1991-11-08

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 7, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, when I finished last night I was getting to the merits of the particular bill before the House. Clause 2 of the bill would amend section 9 of the Extradition Act as it is now by adding a new section. Section 9 in its present form provides that superior and county court judges may act as extradition judges. They are not thereby granted jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus matters.
The proposed amendment would say that for the purposes of the Constitution Act, 1982, a superior or county court judge, acting as an extradition judge, would have the confidence as if he were acting as a superior or county court judge with respect to habeas corpus.
Clause 3, the present section requires that an extradition judge send the Minister of Justice a certificate of the warrant of committal. This proposal is to amend the section to increase the 15-day delay for 30 days and replace the advice of a right to apply for habeas corpus by the advice of a right to appeal from the issuance of the warrant committal.
The intent is to cut down on the almost limitless number of appeals, applications for habeas corpus, appeals of orders, appeals of court findings and so on which allowed people like Charles Ng to remain in the country, in his case for six years. Madam Speaker, not being from the west, you may not have known that the estimated cost of keeping Mr. Ng in comfort in our jails, not including his legal fees, was estimated to be $1.5 million.
It is simply preposterous that any government could have waited as long as it has to do something about this problem. I also pointed out that he had a word processor computer in his cell whereas, as I understand it, judges of the superior courts across Canada are not allowed to have computer word processors in their offices unless they pay for them themselves. Only people who are resting in penitentiaries are allowed to have them at taxpayer expense.
There are a number of clauses in the bill which I think are fairly self-explanatory. My time is just about up. I would like to end by pointing out that Bill C-31 is an attempt to streamline the procedure and reduce the delays in the processing of extradition cases.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the bill does not address most of the 30 items that are being considered by the Department of Justice in its comprehensive review of the law and process of extradition. In other words, it is a short-term band-aid dealing with the most widely known and widely publicized cases, that of Charles Ng, Kindler and some others.
The bill basically would leave intact the two-track judicial executive nature of extradition in Canada. The Fugitive Offenders Act which applies to the removal of fugitives among the 41 Commonwealth countries is not dealt with in any way by the proposed bill.
It is a long way from being perfect. One wonders why the Department of Justice, or more particularly the government, does not have the political will to deal with this subject in a comprehensive rather than a band-aid, relatively isolated manner.

Government Orders
They will have to answer for that to the electorate in the next election. Those of us who are concerned about the general problem of extradition will, I hope, continue to press the government to deal with the subject in a comprehensive manner rather than in the isolated context with which it does here.
The problem has lingered and lingered and lingered. The government has waited and waited and waited. I pay full tribute to the member for Peterborough who along with members on different sides of the House have pursued the government vigorously on this.
I would assume that it is only because of the pressure from people like the member for Peterborough that this basically do nothing until absolutely forced government has finally taken a small part of the bit in its teeth and is trying to deal with an aspect of our general extradition problems in Canada.
When the bill goes to committee, as I hope it will quickly, those of us who have worked in the criminal justice area for many years and who have been concerned about this area will I hope have a chance to do something.
Let me end with a point that was made yesterday. I do not see many people who were here yesterday in the House. A person accused of murder in my province of Alberta about 15 years ago, fled the court process, went to Los Angeles and the trial against the co-accused went ahead. When she was ultimately apprehended in Los Angeles, she was put on the plane the very day or the very day after she was apprehended. She was flown to Vancouver and went back to Alberta where she faced a charge.
There was a delay of what might have been a week, but it was not six years as in the case of Mr. Ng. The situation is simply outrageous. I salute the government for finally doing something about a small part of the problem.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very capable speech.
He mentioned the work done by the hon. member for Peterborough who, I believe, had a private member's bill before this House in the last session. I believe it died on the Order Paper.
I am wondering if he has had an opportunity to compare this bill introduced by the government with that of the hon. member for Peterborough. Does it accomplish about the same aim? Is the route chosen by the government for proceeding similar to that adopted by the hon. member for Peterborough in his earlier legislation?


David Kilgour: That is an excellent question, Madam Speaker, which I would not venture to tiy to answer. I only wish the question had been addressed to the member for Peterborough.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: So do 1.1 wish I had thought of it at the time.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to stand here in this House this morning and speak to the second reading of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act.
These amendments to this act have been required for years. Canada has been operating under an antiquated process that started in 1877 and which was modelled after the United Kingdom Act of 1870.
Many of our treaties were entered into originally by Britain in the 19th century with the treaties being applicable to Canada by virtue of her being part of the British Empire. In the new bill is phase one of a two-part update to the Canadian Extradition Act. This bill is the first phase and will streamline a cumbersome and costly process.
For example, two high profile American cases, those of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler, have been tying up various levels of Canadian courts with appeals for the past six years. I agree, and so do most Canadians agree, with these two persons being sent back to the United States. We must ensure the system is streamlined. It is not fair that our courts be tied up for six years or more. The old law in effect gives foreign fugitives more chances of appeal than Canadian citizens who are charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.
It took six years for these two cases, Ng and Kindler, to be resolved, whereas most criminal matters in our courts are disposed of in approximately one year. Why should Canadians not be afforded at least as many opportunities as Americans and other fugitives in our courts?
Unless we streamline the extradition process, will we not be obliged to change the rules under the Criminal
November 8, 1991

Code so that Canadians can have a more lengthy appeal process? Why should Canada be a safe haven for killers? This is in fact what it is if we do not curb the trend which we have seen with Ng and Kindler. If fugitives and criminals feel free to flee from crimes committed in their own countries and not have to face the consequences for years, if at all, then of course they are going to flee to Canada. Under this legislation there are eight changes proposed. I will just briefly run through them.
First, at the extradition hearing the judge will now be empowered to hear issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Second, following the judge's decision, there will now be a right of appeal to either the provincial or territorial court of appeal.
Third, the Minister of Justice will now be allowed to review the case and decide on the surrender of the person soon after the decision by the extradition judge, even if the judge's decision is under appeal.
Fourth, an appeal on the minister's decision and the extradition judge's decision can be heard now at the same time at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Fifth, these changes will cut down on taking the appeals through all the various court levels to the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the old law there were two separate tracks on the extraditability issue and the surrender issue.
Sixth, the new changes will generally leave only one level of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Seventh, under the old process there was a possibility of seven different levels, depending upon the decisions. That was very complicated and very time consuming.
Eighth, there are new time constraints on the various levels. For example, a fugitive foreign state will have 30 days after a decision of an extradition judge to file an appeal. A fugitive can commence submissions to the Minister of Justice earlier in the process, but must have concluded the making of them by the 30th day after the decision of the extradition judge, and the Minister of Justice would have 90 days after the extradition judge's decision to review the case and decide on surrender, and this can be extended under special circumstances.
It certainly improves an act that is very old and antiquated. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer for the two prisoners I have mentioned who were in our Cana-
Govemment Orders
dian jails for the past six years was an average of $70,000 a year for each of them. When you look at the court costs and the lawyers fees, they are, I am told, in the area of $1.5 million. Canadian taxpayers cannot be expected to carry these costs of processing out of country fugitives and criminals.
With regard to allegations that extradition of persons to jurisdictions where capital punishment could be the decided punishment, on the whole we have to accept the American justice system to be a fair one. Maybe it does not totally agree with ours and we may not agree with their punishment. Some of their states still have capital punishment, which is the death penalty.
We believe these two people were sent back to a fair justice system and that they should be granted due process in the United States.
In the case of Mr. Ng, he had not even gone to trial before coming to Canada. Witnesses in this case were getting older, memories are fading and some are dying. Both Ng and the victims of the crime deserve the right to a fair trail which could be better provided if the extradition process was made more speedy and more efficient.
We must remember that the victims of the horrendous crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ng, their families and the witnesses also have rights. They have the right, first of all, to see justice served and all human rights must be weighed. There are many kinds of rights, social, political and individual, and each must be weighed against the other and we cannot forget the rights of the victims.
We must recognize that there will be instances of imperfections within every justice system, in the United States, in Canada and in other jurisdictions with which we deal. It does not mean to say that the system over all is unjust, but once we recognize imperfection in a system which is just over all, we can attempt to ensure that extra caution be taken in the interest of protecting the individual's rights.
We must ensure that those areas of appeal which have been outlined in this bill will provide protection in cases where there are reasonable doubts. Further, appeals can be made to other jurisdictions, both in the country to which we are extraditing the fugitive and to the various international bodies, such as the UN human rights committee.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
These other avenues must be utilized so that Canadian taxpayers do not have to shoulder the financial burden alone. One way that we can ensure a more fair Canadian extradition process is to use care when negotiating treaties with countries with questionable human rights records.
Canada currently has extradition treaties with 45 countries. We are in the process of negotiating more. For instance, currently we are negotiating a treaty with Brazil.
If I could interject at this point, there are two young Canadians who have been sitting in a Brazilian jail since 1989. Their greatest crime has been a humanitarian crime. Both of these young Canadians throughout then-lives have been interested and have been working with people who are underprivileged, who are less fortunate than they are. They both come from well-known families in British Columbia. These two Canadians sitting in a Brazilian jail should be brought back to Canada. I feel that our Canadian system is failing those two people at this time.
It is one thing to send someone to justice in the United States, but it it is quite another to send someone to Brazil in order to receive justice. However, we must remember this works both ways and we want to get back any Canadians from places like Brazil.
In principle, I support this legislation, phase one of a two-part update to the Canadian Extradition Act, being sent to committee. I am sure the committee will look at it, hear witnesses and amend this bill to the satisfaction of all Canadians.
I am very delighted to speak in this House on this bill. Many people have approached me from the riding of Nepean, which is part of this federal district of Ottawa Carleton, with great concern that our system has failed them, especially in the case of Mr. Ng and Mr. Kindler.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill. I see in the House the hon. member for Peterborough who has done a great deal of work on this question. I want to congratulate him. I think he is largely responsible for prompting the government to bring forward this legislation as quickly as it has. That, along with the two very well known cases concerning the
extradition of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler, has prompted this legislation. I do not want to lump the hon. member with those two infamous individuals other than to say that they are really the catalysts for getting this legislation through. The hon. member has done a great deal of work.
This is basically a good bill. This is a question that has been concerning the Canadian public for a considerable period of time. Joseph Kindler committed a murder in 1983 in Pennsylvania. He had been in Canada for six years as had Charles Ng who committed a murder I think in 1985 and fled to Canada. These two men have really exhausted every conceivable avenue in Canadian law to the extent that people really were forced to focus on the extradition proceedings and the extradition rights in Canada. Canadians wanted to know why these two people were able to spend so much time in Canada. Why are we paying their room and board for alleged offences that they had committed in the United States?
It became very ludicrous when we had a free trade agreement. We entered into a free trade agreement with the United States as a close neighbour. We were prepared to have our whole economic future dependent upon the whims of the American government. It turned out a little misbegotten but nevertheless this is what we decided to do. Yet we were not prepared to trust the American system of justice to the extent that we would allow extradition of men such as these two back to the United States to be treated in accordance with American law.
Regardless of whether we like the death penalty or not, the United States has a very high degree of law. Certainly it is one of the foremost countries in the world in jurisprudence and rights of the individual. I do not think we were sending these two men back to a country that would immediately ignore any right they may have.
When the Supreme Court brought down its decision in October regarding both of these men, a lot of people in Canada were relieved that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually was able to cope with this. Within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we were able to say as a country through our Supreme Court that these two men had been treated as well as they possibly could be. Then-rights are not being infringed upon by being extradited to the United States.
November 8, 1991

