning. That
would allow the 48 hour notice period to run as of yesterday in
the event that 48 hour period becomes relevant.
The Deputy Speaker: What we have here is a matter of
business going back to yesterday, Tuesday, February 13. I
believe I was in the chair at the time the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House sought
concurrence to this motion. Concurrence was denied.
Upon verification with our staff, we recognized that there had
been an administrative error. In fact, notice of motion was
given yesterday and should have been on the notice paper today. I
would conclude that the government will be eligible to call on
that motion tomorrow should it so choose. It is eligible for
tomorrow.
If there are any questions, I will try to take them very
quickly, but I hope I have made the matter as clear as we
possibly can. I would not want anyone to be surprised if the
government should choose tomorrow to exercise that option. It is
eligible to it by way of an administrative error that we all
regret. Those things do happen but not very often.
* * *
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. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have some relatives who are lawyers and a lot of
friends who are lawyers. I have a lot of respect for lawyers.
1815
The speaker from the Conservative Party talks about the
complexity of the bill, the onerous wording, twice the wording of
the present Young Offenders Act. He talks about how that is
totally unacceptable and says that it is an extremely difficult
bill to grasp. I think he is saying that even judges would have
problems with it.
I find this amazing. When we start drafting bills and laws, we
have lawyers writing the bills, lawyers prosecuting the law,
lawyers defending the law, lawyers sitting on the bench deciding
what to do with the law, and lawyers interpreting the law. In
this particular bill we are going to have lawyers who are going
to have to intervene for young offenders under 14 to prove
reverse onus. We are going to have lawyer involvement to an
unbelievable degree.
I have a feeling that there is something wrong with this
picture. We have built a real legal industry under this kind of
legislation, which does not make a lot of sense to normal people.
Any normal person could not do this. I suggest to the House
that it probably took 17 lawyers from Ottawa to write this bill
and it is going to take 15 Philadelphia lawyers to interpret the
darn thing.
Does the member not see something wrong with that picture?
Lawyers, lawyers and lawyers, and we are trying to deal with
youth crime and with what to do with our young people. What the
government has done with the bill is to build an excellent avenue
by which lawyers will fill their pockets once again. I do not
see how it is going to make any difference to what is happening
with youth crime.
Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, the complexity of the bill
is necessary in order to provide the flexibility to target
individual young offenders with the types of crimes they commit
and the types of problems they have and give the best recourse to
the community.
Police officers I have dealt with in community policing and
people on youth justice committees will not have any difficulty
seeing the value of having the referrals and having the ability
to act under this bill.
I was somewhat amused to hear that the legal aid lawyers in New
Brunswick were smiling at the prospect of providing defences
under this act. The legal aid tariff in New Brunswick must be a
lot higher than it is in British Columbia if this is causing
anyone to smile.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Vancouver Quadra for an interesting speech.
If that was his maiden speech then I welcome him to the House and
congratulate him. His reputation certainly precedes him. I am
sure he will make a valuable contribution, especially in justice
matters.
I was very pleased to hear him raise the issue of the
overrepresentation of aboriginal people and aboriginal youth in
the criminal justice system. In the riding of Winnipeg Centre
this is a big issue. We have a great deal of what is called the
youth gang problem. For any number of socioeconomic reasons we
have a lot more people involved in that than other areas do.
The hon. member also mentioned aboriginal overrepresentation in
the prisons. I was just reading in a book last night that at
certain points in the last 15 or 20 years, in two of the women's
prisons other than Kingston the aboriginal population was at
100%. Those places were full of aboriginal people.
The hon. member mentioned the Berger report. I am sure he has
read the aboriginal justice inquiry from Manitoba. Could he tell
us if he is satisfied that this bill incorporates the
recommendations or the better qualities of those two reports in
tone or in content?
Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, dealing with
the aboriginal justice report from Manitoba, I do not believe
this does incorporate the recommendations in that report.
However, in terms of the difference between having a separate
justice system for aboriginal people or rather a general justice
system that is flexible enough to incorporate both appropriate
traditional methods, whether for healing or sentencing, I believe
the bill is going in the direction of the spirit of drawing on
traditional practices that will strengthen our criminal justice
and youth justice systems in order to incorporate what is useful,
appropriate and effective in dealing with aboriginal offenders.