We have an extradition agreement with the United States. That is the irony. We trust the United States and it trusts us to treat cross-border refugees in a very responsible manner. Yet we were keeping these two men for six years. They were going from one appeal to the other at a great deal of public cost. It is not that we look at public cost in the proper implementation of justice. We do not and we cannot as a civilized country and as a country whose justice system is one of the finest in the world and we like to think is still evolving.
Nevertheless we did feel that there was something here that could be streamlined and could be made more effective.
I would just like to relate some of the new changes to this process that have been brought forward by this legislation. At an extradition hearing the judge will now be empowered to hear issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following the judge's decision, there will now be a right of appeal to either the provincial or territorial court of appeal. The Minister of Justice will now be allowed to review a case and decide on the surrender of a person soon after the decision by the extradition judge even if the judge's decision is under appeal. An appeal on the minister's decision and the extradition judge's decision can be heard now at the same time at the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a very important change. This is going to do a great deal to expedite the decision on extradition matters.
These changes will cut down on taking appeals through all the various court levels to the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the old law there were two separate tracks on the extradition issue and the surrender issue.
The new changes will generally leave only one level of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the old process there was a possibility of seven different levels depending on the decisions. This very much complicated the matter and of course, as I have already mentioned, this was very time consuming.
These are very important changes. I do not think everything that we would have liked to see is in this bill. There are some matters that have yet to be considered. Still it is a step forward. I think it is very helpful.
Government Orders
I would ask the government why it has taken so long to bring this forward. What we see in this legislation is not inventing a new rocket. It is not discrediting the theory of relativity. It is merely streamlining the extradition process. This is something that members of this House have been calling for, for some time. As has been stated earlier, members have actually put forward suggestions as to how this extradition process could be changed.
I feel frankly there is a dry rot in the Department of Justice that has really got to be looked at and it is right in the minister's office. This was once one of the main departments in government. I know that there are a great many capable people in the Department of Justice. Why is it taking so long to get these matters changed?
In January 1990 the former Minister of Justice and present Solicitor General assured us in a speech which I think was in the United States that the department was working on extradition. It was said that this process was being worked on and that there would be legislation coming forward in a short period of time. Now a year and a half later we finally get this legislation. It was I think because of the work of the hon. member that I mentioned earlier that we finally got this legislation. These cases were causing the Canadian public to be absolutely revolted by the way our system was being abused. It is very unfortunate.
What is happening is that our justice system is not leading the country. It is following Canadians and at a great distance. We are seeing that not only in extradition but in cases of criminal violence in Canada that the rate of violence and violent crimes are increasing. Canadians are more and more concerned about walking the streets of this country. They are more and more concerned about their safety and the safety of their families.
We are not getting the response from the minister and the department that we should be getting. This is vital. If we are going to have the Canada that Canadians want and we in this House of Commons want to work toward, we have to have more co-operation from the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has to realize where things are going wrong and do something about them before we are embarrassed before the world and particularly our neighbour to the south with our

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
outmoded laws. Such was the case with the extradition treaty and the extradition laws in Canada.
I find it really unacceptable. I find it tragic that we are falling further and further behind every year in our need to update the laws of this country and to have relevant changes to these laws. We need to be able to say to Canadians that we are on top of the situation and not give them the feeling, as I fear we do, that we do not know what to do about increased crime and the legal difficulties that exist.
The minister was asked yesterday in the House about the fact that over 50,000 cases were thrown out of court because of the Askov case. That is the case where it was decided that the defendant had been waiting too long to have the case heard. It was felt that this was an infringement of his rights and the judge threw out the case. This has had really incredible ramifications right across this country. As was stated yesterday by my friend from Scarborough, over 50,000 cases have now been thrown out of courts in this country. That is incredible.


An hon. member:: It is demoralizing for law enforcement.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Exactly. That is absolutely incredible. One that really sticks in my mind is the case of a young offender earlier this year. Six young offenders had gang raped a 14-year old girl in 1986. They waited for two years to get to court because of the transfer provisions. The prosecutor decided that he or she wanted to have the case transferred to an adult court. The defendants appealed that transfer and then there was another appeal. Finally it was decided that the appeals would be disallowed and the cases had to be heard before a youth court. That was almost two years later. It was two years after the actual process started and more than two years after the crime. Finally the Ontario Court of Appeal said: "That is just too long. The rights of these six people were infringed by this long wait". Imagine.


An hon. member:: And they got off?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: They got off because it was felt that this was too long. Now that is absolutely incredible. How, in this country, can we have respect for our judicial
system if we are going to have that kind of a result? It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace.
We have to know when a judge is going to resign or, unfortunately, passes away unexpectedly. We cannot let these long periods of time go by without appointing a substitute. I say that with all respect to the government in one area. If there is one thing the government has done right, it is its judicial appointments. I think its judicial appointments have been good ones. I congratulate it for that. Sometimes the cement in this country is our judicial system. That is very important.
I do not want for a minute to minimize the importance of having sound judges on our benches in this country. It is absolutely vital. I know it takes a lot of thought and a lot of consultation. We have the screening committees that are now in all provinces and consultation goes on with the provinces and it is all working.
But please could it just happen a little more quickly? It is estimated now that there will be over 100,000 cases thrown out of Canadian courts within a short period of time. Imagine. This is horrendous. As the justice critic I have had people calling me and crying on the phone. One person in particular will stay with me for the rest of my life. There was a young person who was killed by a drunk driver who is now free because it took too long to bring that case to court. The parents have not only lost a young life they valued and loved dearly but the person who committed this offence is now free. I just cannot say enough about the tragedy going on this country because of the weakening of our criminal justice system.
While I find that this bill is a major step forward, as is gun control, there is an awful lot that needs to be done.
The Young Offenders Act is awful. We are allowing crime to run rampant. We are making little steps forward but crime is making big steps forward. We are falling further and further behind.
I say to the government and particularly the Minister of Justice: For heaven's sake, stop chasing the mice and start dealing with the elephants. Do something quickly. Put a little more time in it and show a little more oomph.

November 8, 1991

Go on the offensive and deal with the problems that are worrying Canadians.
The economy is worrying Canadians, make no mistake about that. Our constitutional mess is worrying Canadians, make no mistake about that. Also prevalent is a concern about the increased crime rate and safety on the streets of this country.
This is a good bill. I support it without any difficulty at all. For heaven's sake play a little catch-up with the shortcomings of our criminal justice system.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his commitment this week to all these bills which are attempting to reinforce the justice system of this country.
He has just finished talking about a very serious situation, about the number of cases being dismissed because of the lack of resources given to our judicial system in terms of number of judges and the number of courts that we are short. Obviously it is because of our correctional system. There are some correctional services institutions with two or three to a room. It is just a scandalous state of affairs.
The government does not seem to realize that all of our police forces are becoming demoralized. They are losing their will to enforce the laws of this land. They look around and see that after their investigative work, after they have tried to bring the system to order, 50,000 cases are thrown out the window. They say: "As a police officer, what incentive is there for me to do my job?"
Does he not feel that this lack of political will on the government's part, because it is a lack of political will to reinforce the judicial system of this country, is in fact weakening the ability of all of our police forces across Canada to properly do their job?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who is a very thoughtful member of Parliament.
We have talked about this particular question. I know the concern he has, being a Toronto member of Parliament, with the problem of crime. I am glad he asked that question because it is an aspect that I did not cover and I would like to because I have had the opportunity to talk to law enforcement officers.
The Askov case and other cases that police spend a lot of time on are being thrown out. Not everyone agrees
Government Orders
with everything they do but our police forces in this country are second to none anywhere in the world.
In other countries caring has gone out of policing. This is not the case in Canada. There have been examples recently of cases where they show concern for the law and concern for the individual. It is absolutely devastating for them to work on a case.
In the case of a hit and run driver who killed a teenager and is now out on the streets, it is the police who have to go to the family and tell them that their child has been killed by a drunken driver. It is the police who get that initial response of disbelief and absolute, complete physical and mental collapse.
It is not a nice job but it is a job they do. They see this and then follow through, they track down who did it and they want justice done. They want in some small way to ease the pain of the people who suffered the loss, to painstakingly build the case and go to court. Then they lose it, not because the Crown prosecutor did not apply the law properly or did not do his or her homework or because of some technicality but because the court decided that the defendant's rights had been infringed because he or she had been kept waiting so long and it should be thrown out.
Can you imagine what that does to the police officer and the commitment of that police officer? That police officer walks out of that court completely dejected. The fact that he or she can then pick himself or herself up to go back and do the job they are doing on the streets of this country not only tells you a lot about our police forces but tells you about the will, determination and commitment of police officers in Canada.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, rather than deal with specific cases, as some of my colleagues have done in their speeches, I wanted to turn briefly to the process that applies in extradition cases. It appears there is a great deal of confusion on the part of the public and I think on the part of some members of the House about how extradition hearings work.
It is important to examine the proposals the government has put forward with a view to amending this area of the law. Frankly I think they are somewhat unimaginative, although I agree that they will have the effect of streamlining the provisions of the law. We support them in principle for that reason.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
The government might have been a little more imaginative had it chosen to give up some of its power. However it apparently decided that was not necessary and it would keep all its existing powers and simply streamline the process to ensure that extradition appeals are dealt with more quickly.
In any extradition case under the current arrangements, the country that wishes to have a person extradited to that country applies before a judge in Canada to determine whether the person should be extradited under the law. The law is in part the extradition treaty that exists between the countries. It must be determined whether the offence is one that is extraditable under the treaty.
The judge makes a decision on that issue. As is the case with almost every judicial decision, that decision is subject to appeal. Either the accused person or the foreign government may appeal to the court of appeal of the province in which the hearing was held. There is a further appeal from that decision of the court of appeal of the province to the Supreme Court of Canada. There are in effect two appeals. The last appeal is by leave. It requires the leave of the Supreme Court to proceed in that court with an appeal.
After the determination is made by the courts as to whether the person should be extradited there is then a further application to the minister by the foreign government for surrender of the accused. The minister must decide whether the accused person should be surrendered, even though he is judged by the courts to be extraditable. That is assuming the decision went that way.
The decision of a minister is subject to judicial review. Therefore appeals to the courts may be launched after the minister has made his or her decision.
This extremely cumbersome procedure might have been shortened somewhat had the minister been willing to give up control of the surrender process and leave that matter to the courts to decide. After all, the surrender procedure has been there for a very long time. I am not familiar with the history of the law in this area but I would guess it is one of those areas of royal prerogative which has hung around for years and years and years under extradition treaties.
Maybe it is time to take a look at that aspect of it, but unfortunately the committee is not going to get that privilege. Not having dealt with the issue, the committee cannot change the principle of the bill. I am sure that the committee chairman will hold that one of the principles of the bill is that the existing procedure be retained. There is no major change in it.
We are not going to get a chance to do away with this largely unnecessary step which would have really shortened the procedure considerably had both surrender and extraditability been determined at once in one hearing. Perhaps it is naive of me to suggest such a thing, but I suspect that there are ways and means whereby safeguards could have been imposed in the law so that the courts could deal with that matter instead of having the minister involved in making a decision on this.
Perhaps there is good reason why the minister should keep that power. I do not know. If so, I am surprised the argument was not raised by the minister in her opening speech. I do not recall a discussion on that particular aspect of the law.
What does the government propose? It states in this bill that there will be the extradition hearing and immediately after that hearing, assuming that the judge decides the accused should be extradited, the minister will receive and deal with an application for surrender. There could be an appeal in the court of appeal of the province from both the judge's hearing and from any argument that might be made with respect of the minister's surrender, assuming the surrender is approved by the minister.
Both would be dealt with at the same hearing in the court of appeal. Both would then be appealed together to the Supreme Court of Canada, if an appeal were allowed by that court, and we would thereby avoid this multiplicity of proceedings leading to extended hearings in both the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal, then the Supreme Court of Canada, back into the Court of Appeal after the minister's determination and then back to the Supreme Court of Canada. I guess it would not have gone directly to the Court of Appeal after the minister, but there would have been three court hearings challenging the minister's decision.
November 8, 1991

The member for Peterborough can correct me if my procedure is incorrect. He is well familiar with the route.
I now recall, and perhaps I am able to answer my question, his solution was to abolish one right of appeal. The Court of Appeal in the provinces was side-stepped. If there had been an adjudication that the accused was to be extradited, then there was an appeal directed to the Supreme Court of Canada, or none at all. That is my recollection but I may be wrong. Perhaps he can correct me in a comment as to what his bill contained that was different from this one.
This should streamline in most cases, but if the minister is as slow in making decisions as has often been the case, I suggest that in fact the appeals will not get heard together. The application for surrender may be sat on for so long that the appeal in a court of appeal may be disposed of before the minister gets around to making a decision. Certainly in some cases there have been delays. I agree in others the decisions have been made extremely quickly. I think the member for Peterborough could cite examples of excessive delay on the part of the minister in coming to a decision. As I say, it might have shortened the proceedings significantly had that particular stage been abolished altogether and had the trial judge and the appellate judges thereafter been left to deal with that issue instead of having the minister involved in the process.
The fact that the government has moved on this after so long is something to be commended, but I wish that it had taken steps to ensure that this would have worked in virtually all cases. I am not certain that has been done. Leaving the two processes of adjudication in the courts and then the surrender issue with the minister leaves the risk that there will be a multiplicity of proceedings at least in some cases. All we need is some major case like the Ng case, which the hon. member for Peterborough has raised so often in this House and some of my colleagues have mentioned in great detail. The new law will be brought into what I suggest would be considerable disrepute. In other words, it will have failed to achieve the objective that is the objective of all members of this House and that is to make this process less cumbersome. All the steps are there.
All the cumbersome steps that were in the law before this bill was introduced are still there and they are not going to be changed by this bill. It is simply that they will
Government Orders
be done in a different time sequence. The risks of the claims that were made before are still there, but they will be done together instead of apart which should shorten the proceedings. There is no guarantee that it will do so and there is no guarantee that the two processes will not lead to different results.
I suggest that it is a situation that the government could have avoided had it been a little more imaginative in drafting this particular bill, had it been willing to consider giving up powers that it now has. But we know that this government is extremely reluctant to give up any powers. We see it every day in this House with its unwillingness to bend the rules in a way that allows the opposition additional rights or privileges in the House. We see it in the various bits of legislation it introduces to deregulate various things.
It does not give up its power. It simply gives up certain regulatory rights, but not very many of them. There are very few in fact that are given up. The hon. member for Peterborough knows this as he has been a critic of the government in that regard. He has been critical of its unwillingness to give up control over a host of activities in which Canadians engage. I suggest that he would have probably been pleased had the argument that I advanced been accepted by the government and the government would have been willing to abandon the surrender procedure and allow the courts to adjudicate on that. I suggest that our courts are well equipped to make that decision.
I suggest that if the process is to be expedited as has been suggested by my colleagues, where additional judges are appointed to assist in ensuring that there be fewer delays in the court system, and had the government looked with some imagination at procedural means of changing the process, we might have got even more advances in terms of reduction of time spent on these cases.
There has been a lack of imagination. There has been excessive delay. I regret very much that it has taken so long for the minister to move to bring forward this bill. I realize the government has proclaimed this week to be justice week, law and order week I think it calls it. It does not like to use justice any more. It likes to talk about law and order because that appeals a little more. The government thinks it is a catch word that will appeal to the public.

While some of the initiatives are welcome, after waiting for so many years, it is unfortunate that the government is using the notion that things are in big disarray as the basis for its proceeding. Frankly the sensational cases that make the headlines and make it look as though things are falling apart are not necessarily indicative of the workings of the system because, in many cases, our justice system does work well and does produce results that are entirely in accordance with people's expectations. Needless to say, we do not hear about those. It is like the proceedings in this House. In this House we do not hear about the things that happen that are normal or sensible and that work well. We hear about the unusual occurrences, the sensational occurrences that take a second but generate acres and acres of print in the media and lots of time on television.
This bill, which is one of those more mundane matters, will get very little coverage in terms of the debate in this House, but nevertheless it is important. The changes that are proposed in the law are important and significant. I know that the hon. member for Peterborough in his speech welcomed this bill. I think he welcomes the general thrust of it as we do on this side of the House. We are happy to support it and will continue to do so. I am hoping he is going to make a comment about his own bill.
Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for Science): Madam Speaker, a short comment.
I would like to clarify what I consider to be a misconception about the government's bill. The government's bill has eliminated the two-track system. What happens in the government bill, the one we are dealing with in the House now, is that you have your extradition hearing with certain other features of the former two-track system applied to it, i.e. they go from that hearing to the appeal court in the province. At that appeal court in the province is where the minister puts the comments in dealing with her willingness to extradite the person requested. So there is not a two-track system. It very definitely goes from the extradition hearing to the appeal court of the province with leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada. It does not move over into federal jurisdiction.
The big feature of this bill, which I am sure the hon. member will be glad to hear, is that we have eliminated the two-track system in extradition. We move directly from extradition to the appeal court of the province only. At that appeal court in the province they deal with habeas corpus and any challenges to the charter that are raised. After that decision is made those are the two court appearances. That is it.
The minister has a period of time between the extradition hearing and the appeal hearing in the provincial appeal court to prepare her case and state her intentions.
The third opportunity, not four but three, the third opportunity is given-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member and recognize him after Question Period as it is eleven o'clock. We will now proceed with members' statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, through the green plan the government commits Canada to stabilizing emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Through the environment committee we urged the government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20 per cent by the year 2005 as other nations are doing.
At this week's meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the government is apparently preparing to back away from its commitment to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. If this is true, the government will lose credibility at home and at international negotiations on a global climate conference and convention. Therefore we urge the Minister of the Environment to confirm Canada's modest commitment to stabilization.

November 8, 1991

When will the government recognize the well-known fact that it is in Canada's economic interest to cut carbon dioxide emissions and thus increase energy efficiency?


PEOPLE'S FORUM FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, with the release of the constitution proposals, Canada is presently involved in a debate on our future. Canadians must participate in this discussion and fortunately many want to.
In the riding of Ontario, 11 volunteers representing a good cross-section of interest have formed a committee to help citizens of the riding participate. This group called the People's Forum for Constitutional Change has spoken to many interest groups and service clubs over the past month, distributing the proposals as they travelled.
This week at Trafalgar Castle School in Whitby they held the first public meeting at which seven high schools sent participants. Led by a panel of experienced individuals, a good discussion was held by the numerous participants. Students proved they care.
The People's Forum has scheduled four additional meetings, one each in the communities of Claremont, Pickering, Ajax and Whitby. At each meeting there will also be panelists. The People's Forum will also send a questionnaire with my support to seek the views of all the citizens of the riding. When all these steps are complete, the People's Forum will then present a report which will be submitted to the national committee.
I would like to extend my personal congratulations and thank you to the People's Forum of Ontario riding.


MONTREAL ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, every week people in the Montreal area read in the papers that their economy is sinking further into a slump.
Last Thesday we heard that 189 employees at Philips Electronics Limited would be laid off. Today the Christie Brown Plant in East Montreal is laying off 200 of its 600 workers. We also heard the STRSM will be laying off 78 of its 600 bus drivers next April. A number of maintenance employees will also be laid off. This morning Murray Hill closed down; another 200 jobs lost.
When will the Conservative government do something to end the economic slump for which it is to blame? When will people in the Montreal area be able to read their papers without being discouraged by the news of further lay-offs in Montreal?


TOASTMASTERS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, Toastmasters International is one dynamic international organization that assists hundreds of thousands, in fact millions of Canadians and people in the United States and around the world, to be better communicators. Toastmasters clubs exist all over North America and in some 50 countries now. Last night in our nation's capital we celebrated a great distinguished toastmaster by the name of Jack Gillespie who has become Toastmasters International's president.
Mr. Gillespie comes from Manitoba. He was a truck driver and has excelled to this very high position of international toastmastership. I am sure this House would want to congratulate him and the wonderful opportunities he has to demonstrate the toastmastership to all Canadians and indeed people around the world.


TAXATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, it has been a little over a week since the unfortunate mace incident in the House.
Two matters did give rise to it and I think it is an appropriate time to raise them for the public record. The first is the substantial issue of seniors taxation. There was a motion before the House from the hon. member for Winnipeg to change the taxation of seniors. Many of them pay quarterly now and they are subject to penalties and interest. They are being hassled. It is veiy unfair and seniors are very concerned about it.

November 8, 1991
The Toronto Star just reported that this method of taxation is costing seniors $300 million a year.
I call upon the government to change this procedure. I understand that is happening and I ask the government to report to the House when it has made this decision. I welcome that.
Second, many of us thought that the bell was going to be a 15-minute bell. It was about a four or five-minute bell. The question arises, should party Whips be able to cut short a private member's vote. I call upon the House management committee to look into this and report to the House as soon as possible.


YMCA OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I think in a day and age when volunteer activity sometimes is diminished or dismissed it is important to recognize organizations that have made an outstanding contribution to public service and voluntary activity.
In my constituency of downtown Toronto, Toronto Rosedale, last week there was the annual meeting of the YMCA of metropolitan Toronto which celebrated 138 years of service to the community.
I would like to note several of the highlights from that outstanding organization. Last year, for instance, 120,000 people participated in YMCA programs all across the greater Toronto area. Programs were delivered in some 366 different locations. There were over 7,000 YMCA volunteers who donated more than 92,000 hours of their time to help serve. Finally, 18,000 people received direct financial support from the association to enable them to benefit from YMCA programs.
Members on all sides will know that for more than a century the YMCA, the YWCA, the YMHA have made an outstanding contribution to all of our communities.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, last week the government announced that further federal assistance will be provided to northern Ontario in addition to the FEDNOR economic development program. The Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement also provides certain regions of Quebec with federal funds for economic development projects.
I commend the government for these two programs. However, they place eastern Ontario at a disadvantage as the area does not have similar economic development programs to support and attract businesses and industries.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism recently stated in this House, in reply to a question by my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that the government "is preparing a program which will address eastern Ontario in particular".
Eastern Ontario is suffering from numerous plant closures, lay-offs and high unemployment. Communities like Cornwall, Hawkesbury and Pembroke are facing tough economic times.
I call upon the government to stop delaying and implement an economic development program for eastern Ontario now.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, what does English speaking Canada want? The answer can be found in the Spicer commission report.
English speaking Canada wants Quebec to stay but not at any price, recognizes Quebec's distinctiveness in terms of language and culture but not in terms of rights and responsibilities, wants a strong national government, not a weak decentralized one, wants a fast and fair settlement of aboriginal concerns, wants to emphasize what we have in common, not our differences, wants an elected Senate, wants a review of official bilingualism
November 8, 1991

and multicultural funding, wants MPs to reflect the wishes of their constituents, but most of all wants jobs, jobs, jobs.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, having brought small business to its knees in this country, people will be happy to know that the government is sending the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism to the Soviet Union. If your business in Moose Jaw is in trouble, do not worry, because they are going to discuss methods of operation and ways of encouraging further Canadian commercial activity in the Soviet Union.
I am sure they are going to take with them many copies of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey of what small business thinks about this government. Members may recall this is the report that said and I quote:
Members in all parts of the country expressed strong concern that
the country is living beyond its means, taxation levels are too high;
there is a lack of political leadership; too much government and
government is unresponsive.
It is not clear at this moment whether the Minister of National Revenue will attend. Members may recall he dismissed that survey as a scam and the results as hogwash.
Madam Speaker, the good news is they are leaving the country. The bad news is that we are not sure it is a one-way ticket.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Brandon-Souris, I would like to take this opportunity on the eve of Remembrance Day to applaud publicly the contributions which veterans have made in the past to protect the privileges which we today all too often take for granted.
Canadian veterans have made an immense sacrifice in several wars, but especially in World War I and World War II. In fact, Canadian veterans played such an important role in the great war that they were regarded and feared as the shock troops which were brought into the most important battles.
Without the sacrifices of thousands of brave and selfless Canadian men and women, the democratic privileges which we know today could well have been destroyed. It is important, therefore, that we say thanks now and throughout the year for the contribution which others so willingly made on our behalf.
It is also essential that we today ensure that we are willing to continue to defend those values which those who went before us were prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die for. To do less than that would be to fail those who have in reality passed the torch to us and future generations.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, Canadian seniors want to know the government's position on payment of income tax in quartely instalments. These payments put an undue burden on our senior citizens, and the government's statements on this issue have been very disconcerting.
A motion was presented by the Liberal member for Winnipeg-St. James to release senior citizens from their obligation to pay income tax in four quarterly instalments. The motion was supported by many members, and all three parties in the House gave their unanimous consent for referring the motion to the finance committee, for consideration. Unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois used the Standing Orders to deny its consent for referral of motion to the finance committee, after which the motion was immediately put to a vote and defeated by the Conservative majority. The Bloc's refusal was outrageous, especially since its subsequently blamed the Conservatives for defeating the motion. What it boils down to, Madam Speaker, is that unfortunately-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but unfortunately his time has expired.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, in the past couple of days all Canadians have become alarmed at the apparent derailment of our constitutional committee.