1820
I hope that as we gain experience, better appreciate and help
revive those traditional practices, we will appreciate across the
country that they will enrich our general justice system.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this being my first opportunity to rise on debate in
this parliament, I would like to congratulate the Speaker and his
colleagues on their ascension to their positions. For the first
couple of weeks of this session, Mr. Speaker, I think you are
probably going to have an interesting time.
I extend my gratitude to the constituents of Surrey North for
sending me back here for a second term and also to my wife, Dona,
and my daughter, Jodi, for their support. Especially on
Valentine's Day, I would be remiss if I did not do that. I also
have to extend my gratitude to our 55-pound puppy, and I use that
term advisedly, who I am sure will waste no time in reclaiming my
half of the bed for the next three years.
In all seriousness, it is unfortunate that I am once again
speaking against the government's questionable youth justice
proposals. As members know, I have spoken in this place a few
times on this issue. I have sat through hours and hours of
committee hearings and have been to many communities across this
land. I have encouraged the government to have an open mind on
the need for significant changes to the Young Offenders Act. The
minister is even on record as stating that the Young Offenders
Act is “easily the most unpopular piece of federal
legislation”.
It is unfortunate that Canadians do not have the opportunity to
actually look at what the government is proposing with its youth
criminal justice reforms. If they did, they would see that Bill
C-7 is merely repackaging the Young Offenders Act, putting some
political spin on it and selling it as a balanced and proper
approach to misguided youth who manage to find themselves on the
opposite side of our complicated laws.
If the truth be told, the new youth criminal justice act, Bill
C-7, has all the traits of becoming an even more unpopular piece
of federal legislation. Bill C-7 is virtually identical to the
legislation the minister presented in the second session of the
last parliament. All she has done is insert approximately 150
technical amendments to correct the mistakes, the typos and the
errors in law of her previous version. In spite of approximately
150 substantive amendments from the opposition, there is
absolutely no indication that the government even considered
those proposals.
However, that does not surprise me. For almost five years now,
the government has been going through the motions of appearing to
be interested in hearing suggestions for improvement to the youth
justice process. Other than a few relatively simple changes, the
government has not indicated that it was even listening to all of
those hundreds of requests for substantial change.
For almost five years now, we have heard that the federal
government has not been meeting its financial obligations toward
funding of youth justice. The government has announced that it
is providing $206 million over the next three years, but that is
merely to cover the initial costs of this new legislation. There
has been nothing to cover the shortfall that has been going on
for years.
One of the major problems with youth justice is the
insufficiency of funding to cover training and rehabilitative
costs. If the young people who get into trouble are not given
any direction and assistance to change, is it any wonder many
revert to their criminal tendencies? All we seem to do is
investigate, prosecute, convict and punish these youths until
they turn 18 and move on to similar activities as adults. Only
in that way do many of these youths disappear from the youth
crime problem.
The situation is even more abysmal with those young persons aged 10 and 11.
For years now, we have been seeing 10 year olds and
11 year olds involved in criminal activity. That was seldom, if
ever, seen before. We have also seen that child welfare agencies
are frequently incapable of dealing with many of these cases. I
will not get into all of that because it is primarily a
provincial and municipal matter, but child welfare was never ever
set up to deal with criminal behaviour. It was set up for the
protection of children, not the protection of our communities
from the children.
As well, we have seen how the resources within child welfare
have been stretched to the breaking point. There is no luxury of
expending additional resources to ensure that the occasional
child who has found himself or herself on the wrong side of the
law gets proper advice and guidance to get back onto the straight
and narrow. That is why the Canadian Alliance has been trying to
influence the government into expanding the youth justice process
to include 10 year olds and 11 year olds.
Judges have been dealing with young offenders for years. They
have seen their workloads increase because individual cases are
not properly addressed in the initial instance.
1825
We are not saying that judges have to lock up 10 and 11 year
olds, but we are saying that judges need to become involved in
the interests of the young offender and of the community to
ensure the proper scheme is set up to bring the young person back
on track. We are saying we need to involve the judges to oversee
the problem. Child welfare authorities do good work in many
instances but they were never set up to deal with criminal
behaviour. They do not have the experience or the resources.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my private member's
initiative that has once again been incorporated into the
legislation. One objective I had when I first came to this place
was to bring forth legislation to have those who willfully fail
to honour their court undertaking to properly supervise the
release of a young person into their custody treated more
seriously. The minister has continued to realize the importance
of the proposal.