November 8, 1991
Oral Questions
All of us in this House can point fingers and identify weaknesses in the process, but at the end of the day if that process fails, we fail; Canada fails.
Next week, as we all know, Parliament is recessed and it will provide an opportunity for all MPs to be in their individual constituencies and will provide an opportunity for all MPs to conduct forums, round table discussions, town and village hall meetings in our own ridings.
We have been doing this in Carleton-Charlotte and will continue that dialogue next week.
We can put the constitutional hearings back on the rails by listening and consulting in our own backyards. If we can all do this, the process will take care of itself.


PAKISTAN
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, Amnesty International is concerned by reports that the government of Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan may recommence public hangings with as many as 40 hangings to proceed next week.
This follows three years of no hangings since former Prime Minister Bhutto commuted 2,000 death sentences in 1988.
These new death sentences issue from the special courts for speedy trials instituted following a change of Constitution of Pakistan in August.
According to Amnesty International, these special courts of speedy trial violate international standards of justice by denying the right to public trial, the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty and normal rights of appeal.
I call on the Prime Minister of Canada to use his good offices with the Prime Minister of Pakistan to have these public hangings stayed and these death sentences commuted.


MIDDLE EAST
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, the word "historic" is frequently used without justification.
Yet there is no other word to describe the Middle East peace conference in Madrid. For the second time in its 43-year history, representatives of the state of Israel
looked at their Arab neighbours, not through the sight of a rifle but in the eyes in direct bilateral negotiations.
This is indeed an historic development. The position of the Palestinian delegation was surprising. The Palestinians seem to indicate their willingness to accept a transitional phase and the self-government first proposed in the Camp David agreements of 1978. They presumably now accept that a long-term settlement will require a transitional period to build trust.
The attitude of the Syrians stands in stark contrast to the Palestinians. Syria has shown an unwillingness to talk directly with Israel and is not prepared to consider any confidence building measures.
On a visit to Israel several years ago, I asked a member of the Knesset what Canada could do to help in the peace process. "Encourage the moderates", she said. That advice is as good today as it was then.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This government obviously does not have a clue what it is doing economically. It says that the recession is over, and yet today's figures show that unemployment is on the rise.
There are 178,000 more Canadians looking for jobs today than a year ago. In one month alone, the country has lost 16,000 manufacturing jobs. When will the minister acknowledge that the government's high dollar and GST policies are a disaster for Canada? When will he take steps to put almost 1.5 million unemployed Canadians back to work?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think there is some encouraging news in the employment figures that came out today.
There have been 43,000 new jobs created in the last month, and that is a total of 108,000 new jobs over the last two months. In addition to that, the housing statistics would indicate for the month of October that housing starts commenced at an annualized rate of 202,000.
November 8, 1991

Oral Questions
There is a clear indication that housing starts will be up in 1992 by some 20 per cent over 1991.
I think the other encouraging news is the fact that yesterday the Bank of Canada rate dropped by some 31 basis points which brings the Bank of Canada rate down to 7.73 per cent. That is consistent with the policy objectives that we embarked upon, bringing down inflation, consolidating our fiscal difficulties and bringing down interest rates.
Bringing down interest rates is the key to growth in economic activity.
[Translation)


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, now that the government sees that nearly one and a half million Canadians are unemployed, why won't it admit that its monetary and economic policies are a total failure? Why is the minister not prepared to admit that his high dollar policy and the GST are crushing the Canadian economy? Why does he not change those policies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government does not pursue a high interest and a high dollar policy.
What the government is pursuing is an environment to bring interest rates down, bring inflationary pressures down. The inflation on an annualized basis over the last six months has averaged 2.2 per cent. That is bringing prices down. That is creating a more competitive economy.
When we can continue to bring interest rates down and keep them down, that will be the key to economic activity, the creation of jobs and growth right across this country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, last week the minister admitted that his government had been pursuing a high dollar policy when he said outside the House: "We are no longer pursuing a high dollar
policy".
I know he was left with the legacy of his predecessor, the million dollar man who, when he was in the ring, knocked down almost a million and a half Canadians.
Will this minister allow these Canadians to be picked up and put back on the job by changing the GST, by abolishing the GST, and by killing once and for all the high dollar policy that cost 16,000 manufacturing jobs this month alone?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is totally inaccurate when she suggests that this government has pursued a high dollar policy. We are not pursuing an artificially high dollar policy and for her to suggest that we can artificially manipulate downward the value of the dollar is totally and absolutely irresponsible. It would destroy international credibility. It would create market instability, and it would create long-term high interest rates and long-term inflation. Why does she not start acting responsibly?


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, what is totally and absolutely irresponsible is to put your head in the sand when 1.5 million Canadians continue to be unemployed.
Month after month this Minister of Finance has told Canadians that the nation is in recovery and month after month the evidence continues to mount that the nation continues to be in a deep recession. Now 1.5 million are unemployed and unemployment is up again this month. From August until October, unemployment in Canada has increased from 9.8 per cent to 10.3 per cent. That is a negative, troubling trend for any sober, serious and concerned minister of finance.
What is the Minister of Finance going to do to put Canadians back to work? Is he now saying that 1.5 million, a 10 per cent plus level of unemployment, is an acceptable level of losses in the battle against inflation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, Canadians are going back to work. There were
43,000	full-time jobs created in the month of October and over the last two months 108,000 new jobs were created. I think that is a good record.

November 8, 1991
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, just last month 20,000 Canadians and their families in the goods producing sector were unemployed. Five thousand more in the agricultural sector are unemployed. Sixteen thousand more families are unemployed in construction. Four thousand more in trade are unemployed. One and a half million families are without work. When will this government begin to put Canadians back to work by recognizing there is a problem with this government's high interest rate and high dollar policy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in the last two months, 108,000 full-time jobs were found and that is a positive indicator. The hon. member knows that the unemployment rate fell in the month of September from 10.6 to 10.2 per cent. The fact that the 43,000 additional full-time jobs have been created, totalling 108,000 fulltime jobs over the last two months, is an encouraging sign and the hon. member should applaud it rather than criticize it.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister cites the creation of jobs but has the minister spoken to the 18 per cent of the residents of Prince Edward Island who are unemployed and the 18 per cent unemployed in Newfoundland? Has he spoken to those who are every day seeing their industries shut down, and has he spoken to the farmers who are losing their farms? I say to the minister that he should be speaking to Canadians and not just citing graphs and statistics.
The minister has continually said that we are in a recovery period but ordinary working Canadians and those without a job do not see this recovery. Is the minister simply accepting that 1.5 million unemployed is acceptable? Is that this government's goal, to keep double digit unemployment, or is this government prepared to do something about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Madam Speaker, it is not acceptable. The government is trying to do something about it. In order to do something about it we had to wring out the inflation and inflationary pressures. We had to bring costs down. We had to bring interest rates down. Interest rates are the key to economic recovery.
There has been a substantial decline in interest rates over the last few months. As a matter of fact there was a decrease of 31 basis points yesterday.
We have a prime bank rate that is the lowest in about 14 years. We have inflationary pressures down to the lowest in 20 years. Those are the fundamental components towards the resurgence of the economy. Jobs are being created. We have put together programs to help farmers in their distressful situation because of a trade war. All of these things are being acted upon.
But it is not simply a matter of snapping one's fingers. The fundamentals have to be put in place and that is what we are proceeding with.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I would say to the minister that it is the fundamentals like the GST, the trade deal and the high dollar that have created this situation. Those are the fundamentals put in place by this government.

For instance, we saw this morning in the Quebec newspapers that three more companies were announcing lay-offs: Christie Brown, 200 people; Aerocar Murray Hill, 200 people; Cascades, 250. And there are more every day.
In Quebec, more than 600,000 families are living on welfare. A record!
My question to the minister is this: What is this government going to do now, to give all these people jobs? Not tomorrow, but today!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is a matter of getting an economic environment that is conducive to investment and job creation activity. Bringing interest rates and inflationary pressures down are very fundamental.
The other thing that is very fundamental is putting in place some very important structural changes that will allow Canadians to compete in the global market economy.
Yesterday's Toronto Star indicated that with free trade a printing firm in Toronto, taking advantage of free trade and enthusiastically eyeing expansion in Canada and the larger U.S. market, stated that this year would be its best
November 8, 1991

year in 20 years and the firm is increasing its employment from 22 to 200. That was the Toronto Star.
We also know that the president of Chrysler announced the other day that Chrysler is putting on a third shift in its manufacturing of automobiles; Dupont Canada triples its profit; Piper Aircraft chooses Canada; Dupont opens world scale plant; Dow Chemical opens world scale petrochemical plant. All of these things are the product of the free trade deal and of low interest rates and low inflation. They will provide sustainable recovery with price stability. That is our goal.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the minister fails to cite the fact that over 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs, that the trade deal is an important part of that job loss and this government and this minister knows it. Do they change their policy? No. They go ahead, they take a bad deal and they want to make it worse by having the deal with Mexico. This government does not change its policies and does not listen to Canadians.
I want to say to the minister, each time these questions are raised about the unemployed, he cites more statistics, more graphs. I look at the faces of those hardworking Canadians who cannot afford to buy anything because of this government's policies. I want to say to the minister again: Will he take the advice of small business and get rid of the GST? Will he listen to Canadians and bring in a fair tax system so Canadians have some money to purchase something?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member takes issue with me quoting statistics and articles. If it is fair ball for her to quote articles to me which she purports to suggest are anti-free trade, I guess it is fair game for me to talk about those articles which appear in the daily press which encourage and support the issue of free trade.
I repeat, 108,000 new jobs have been created in Canada in the last two months. We are coming out of a recession. The recession has been much deeper than we had expected but with interest rates coming down, with inflationary pressures easing, with an investment climate
Oral Questions
that is positive, we look forward to robust growth in 1992. We are expecting growth to range somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3.2 to 3.5 per cent.
I can only tell the hon. member that unless we get the fundamentals right, unless we are able to compete in a globalized economy, restructure ourselves and adjust so that we can carve out niche markets in an effective way, we are not going to see it turn around. That is the challenge we as government have. That is the challenge that labour has. That is the challenge that business has. That is why we have to work at this in a partnership arrangement and this is precisely what we are doing.


YUGOSLAVIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning there were very disturbing news reports that the Yugoslav army has set up missile sites aimed at Croatian cities and is threatening, to use their words, "Croatia with massive casualties and ecological disaster".
The European Economic Community, and Canada joining in, has cancelled some trade promotion and trade agreements. Is it not time, in light of this kind of threat of genocide that was issued this morning, that we go far beyond this kind of modest prudent measure and stand up and say we will not tolerate European countries selling oil to the Yugoslavian army, we will not tolerate a blockade that starves people in Dubrovnik and that we insist the United Nations step in and take the kind of action that will tell the Yugoslavian army and the Serbs that we will not tolerate this kind of action against civilians using rockets and missiles to end their lives?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, the situation in Yugoslavia is very serious and very troublesome. We all hope there will be a way of finding some way to negotiate rather than use weapons to deal with this problem.

November 8, 1991
Oral Questions
As the hon. member knows, this morning in Rome the Prime Minister announced a series of measures which Canada will take with respect to trade issues. We will be suspending our general preferential tariff treatment. We will put Yugoslavia on the area control list. We will suspend all trade promotion and trade support measures and we will be working closely with the European community and going to the United Nations where there will be discussions about further sanctions that could be imposed as well.
In addition, because I know of the hon. member's concerns, the Prime Minister announced this morning that an additional $1 million will be made available for humanitarian aid through the Red Cross to assist civilians in Yugoslavia to deal with this terrible situation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in response to the minister, I take no issue with the measures that were offered this morning, but they are too little and too late.
The reports that we have this morning is the kind of threat of massive casualties and ecological disasters, in the words of the army itself.
I want to ask the minister: Does she not think that Canada could be taking a much stronger role in mobilizing a major international relief effort, breaking the blockade and saying veiy clearly to both sides that the fighting must stop and we must end this persecution of innocent civilians for the sake of these objectives? What kind of tough international actions is Canada going to be promoting and issuing this weekend before this kind of disaster takes place?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I am sure that my hon. colleague would agree that in fact Canada has played a leadership role. We were one of the first countries to make the call at the UN for initiatives to be undertaken to deal with this terrible situation.
I know that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will continue to be vigorously putting forward our view that there must be an end to the conflict in Yugoslavia. There must be a way of negotiating peace and we will undertake whatever measures that we can to help to ensure that this happens.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Canadian National is selling the profitable line between Truro and Sydney in Nova Scotia, yet those who are interested are being told that to get more detailed information they have to sign a secrecy agreement and pay $500. Canadians own this railroad, yet the government is denying pertinent information to the taxpayers.
Why is the government doing this? What is it hiding? Why cannot the people in Atlantic Canada know the details of this sale and the information? Can it be that this whole sale is really more misguided and more of a fiasco than we first thought?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, CN is set up as a Crown agency with autonomy of operation and with a mandate to be as commercially viable as possible. It has decided to call tenders for sale of the Sydney-Truro line. I understand that the bids are now in. It will go through the process. When CN has made its decision, it will forward it to the Minister of Transport and we will have a look at it at that time.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, included in this sale, I might add, are 3,200 acres of land, a lot of it prime real estate. It sounds an awful lot like another Route Canada fiasco.
Why will the government not disclose the pertinent information about this sale to Canadians? Why does the minister not admit that this so-called hands off, arm's length transaction is really just a farce.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would like to give to the Minister of Transport the components of the so-called farce, the Minister of Transport will investigate it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who announced an $800 million assistance package to Canadian farmers several weeks ago in response to farm rallies calling for $30 an acre.
November 8, 1991

Has he now decided if all seeded acres will be included in the program? Specifically, will forage crops grown on class I, II, III and IV soils, whose prices have been forced down along with grain prices, be included and when will the pay-out be in the farmers' hands?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the decision to bring further assistance to the grains and oilseeds industry was not made because of farm rallies. It was made because it was important that the Government of Canada support a very important economic industry in Canada.
I say to my hon. friend the decisions and the recommendations as to how the money would be paid out is being worked through the third line of defence committees which have representatives of producers, farm leadership, and provincial representatives. When they are able to provide me with the advice, I will make a decision on the options or choices they present to me.
I hope to be able to distribute as quickly as possible the amount of money we would have available. As you know, Madam Speaker, when the announcement was made, I make a commitment that the funds would be delivered before spring.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, can the minister tell us if the government intends to place further estimates before this House before the pay-out can be made, or will we be waiting for the next budget before the pay-out can be made?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: As the
hon. member knows, if there arises a need to place estimates, the government will place those estimates.
He knows the difficulty that all governments, not just the Government of Canada, have at this time in finding additional resources. I hope that there can be a pay-out made in the very near future which will be substantial and which will assist the agriculture community in Canada.
Oral Questions TOUR BOAT INDUSTRY


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with Canada's tour boat industry.
Business in the tour boat industry is down about 30 per cent this year over last year. There are several reasons for that decline in business, but one of the major reasons is overregulation of the industry by the federal government.
Can the minister give me a commitment that he will conduct an inquiry into all aspects of government regulation in the tour boat industry to see if, without compromising safety, there are any regulations that can be eliminated or adjusted which would have the effect of lowering costs for our tour boat industry in Canada?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I would certainly appreciate it if the member would provide me with the source of his statistics. I met recently with a number of people in the tour boat industry. They are all telling me that 1991 has been a booming year for the cruise ship industry.
If the gentleman has any indication as to what precise regulation is hindering that industry, we would certainly be interested in looking into it.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, my statistics come from the tour boat industry itself. The tour boat industry is a multi-million dollar industry in this country and it is in a state of decline right now. It employs hundreds of seasonal workers, most of whom are students.
If the minister is not interested in meeting with these people, as I suggested, and examining the regulations that are imposed on them, will he reconsider and either meet with those representatives or get in touch with them and tell them why he will not meet with them, and tell them that the present regulations must remain in place even if it means the decline of that very important industry that is hurting?

November 8, 1991
Oral Questions


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, obviously the member was not listening to what I just said.
I said that we are prepared to examine any reduction in regulations that could help the industry provided-and this is what we said all along-that we will not jeopardize the safety of the travelling public.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns a young Romanian couple, Mr and Mrs. Bursucianu. The minister is familiar with their case. Mrs. Bursucianu, her parents' only daughter, is more than eight months pregnant and the department wants to deport her before the birth of her child, due in early December. Her physicians at the Royal Victoria Hospital all agree that to deport her at this time would have a major impact on her health and that she cannot travel in her condition. However, all the department has to offer is a promise to send this young woman, who is in the last stages of pregnancy, a nice comfortable RCMP vehicle to drop her off at the U.S. border. I think that is gross.
My question is this: Is the minister prepared to make a humanitarian gesture and, as requested by her physicians, allow this young woman to give birth in December and make a safe recovery?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member is no doubt aware from our discussions, each case is examined on its own merits. The hon. member is also aware that the Privacy Act prohibits us from discussing details of specific cases in the House. However, I have been informed that, in the circumstances, the deportation order will be stayed for the time being.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration and it concerns his annual report to Parliament.
The minister has considerably tightened up the family class by restricting the definition of dependency. My question is a simple one: Why the attack on the family
class? Is the family no longer important to this minister and this government?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, hon. members are well aware of this government's concern for families. The immigration levels announced by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, reflect that concern. The family class has been maintained. We are not withdrawing from our pro-family immigration policy. According to the immigration plan tabled for 1992, we will raise the level to 100,000 families. For the sake of comparison, in 1984, before we came to power, it was 84,000.


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Despite what the minister has told the House this morning, he is well aware of the fact that housing starts in Canada this year are at a seven-year low. In fact they are 100,000 less than some four years ago. Interest rates are falling, but we still have double digit unemployment.
Will the minister finally agree to introduce a 5 per cent down payment for first time home buyers in order to stimulate demand, in order to create jobs without increasing the deficit and without increasing the national debt?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in fairness to the hon. member I think he would recognize that with the decline in interest rates, the projections by CMHC would indicate that there will be an increase of at least 20 per cent in housing starts in 1992.
Obviously the lower interest rates in terms of the prime bank rate, which is now at its lowest level in 13 or 14 years, will provide an incentive for additional home building.
With respect to the member's proposal, the 95 per cent mortgage provided by CMHC, it is a matter that we are looking at very closely. There are some issues that have to be addressed in terms of what sort of restrictions and parameters one may want to contemplate in building around it. I know the hon. member has been a strong supporter of this particular provision and I can assure him that we are actively considering it.
November 8, 1991


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Recently the Canadian Wheat Board in what it calls an experiment announced that it will be shipping some
55.000	bushels of barley through the port of Seattle. This is the first time that the Canadian Wheat Board has ever loaded grain through an American port.
Will the minister advise the Canadian Wheat Board that sales through American ports create uncertainty in the growth, investment and development of our port facilities and threatens thousands of jobs? Will he tell the Canadian Wheat Board and assure the Canadian public that there will be no more sales of this kind?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Quite to the contrary, Madam Speaker. I would say to the Canadian Wheat Board that it has accepted its responsibility to get the most efficient return for producers and to sell every bushel of grain it can on behalf of farmers in Canada.
The strikes that took place in the two ports east and west harmed Canada's integrity internationally in our ability to supply. The wheat board has made a decision to increase the sales opportunities to producers, and I encourage it to do everything that it can to increase those sales opportunities. The wheat board's responsibility is to the producers.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, Sask Wheat Pool right now has a 34,000-tonne capacity that is empty. The Alberta Wheat Pool has over
32.000	tonnes that are empty and could easily handle this sale. UGG does not have a ship in port at this time. This grain sale will not be following the WGTA subsidy and this sale was done without consultation with the industry.
It is incumbent upon this government to take a stand in order to show that we have a viable and a valuable transportation system in this country, or is the minister hoping that we will next see unit trains hauling grain down to the Mississippi?
Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I know that the New Democratic Party is quite touchy about the strikes that took place in Canada's two very important ports. It cost farmers in Canada over $40 million every week that the port or Vancouver was shut down.
What the Canadian Wheat Board has done is accept its responsibility to deliver as much grain on behalf of the producers, make as many sales on behalf of the producers as it can.
The hon. member talks about lack of support. I would say to the hon. member, if lack of support is indicated, that Mr. Allen from United Grain Growers says: "Although we have terminals in both Thunder Bay and west coast, we have a responsibility to our producers, not our terminals". The UGG supports the move and I am sure every producer in Canada supports the move.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
A few weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a $40 million aid package for the Atlantic fishery. Each province was included except Prince Edward Island.
Will the minister accept his responsibility and provide the much needed aid to the groundfishermen of Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, in considering the need for an Atlantic fisheries aid program, the department of fisheries and the minister have taken into account the relative income needs and the degree of catch failure in the various provinces.
I am sure when the hon. minister is able to return to the House he can assure the hon. member that the needs of the fishermen of Prince Edward Island will be adequately addressed in any way necessary.

November 8, 1991
Oral Questions


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, I can inform the hon. minister that there is a catch failure in the groundfisheiy in Prince Edward Island also.
The province of Prince Edward Island has received less than $150,000 of the $584 million aid program announced in 1990 despite the problems in the Island fishery.
Will the minister realize that Prince Edward Island is part of Canada and deserves fisheries aid?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would agree that this government has taken many initiatives which recognize the importance of Prince Edward Island and Islanders not only with respect to the fishery but with respect to many other areas of economic need in that province. We will continue to do so.
When the minister of fisheries has a chance to address the question of the hon. member, I am sure he will satisfactorily convince him that the fishermen of Prince Edward Island and processors alike are being amply treated as they always have been under this government.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
For years Canada has taken a hard line in international negotiations with respect to protecting Canada's supply management system, but now we cannot be too sure.
Can the minister explain what he meant when he said recently: "People are going to have to put a little water in their wine"? Is this a way of saying that it is all over for supply management?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member has given me an opportunity to answer his question. I was talking-and I can read the quote to him-about the export subsidies that are distorting the international grain trade. I can hand the hon. member a copy of the transcript.
I said that in order to come to an agreement I believe people in this negotiation on export subsidies which distort trade internationally would have to do what negotiations point them to doing in this area, and that is put a little water in the wine.
Yesterday I met with my provincial colleagues. Our support in the supply management field has not wavered. Every province was represented. We will continue to press our point at the GATT as we have for the last two years. Supply management has worked for Canadian producers and Canadian consumers. This government and the rest of the governments in Canada continue to support it.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
I like what I hear him saying, but I ask the minister how come he also said recently that he hopes that we can find a way to protect the supply management system. We have a way now. We want to save the system we have got, not find another one.
We know that the government publicly defends supply management boards but officials are saying off the record-and it is in the press today-that we are not likely going to be able to save them because we are basically the only country that wants to do that. We are the only country that wants them strengthened and clarified.
If that is a possibility-and I do not think the minister can deny that it is a possibility-are officials working on a fail-back position? If not, why not? If they are, what is it?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party may be working on a fall-back position on supply management. This government and the other governments and the producers in Canada are working to maintain and strengthen article XI so we can protect the supply management system which this government and producers support.