Our justice system comes under supreme scrutiny when parents or
others undertake to the court to supervise a young person who is
considered to be a danger or a risk to the community, only to
then permit that young person to go unsupervised. Those who
voluntarily agree to supervise and then wilfully fail to do so
must be held accountable.
I will present a scenario to give listeners a chance to
understand some of the concerns presented by the legislation. Let
us take the case of a 14 year old youth who commits a sexual
assault at knifepoint and whose victim is wounded or disfigured.
The youth may face a presumptive offence under the legislation.
As such, he may face an adult sentencing process as he has
committed what appears to be one of the few offences listed as a
presumptive, and he was 14 at the time of the crime.
However in the legislation there are few, if any, clear
determinations. We would first have to determine whether the
province in which the crime occurred had used its power under
section 61 of the legislation to change the age of application of
the presumptive offence. If it had been raised to 15 or 16, the
young person would not necessarily receive adult sentencing. In
effect, he would have been lucky because he committed the crime
in the right province.
As well, the attorney general can under section 65 advise the
court that it is not seeking an adult sentence, even in a case
such as this. Furthermore the attorney general must provide
notice to the court and to the young person before the
commencement of trial that the adult sentence is being sought.
Otherwise none would be considered.
If the young person is found guilty of the offence, section 62
states that an adult sentence shall be imposed if, and this is a
mighty big if, the young person essentially agrees to accept the
adult sentence or if the youth court justice is of the opinion
that a youth sentence would not be adequate to hold the young
person accountable.
When the court reviews that situation, either on its own or when
the young person challenges the use of an adult sentence, the
court must balance the proposed sentence with the contribution to
the protection of society by having meaningful consequences with
the interest of promotion of the young person's rehabilitation
and reintegration into society, whatever that means.
As I read it, the court uses adult sentencing only as a last
resort. It must first of all be satisfied that a youth sentence
is insufficient. Then the youth court judge must balance the
interests of the protection of society with the interests of the
young person to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the
community.
As we can see with my example, the young attacker would receive
an adult sentence only as a last resort. The court must
seriously consider whether incarceration will affect the young
person's rehabilitation and reintegration. Perhaps the court
could decide that some form of intensive support and supervision
program would suffice, with no incarceration. This is just one
of the youth sentences available.
Similarly, we can use the example of the young person sexually
assaulting with a knife. Even though I have explained how
difficult and improbable it may be for him to receive an adult
sentence with incarceration, let us suppose that an adult
sentence was imposed. We must remember that in our example there
was wounding and disfigurement of the victim.
Will he be identified when he returns to the community, or will
the community be completely unaware of the danger of a repeat or
of a more serious offence?
If the young person received the adult sentence he may be
identified pursuant to subsection 110(2)(a). I ask the House to
notice that I still say may. Under subsection 75(3), the court
may order a ban on publication of even this type of serious crime
if the young person makes application for the ban and if the
judge considers it important, taking into account the importance
of rehabilitating the young person in the public interest.
Let us suppose we change the scenario to a less serious offence.
Let us suppose the young offender does not actually use the
knife; it has used it only as a threat. The offender will not
likely face an aggravated sexual assault charge. There would be
no presumptive offence. We then enter a whole new ball game, a
ball game in which the law is written even more favourably in the
interests of the offender and not of the victim or of protection
of communities.
Unfortunately I do not have time to go through all the legal
arguments, considerations and decisions by the attorney general.
As has been said, the lawyers must be rubbing their hands with
glee.
I hope I have provided listeners with just some of the concerns
over the problems and complexity of the legislation. As I have
stated, lawyers will be busy tying up the courts and the youth
justice process as they debate the provisions.
A more serious question is: How can we expect our youth and
other citizens to know what the law entails when it is written
with so many exceptions and so much legal mumbo-jumbo?
As I stated at the start, when the legislation plays itself out
Canadians will soon again become disenchanted and disappointed
with the youth justice system. Surely we have a duty and a
responsibility to do much better.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House resumes debate on the
matter the Canadian Alliance Party will have a 10 minute slot
left, at which point the hon. member for Wild Rose will have the
floor.
It being 6.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)