CROATIA
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the situation in Croatia.
November 8, 1991

As we know it is deteriorating. The Serbia controlled army is committing war crimes against the people of Croatia. Yugoslavia as such does not exist any more and this is confirmed by a statement of Mr. Mesic, the last president of Yugoslavia.
When is Canada going to see reality and recognize the democratically elected Government of Croatia?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I could say, as I mentioned earlier, that we along with our allies in the European community have undertaken a series of measures which we hope will bring all parties to their senses, end the conflict and get back to serious negotiation at the table in order to bring about peace in that area.
As I mentioned this morning, the Prime Minister has already announced a series of measures, of sanctions dealing with trade issues consistent with what the European community has done. That along with the humanitarian aid which has been additionally announced this morning we hope will increase the pressure and bring all parties to the table to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the disputes.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is as follows.
Does the government not think that if we had recognized the Government of Croatia when it was first elected and wanted to co-operate as a unit in Yugoslavia, we would not have had this deteriorating situation. There was a signal given to the Serbians: let them fight and let them take over Croatia.
I think it is still very important for us to do the proper thing and recognize the Government of Croatia.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, Canada along with members of the European community, the CSCE and NATO all believe that recognition for those who wish it obviously should be given, but it should be done within a framework of negotiated settlements.
Oral Questions
Obviously that is what we have been pushing for. There has to be negotiation at which the rights of all parties, the minorities and everyone who is involved in the situation, can be protected and human rights will be able to prevail as well. That is the process we are committed to and every effort that we along with the other countries around the world can undertake to bring that about, I can assure my hon. colleague, will be supported by the Prime Minister and this government.


UKRAINE
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It is my understanding that External Affairs has received a request from the Government of Ukraine asking that Canada send three observers to monitor the referendum and elections to be held there December 1.
Will the government agree to this request? Will it arrange to send the three requested observers to Ukraine?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, again on behalf of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, yes, the member is correct. I understand that such a request has indeed been made. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is obviously giving this very serious consideration. I am sure upon her return from the NATO summit next week she will be able to address and finalize this matter.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I will take that as a provisional yes and would ask, then, whether or not the government would consider requesting of the Government of Ukraine that the Canadian observer team be augmented by one, to allow a technical adviser from Elections Canada to accompany them.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to take the member's representation and make it known to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure that she will get back to the member accordingly.

Oral Questions EXTRADITION


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In December 1989 two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, were arrested in Brazil. They were in a house where it was believed a Brazilian businessman was being held hostage. Despite pleas of innocence and doubts about the fairness of the trial and the justice process, they are still in Brazilian jails.
Given that the parents of Christine and David have made every effort to have them returned to Canada, I ask the minister why this government has not commenced the extradition process to have Christine and David returned to this country.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I know there has been some columns in the newspapers about this particular situation, but as I understand it there was not a transfer of offenders agreement between Canada and Brazil. The department has been endeavouring to negotiate such a treaty with the Brazilian government but there is not one at this time.
I also understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has reviewed this case and at this point does not believe that there has been a denial of justice or that there are grounds upon which she could initiate an approach to the Brazilian government. However, I am sure that if there is additional information that can be brought forward she would be prepared to look at that.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, this is a heartbreaking situation for two young Canadians whose only crime has been a lifetime commitment to helping those less fortunate than themselves.
Given the belief that there has been a possible misuse of justice by Brazilian authorities, on humanitarian grounds and the possibility of human rights violations I again ask this government to give every consideration on behalf of Christine Lamont and David Spencer.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the member's concerns
will be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I would like to caution the member that as I understand the situation at this time there is not clear evidence of a denial of justice and that obviously in these situations one has to be veiy careful. However, the member's representations will be made known to the appropriate minister.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is really supplementary to the ones asked by the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Twice now in this House he has expressed some concern about a railway in his riding going from government ownership to private ownership.
I am wondering if the Minister of Transport would explain where the same concern had taken place in Alberta with Central Western Railway and how once it went private the service increased and improved. Would he also share the concerns about when VIA Rail left Calgary for Vancouver and what happened to that railway once it went private so that the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys does not need to believe that privatization is always bad?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to express that when VIA sold part of its Rocky Mountaineer route it became a much more prosperous enterprise since it became privatized.
This is an indication that it is not to be feared if CN is offering that particular line, the Sydney-Truro, to potential bidders. It will examine the bids and will determine whether or not it is in the best interest of the region to proceed with the privatization of that line.


FOSSIL FUELS
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting minister of energy.
Canadian Press revealed recently that this year the federal government would subsidize the petroleum industry by about $547 million. Of course as an Albertan I
November 8, 1991

Routine Proceedings
am all for that. However that is 16 times more than the $35 million it will spend in partnerships with others to develop alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass and to promote conservation.
The green plan boondoggle says that Canada is committed to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions brought on by fossil fuel consumption by the year 2000.
Given that, how can the government or the minister of energy tilt the scales so much against renewable energy and conservation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware that the Government of Canada is committed to maintaining a level of research with respect to renewable and alternative energies in substitution for our primary energy resources.
The hon. member knows full well, particularly as an Albertan, of the importance of the fossil fuel producing industries to this country and to our national security. He understands that there are no simple alternatives and quick fixes to our dependency on fossil fuels. Notwithstanding their environmental side effects, this industry must be maintained and supported not only for the benefit of Albertans but of all Canadians.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, today I wish to table, in both official languages, the Order in Council appointments made recently by the government. Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), the same shall be deemed to have been referred to the standing committees indicated in the appendix.


FINANCE
René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance in accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, October 2.
The committee has considered Bill C-28, an act respecting insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies, and has agreed to report it with accompanying amendments.
I just add on a personal note that this is the final report on a number of financial bills that were referred to us earlier this year. I can say as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance that it was a pleasure to work with all members of the committee from all parties to prove that we can in fact bring forward amendments to legislation in a very co-operative fashion. This is the final report of that effort.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act (change of political affiliation).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, this bill proposes to require members of Parliament who have chosen to change their party affiliation after their election during a Parliament to return to their electors by means of a by-election to have their decision to change party affiliation approved or not approved.
It recognizes the fact that many voters in Canada choose their member of Parliament in large part based on party affiliation and simply asks that those voters have a right to pass judgment on the decision taken by their member of Parliament.

November 8, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Manley moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of small towns, including Elginburg, Wolfe Island, Joyceville, Gananoque, Napa-nee, Harrowsmith and Sydenham, all in Ontario.

These electors are very concerned that the Government of Canada may be negotiating away article XI of the GATT They are concerned that the destruction of Canada's supply management system will destroy the dairy industry in Canada. They call upon Parliament to instruct the government to hold our Canadian system up as an example to the rest of the world and protect it entirely at all costs and to have article XI clarified and strengthened at the upcoming round of GATT negotiations.
I know that the Minister of Supply and Services, who has some farmers in his riding, will do his very best to make sure this happens and stop sitting in the House abusing people who are trying to protect the system he and his government seem to be destroying.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by 7,500 Canadians from across this land asking the Canadian government to recognize the independence of Croatia and its duly elected government.
By not recognizing Croatia the Canadian government and the international community are indirectly condoning the war crimes committed by the junta in Belgrade.
I join with pride those petitioners in supporting their petition.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from western Canada, Alberta and British Columbia. They are concerned about what appears to be, at least from their perspective, an increasing amount of lawlessness in the country, an increase in breaking and entering and violent crimes. They are asking the federal government to ensure that the RCMP has proper funding to enable it to carry out its mandate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition primarily from communities throughout British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned about a plan that has been announced to divert a particular tributary of the Fraser River in an effort to move Canadian fresh water to San Diego, California.
They are simply asking that the Canadian government state that this particular proposal will not be tolerated.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition signed by 1,786 residents, primarily from the Toronto area, with respect to the situation in Croatia.
The gist of the petition is that Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election in April 1990.
Ninety-four per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence. Croatians, like all other peoples, are entitled to freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination.
The petitioners therefore call on us to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation. It is a pleasure to join with them in presenting this petition.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three petitions in the House today.
The first petition is signed by both women and men with respect to the goods and services tax on feminine sanitary products. They see these products as necessary. As a result they see the goods and services tax applied on these particular products as totally discriminatory.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, the second petition is with respect to education and various massive cuts.
The petitioners deplore the fact that the government talks about productivity, competitiveness and a learning culture when in fact it has been incessantly cutting the educational portfolio and its financial supports.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my third petition is a petition concerning national unity.
The men and women who have signed this petition have asked the leaders of the three major political parties to ensure that this dialogue, this reaching out, ensures that Canada stays together.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I join in raising my voice with those who have read petitions with respect to the very serious situation in Croatia. There is devastation to mind, property and health of the people of that country. Men, women and children are entitled to live decently and with respect.
I table this petition asking for serious action to take place to prevent the devastation going on in Croatia. I encourage the government to participate in encouraging that action.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 74, 112, 131 and 153.


Mr. Thompson: With respect to the rental of a box at the Toronto SkyDome by
Canada Post Corporation (a) what are the terms and conditions of
Routine Proceedings
the lease (b) who has access to this facility (c) who authorized the rental?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Like many other Canadian corporations operating in a competitive business environment, Canada Post rents box seating for the sole purpose of conducting business with its customers. These rentals and the hosting of customers are normal business functions to help the corporation improve volumes and revenues, acquire new customers and retain existing ones.
Usage of these boxes is strictly monitored by senior management at CPC to ensure this policy is not abused. No public funds are involved.


Mr. Assad: What is the total amount of (a) contributions paid to federal political parties since the federal election of 1988 (b) tax credits refunded as contributions to federal political parties for the years (i) 1988 (ii) 1989 (iii) 1990?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by Elections Canada and Revenue Canada as follows:
Part a):


[Stage Direction]
Total Contributions
1990	1989	1988$	$	$Progressive Conservative Party of Canada	11,046,654	13,801,368	24,542,036Liberal Party of Canada	12,038,486	6,324,012	13,211,364New Democratic Party *	15,438,908	13,864,694	17,754,770Social Credit Party of Canada	22,854	1,735	23,754Communist Party of Canada	330,451	328,686	394,616Libertarian Party of Canada	57,152	58,195	136,386Rhinoceros Party	400	600	1,826The Green Party of Canada	52,928	35,295	42,467
November 8, 1991
Business of the House
Confederation of Regions Western Party	159,841	129,109	72,791Party for the Commonwealth of Canada	46,716	103,141	70,141Christian Heritage Party of Canada	497,956	861,747	[DOT] *Reform Party of Canada	2,213,762	1,350,918	* *
* Includes contributions of the party at the national, provincial and territorial levels.
* * Not required to submit a fiscal period return for 1988 as they only became a registered political party in October 1988.
Part b):
"fixation Year
1989
Individuals
8,874,000
Corporations
1.326.000
1.334.000
Total
10,200,000
18,849,000
17,515,000
Data are not yet available for the 1990 taxation year
Notes: These amounts represent the total amount of federal political contribution tax credits allowed to individuals and corporations based on tax returns filed for the respective taxation years.
A tax return filer may use a federal political contribution tax credit only to the extent that it reduces the federal tax to zero. Any amount of the credit that cannot be used in this way is not available for refund.
Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): With respect to the government's 1991-92 restraint measures for pay, will the restraint also apply to Crown corporations and, if not, why not?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: The government's wage restraint measures apply directly to those Crown corporations listed in schedule II of the Public Sector Compensation Act.
All Governor in Council appointees in Crown corporations outside the purview of the Public Sector Compensation Act will also see their salaries frozen in 1991-92, and these executives will not receive performance pay in respect of their performance for this period. Following the February budget, all Crown corporations were asked to follow the spirit of the government's policy on wage restraint when concluding their collective agreements. As most of the activities of these corporations are commercial and competitive in nature, they manage their own negotiations with their own work force. Wage settlements for those corporations not directly subject to the Public Sector Compensation Act will be closely monitored.


Mr. Schneider: For the period October 4, 1991 to November 4, 1991, what has been (a) total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question, to the government for answering Order Paper Questions?


Albert Glen Cooper: (a) & (b) Questions answered during the period of October 7, 1991 to November 4, 1991:
Question No.	Approximate Cost	Question No.	Approximate Cost3	$100	6	$12240	680	57	18875	502	89	41492	535	105	130106	180	108	129114	90	115	248116	68	118	435120	89	135	40
TOTAL COST: $3,950.
(c) $25


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
* *
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering if I might pose a question to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
November 8, 1991

As he is well aware we previously have had some discussions among House leaders. Agenda items were laid out and thereafter agreed to.
Yesterday we were informed of some changes to that plan, particularly relating to November 18 and November 19 when the House will be returning.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has other changes that have manifested themselves in the last 24 hours and whether he would like to share them with us.
In particular, I refer to the intervention made in Question Period and a point of order yesterday concerning the House debating the situation in Yugoslavia. Could he perhaps bring us up to date on whether the government has had a change of heart about highlighting that particular issue for our immediate return?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows we had intended to complete Bill C-31 today.
We had also hoped that before we rise later this day we would complete third reading on Bill C-12. We are anxious to do that. We will be doing everything we can on this side to expedite the passage of those bills through the particular stages they are at now.
As for when we return, our plans are to continue with what we had indicated previously to the House leaders. According to my memory it seems to me it was the Canada Pension Plan, Bill C-38. The financial institutional package would be on the table. As the hon. member knows, yesterday our House leader confirmed to him that we were willing to look into the matter of a special debate, as raised by his colleague from Winnipeg.
We are looking into that. I do not yet have an answer. However I can indicate that, as the House leader on this side has said before, as House business is progressing well and we are able to free up House time, we are more than happy to co-operate in any way we can to make these kinds of debates available to members of this House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same issue raised by my friend, the opposition House leader. If the government is determined to proceed with the agenda as
Business of the House
proposed there might be some consideration to come to an understanding now that on the first date we return, November 18, we designate an evening sitting to address the important issue that my hon. friend raises.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I understand the representation of the House leader of the New Democratic Party and I would not want to rule it out definitely. However I do want to indicate to him that I have just been passed a note indicating that the Secretary of State for External Affairs arrives back in Canada on November 19. We would like, if at all possible, to ensure that she is here for such an important debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader knows very well that there has been a great deal of co-operation given by the opposition parties with regard to legislation introduced into the House.
I accept his undertaking, as I did the government House leader's, that the government will attempt in the first week we are back to make the necessary arrangements with the Secretary of State for External Affairs to have a debate on Yugoslavia.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary could perhaps in the middle of the coming week-I know it is a recess for the House and most members return to their constituencies-give some greater thought and do more to try to specify a date and time for this particular debate.
I do not think the hon. member intended to say that it will depend upon what legislation the government gets through. The government has been very fortunate in having the co-operation we have given. A prime example is the co-operation we gave to the government with regard to Bill C-17, which was passed in due course. Hon. members had an opportunity to participate and vote in accordance with his or her conscience, whatever that may be, with regard to Bill C-17.
I hope the hon. member is not holding other legislation over our heads and is saying: "If you do not pass this you cannot debate the subject matter of Yugoslavia".
I hope he can give me that undertaking, as I think he implied it in his initial representation.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as the House leader of the Liberal Party well knows I would be happy to give him dates and times. What we have to do is co-ordinate a number of ministers' schedules. We have to do some planning according to the progress we make on legislation. Perhaps he can help me in facilitating my ability to respond to him as soon as possible and give him a fixed date and time regarding this debate.
Can he advise me whether we can expect to complete business on Bill C-31 and Bill C-12 today or am I going to have to try to make up that time at a future date?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am quite ready to recognize the hon. Liberal House leader but this is getting to be negotiation in the House of Commons. Maybe the hon. House leaders and the parliamentary secretary would consider negotiating behind the curtains and maybe returning to the House after.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, we will certainly want to follow your suggestion. A lot of charges have been made outside the House and indeed inside the House that there is very little co-operation between the various parties, opposition parties in particular, and the government in terms of the legislative agenda of the government.
It is important for all members, and for the Chair, to recognize and understand that there is a lot of co-operation given by this side to the side opposite in terms of its legislative agenda.
As for the specific question raised by my colleague, he knows full well that we discussed this at a House leaders' meeting only to find that the agenda was changed unilaterally by members opposite with regard to the legislation they were going to pursue for the remainder of the week.
We have a number of speakers who wish to participate in the debate which has been called by the hon. member. We hope to be able to accommodate his objective as best we can.
Whether that can be realized today or whether that will be realized at another time I am not in a position to say at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When we interrupted debate, the hon. member for Peterborough had the floor on questions and comments.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, I believe I had responded to the one comment made by my colleague on the other side.
The other comment from three speakers was that they really wanted to know whether this bill was slower or faster or whether I was satisfied with the government bill versus my private member's bill. The government bill is a much better bill. It includes more exclusions from the chain of appeals under extradition than even my bill did.
To be more specific, my bill versus the minister's bill put it in both tracks. It moved it over to the appeal in the Federal Court on the minister's signature or on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then to the superior court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the minister's bill that moves it very rapidly from the extradition hearing to the appeal in the province. That appeal in the province then reviews the minister's signature. So the minister has a certain time frame within this legislation to sign the warrant for extradition. Then that appeal deals with it.
There is only the one appeal guaranteed on extradition under the minister's bill. There were literally two appeals, one in the Federal Court and one in the provincial court with my bill that I had introduced as Bill C-210.1 am very pleased with the minister's bill.
November 8, 1991

That answers as best I can the two questions or concerns the member had. If the member wishes to make further comment I welcome that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend should have listened more carefully to my speech and read the minister's statement. I hope he is right but I do not think he is. The minister has streamlined the procedure in the bill by intending to put the two together. Her own notes were provided by her department and on page 4 it says:
In some circumstances, however, an extradition case could appear twice before the Court of Appeal. This could happen, for example, if there was no committal order issued at the extradition hearing and this was appealed successfully by the foreign state. It could also be 1he case if there was a committal order and the Minister of Justice postponed making a decision on the surrender order until after the Court of Appeal made a decision on an appeal of that committal order, or if the Court of Appeal felt it was appropriate to deal separately with the appeal and review.
The procedure is there. The thrust of my remarks was that the minister should abandon her powers of surrender to the court so that all the determinations would be made at once by a judge instead of by a judge and then by the minister. It would avoid this multiplicity of appeals altogether. The minister's scheme should eliminate the bulk of them.
I am glad the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is in agreement. I know the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is in full agreement.
As I said in my speech, the minister has retained this power and there could be the two lines of appeal which follow. I think it is clear from the minister's own statements that is so.
I know the member suggested in his comments that everything was fused into one. I suggest that does not appear to be the case. I hope the committee could consider a possible change but I suspect it will be beyond their scope, given that this bill in its present form will receive second reading I presume later this day.
I appreciate the hon. member's comment and his elucidation of the principles of the bill and I am glad that the Minister of Supply and Services is so interested in the subject. I hope that he is going to make a speech instead of mumbling from his seat.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.

Hon. Paul Dick (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I know all my colleagues are pleased that we have entered the third reading debate on Bill C-12, amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
The overriding goal of the Young Offenders Act is that as many youths as possible become fully participating and contributing members of our communities as adults in accordance with the values of our society. To attain this goal, the government remains committed to the philosophy of the act that was unanimously endorsed by this House in 1982, that is that young people are responsible for their illegal behaviour and should be held accountable in a manner appropriate to their age and maturity.
Over the past few years, the federal Department of Justice has consulted on issues regarding the Young Offenders Act as seen by a wide range of persons involved with young offenders, including representatives of provincial governments and territories, corrections officials, mental health professionals, members of nongovernmental organizations concerned with juvenile justice, researchers, academics, the judiciary Crown counsel, police, defence lawyers and, of course, members of Parliament.

Government Orders
As well, the testimony of witnesses to the legislative committee that examined Bill C-12, the former Bill C-58, has proven beneficial and I think has resulted in a number of improvements to the bill. I thank my colleagues who served on that committee for their hard work.
I would like to spend a couple of minutes addressing the objectives of the Young Offenders Act in the specific context of youth charged with serious offences because it is youth charged with serious offences that I, and I am sure most members of Parliament, have had the most questions.
The provisions of the current act which have come under severest attack have been those governing the transfer to adult court of young persons charged with murder. A number of cases involving youth have attracted national attention and have influenced numerous sectors actively involved in the justice field and many members of the public believe that the transfer mechanism and sentences for murder in the Young Offenders Act should be revised. That is what we have done in this bill.
These cases called into question the integrity of the Young Offenders Act as a whole and I think have contributed to a loss of confidence in the juvenile justice system.
There are those who say that the interest of the youth should be the primary concern in accordance with the principle that young persons are not adults and therefore should not be held as accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults.
There are other equally important principles in the act which refer to young persons bearing responsibility for their actions and society being afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour. It is the balancing of these principles which we are striving to maintain with the enactment of Bill C-12.
The objective of the federal government in these proposed amendments is to ensure that the best possible decision is made at a transfer hearing in the interest of both the youth before the court and the public.
Given the range of interpretation to date on the current test for transfer to adult court, it is viewed as highly desirable to lessen the unequal application of the test and to reinforce the notion that the rehabilitation of
the young person and the protection of the public must be weighed in determining whether or not the youth remains in the youth system.
Bill C-12 directly addresses these issues. Further, the bill specifies in the exceptional case where these objectives cannot be reconciled that the protection of the public shall be paramount.
That is what the new test says, and I think this is why Bill C-12 is such an important step forward, particularly for those who are interested in this area and for those who have lost some faith in the juvenile justice system.
Under Bill C-12, the proposed disposition for a young offender who stays in the youth system and is convicted of first or second degree murder is a maximum of five years. For those who remain in the youth system and are convicted of murder, again the maximum period is five years which is made up of three years of custody to be followed by a period of conditional supervision.
The disposition would change the maximum sentence of three years custody, a sentence which in some cases has been considered entirely inappropriate.
We have added a period of supervision in the community to help that young person get reinvolved and reintegrated into society.
The federal government has two objectives in restructuring this disposition: first, to enhance the potential for rehabilitation and, second, to offer increased security to the community at large.
In proposing a period of guidance and supervision in the community after a period of custody, the bill recognizes that the protection of the public and rehabilitation go hand in hand.
However, the custodial term could be extended where a court is satisfied that the young person is likely to commit an offence causing serious harm or death. Additionally a youth court may order the return of a young person to custody where there has been a violation of a condition of release.
Bill C-12 also reduces the period of parole in eligibility for young offenders who are transferred to adult court and convicted of murder. Transferred youths convicted of first or second degree murder would receive a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but the period at which time they would become eligible for parole would be between five and ten years.
November 8, 1991

Such a reduced period of parole ineligibility to be determined by the judge at the time of sentencing would diminish the negative effects of long-term incarceration and would reflect the belief that a young person has the potential for rehabilitation.
At report stage, the government tabled a motion concerning the placement of youth whose cases have been transferred to adult court. That particular motion was passed by the House.
This motion responds to the concerns of many members of Parliament and of individuals and organizations with the current placement of youth in adult facilities.
While the government had initially intended to deal with this issue as part of a second phase of legislative review, time has afforded the opportunity to consult further and resolve the issue at this stage.
The provision that I just referred to would require as the normal rule the placement of a transferred youth under the age of 18 in youth facilities during the pre-trial stage.
An exception could be made and the youth could be placed in an adult facility where a youth court is satisfied, taking into account the best interests of the youth and the safety of other youth, that this is desirable.
A youth over the age of 18 years would normally be placed in an adult facility. A provision is also made for an exception allowing the court to order placement in a youth facility using the same criteria.
Where a youth is transferred and convicted in adult court and is under 18 years, provision is made for the court to select between youth, provincial adult and adult penitentiary systems having to take into account a number of factors. Beyond this bill further changes to the Young Offenders Act are being examined to address three distinct aspects of the act. These are, first, to respond more effectively to the special needs of adolescents given their state of dependency and level of development and maturity; second, to determine the most appropriate legislative framework for custodial sentences and for sentence review; and, third, to ascertain the most suitable provisions regarding the admissibility into evidence of statements made by young people to persons in authority.
At the heart of the sentencing amendments is the question of how sentences should be structured to achieve the greatest promise of rehabilitation. The
Government Orders
government is committed to moving ahead as quickly as possible with whatever legislative changes are desirable to realize this goal.
In conclusion, the greatest challenge to Canada's juvenile justice system arises where young people are involved in the commission of serious or violent offences, particularly murder. Parliament's role in meeting this challenge is to enact sound juvenile justice legislation which adheres to the principles and policies embodied in the Young Offenders Act. Bill C-12 exemplifies such legislation. The bill reinforces the premise that the protection of the public and rehabilitation can go hand in hand. Both of these objectives would be enhanced, in our opinion, by a follow-up period of community supervision.
In exceptional cases where the juvenile justice system cannot protect the public or rehabilitate the young offender within the time available in the youth system, as I have indicated, the protection of the public becomes paramount under this new bill. The transfer test makes this very clear.
I think that is something that for the most part most Canadians are enthusiastic about and one of the reasons I believe for those who are aware and concerned about the whole juvenile justice system to applaud the provisions of Bill C-12.
The bill also recognizes the potential for rehabilitation for those youth transferred to the adult system by allowing for their earlier integration into the community. I think it is a step forward in this whole question of the transfer of young people from youth court to the adult system.
Again I congratulate and thank all my colleagues who have worked so hard on Bill C-12 as well as other pieces of legislation in the justice area. I think all of this contributes to the confidence of people in the system. All of them contribute ultimately to making Canada a safer and a better place in which to live.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the thanks of the parliamentary secretary. I respect the parliamentary secretary. I know he did not want to waste his thanks on me. I have been a member of Parliament for 12 years and I can say without hesitation that this is the worst bill that has ever come from the Department of Justice. It is absolute trash and it is not going to do the job that needs to be done.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
The member says he applauds those who have supported this bill. One witness who came before the legislative committee supported this bill. Every other witness, and there were many, said this was bad legislation.
Even the minister does not support this bill if you look at the facts. Where is she? The minister did not come to the legislative committee once. The parliamentary secretary says it is his job. I would like to ask where responsible government is if the minister is not going to support her own legislation. Where is responsible government if we cannot actually get to the minister to put our concerns through? When I spoke to the minister about this she said: "My parliamentary secretary is advising me as to what has happened. I have officials from the department who are there". That is not acceptable. That is not the same thing as the minister being there to hear concerns first hand.
Also the minister assured us that she would be here for third reading. All she had to do is read a speech. She is not here.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been in this House for a long time, as he has said himself. He does know that referring to the presence or absence of a member or a minister should not be done. I would appreciate if he would take another line of questioning in his speech. The hon. member.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not mind taking another line. I have quite a few of them here.
The bill itself is very misleading. When you look at Bill C-12 it says: "First reading on May 29, 1991". That would give you the impression that this bill was presented to the House as recently as May of 1991 and has proceeded quickly.
I want to tell the House that nothing could be further from the truth. The reason that we have a first reading date on the bill of May 29, 1991 is because we started a new session. The first reading of the bill was over a year ago. In fact, we completed the legislative committee proceedings on this bill in December 1990. We are now in third reading over nine months after we completed the legislative committee process. There has been absolutely no rush.
In a letter dated September 25 which was sent to many people the minister says that she is now proceeding to improve other aspects of the bill. She hopes to bring forward legislation and the parliamentary secretary referred to the same thing, "other aspects of the bill". She says:
-given the public and government consultation that has already occurred on many of these issues, it is hoped that the next phase can be conducted in as short a time period as possible; accordingly, responses from the non-governmental sector are being requested no later than December 1, 1991.
The natural thing is to suggest to the minister that if she feels this is an imperfect bill why is she presenting it to the House at the present time? Second, if she felt that there were other things necessary for the improvement of this bill, why were they not put into this bill after the legislative committee process? We just had report stage a few weeks ago. There is no reason why the government could not have brought forward amendments at the report stage to improve this bill so we would have a better bill.
The parliamentary secretary says that the government brought forward an amendment which would ease the concerns of a great many people. I can assure you that it does not. The fact is that in one way it is somewhat of an improvement. What the amendment does is say that those youth who are waiting for the question of whether they will be transferred to an adult court or heard in a youth court will be kept separate and apart from adult prisoners in a special youth facility. It is great that they can stay in this facility until the age of 20. That is wonderful. That helps.
But what does it do for the young people who are convicted of the offence subsequent to having their case heard for which they have been charged? In this motion it says that the youth will be kept in a youth facility, kept in a minimum security facility or sentenced to a penitentiary. It does absolutely nothing to look after the question of how the youth are to be treated after they are convicted.
The only reason we have this amendment is because the government has been embarrassed that the bill did not meet the terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which this government co-sponsored with another nation. In fact the Prime Minister was in New
November 8, 1991

York representing one of the two co-sponsoring nations which signed this declaration.
Section 37(3) says that young people have to be kept separate and apart from adults unless it is in their best interests to be so. It directly refers to the incarceration of young offenders and says that they are not to be kept with adult prisoners.
The government could not ratify this document with that in there so it brought forward this motion. But it still does not erase the inconsistency that exists between this legislation and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because young offenders are still going to be incarcerated with adult prisoners after they are finally charged.
Young offenders in youth court will now be given longer sentences and will have the date for parole reduced to 10 years if they are convicted of first degree murder and have a 25-year sentence. This makes it more palatable for courts to refer young offenders to an adult court. It is an invitation to refer these offenders to an adult court. This is counterproductive to what is really needed in society today if we are going to deal with the problem and youth.
Let me just run over the procedure as it exists. First we have a situation where a young offender commits a crime. The young offender is held in a holding institution. Quite often the Crown prosecutor will make a motion to have that young offender referred to an adult institution and that the case will not be heard in youth court.
If the Crown prosecutor is successful the young offender can then appeal. Then there could be another appeal whereupon the question of whether the young offender is guilty or not guilty of the crime will not be heard for as long as two years. The young person is in incarceration for two years before his or her case actually comes before the courts to determine his or her guilt or innocence.
In this case the amendment looks after the fact that the young person must be held separate and apart. The problem is that is only a part of the problem. What happens to the young offender later? Where does the young offender go after his or her case is finally heard?
Government Orders
The other incidence is this. What happens while the young person is in a holding institution? There was a recent case decided where six young people were charged with the gang rape of a 14-year old girl. The question of whether these six young people were going to be tried in a youth court or an adult court took two years to resolve.
Finally it was decided that the young people would be tried in a youth court. The problem was that it took two years. We look at this unnecessary procedure and we look at the recent Askov decision. There was an appeal under the charter after this two year matter was finally resolved which found that this process took too long and it violated the rights of the six young men to a fair trial. The court found in favour of this under the Askov decision. These six young people were let go. They were not even tried for the gang rape with which they had been charged. They are out on the street. Can you image the parents of this then 14-year old girl and their vision of what the justice system is doing to right the wrong that had occurred? They would be absolutely apoplectic at that decision.
With these transfer provisions under the Askov case, lawyers will be appealing the decisions for transfer to an adult court. That could go on for as much as two years. It does not even have to go on for two years. It can go on for a much shorter period of time. The judges will rule that the young person's right to a fair trial has been violated and these young people are going to go free. That is a travesty. It is an absolute travesty. To those out there who say: "No, it is never going to happen" I say just look at the court records. Fifty thousand cases in Canada have been thrown out under the Askov case because the period of time it took this person to come to trial was considered by the judge to be too long.
The projection is that at least 100,000 cases are going to be thrown out. A person called me and was in tears because there was a case of a drunken driver hitting and killing a young person. It is absolutely ridiculous that the government is promoting these transfer provisions.
Let me talk about the violation of the rights of the defendant, if we want to look at it that way. As it stands right now, in an appeal for a transfer provision the young

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
person has to plead guilty or not guilty. If the young person pleads not guilty the court psychologists who have been appointed will say: "Oh, well, if the young person is pleading not guilty, he or she is not repentant, so there is no hope of rehabilitation for this young person". We are going to send them to an adult institution where there will be less chance of rehabilitation. That weighs on the report to the judge and the judge's decision.
What young persons should be penalized for saying they are not guilty if they really believe they are not guilty? It is a violation of their fundamental rights.
Second, if young persons say they are guilty what does that do for the final disposition of their case when the final matter for which they are charged is heard? Certainly it is going to have an effect. It is absolutely ludicrous to have these transfer provisions. The government is only increasing the likelihood that there are going to be more.
The transfer provisions are really ludicrous because they are applied in different ways in different parts of the country. In Quebec, only 15 per cent of young offenders is transferred to an adult institution.
In one of the western provinces the figure is 87 per cent. Why? It is because there are more native young offenders in that provinces.
It is a travesty that this is going on in this country at the present time.
What about rehabilitation? We are told by the parliamentary secretary and the minister: "This is all going to come to pass. This is going to occur". I am not convinced. Rehabilitation and guidance for young people is a provincial jurisdiction. When the Young Offenders Act was passed in 1984 it was with the belief that the provinces would provide institutions for young offenders separate and apart from adults and they would provide rehabilitation and counselling for these young offenders. It has not happened. In fact, the inclination has been to put more and more of them in adult institutions.
The parliamentary secretary says that the first priority of this bill is public safety and that people applaud that. Of course they applaud that. People are scared to death to walk the streets in many parts of our cities right now.
They want more public safety but they also want a workable process. If you take a young offender, put him in an adult institution where he is abused by adult criminals and sexually abused constantly day after day, that person is going to be a person who has a grudge against society. He may want to get back at society.
Second, you are going to have a former prisoner who has learned pretty well every trick in the book on how to commit his or her next crime.
There absolutely has to be rehabilitation. I want to refer to a man I have a great deal of respect for, Maurice Rose. He is originally from my constituency in Cape Breton Island. He wrote a notice and distributed it to all members of Parliament.
He says: "Let me begin by introducing myself. I am Maurice Rose of LaSalle, Quebec. On March 17, 1989 my wife and I left for North Sydney, Cape Breton for what was to be a very short trip. On the morning of March 19, 1989 I received a call informing me that my son, Joe, had been murdered on the MUCTC bus at 3.30 a.m. that same day by four armed youths with knives".
He would be a man you would expect to want to get back at every youth offender in Canada. However he has distributed a petition across this country asking for further punishment, certainly more realistic punishment, but also treatment and rehabilitation for young offenders. He is a man who in his grief has said that the system is not working. He has also said that what this government is proposing is not working.
He has distributed a petition across this country which has 800,000 signatures. It has 800,000 signatures. The man, in his grief over losing his son two years ago, has done more to bring to the attention of this country the problem that exists in our cities and with our young people than everyone in the Department of Justice. Certainly that includes the minister.
We have to depend on our citizens who have received this kind of hurt. What is going to happen to this country? The Department of Justice used to be one of the gleaming examples of effectiveness in government. Today it is diminished considerably because it is not leading the fight on crime in Canada. No, not at all. It is following.
November 8, 1991

As it takes two steps forward and one step back and in this case one step forward and two steps back, crime is becoming more sophisticated. It is more sophisticated. The danger to our citizens and to our municipalities is increasing.
Let me just quote one article from The Ottawa Sun. This does not rely on whether you like The Ottawa Sun or not. It is pure statistics. It says: "The number of teenage girls charged with violent crimes in Ontario has doubled since the Young Offenders Act was introduced, police figures show. There were 65 per cent more teenage boys charged with violent crimes in 1990 than in 1986". That is a 65 per cent increase in four years.
Federally there was a 34 per cent increase in violent crime among youth in the other nine provinces and two territories. Across Canada there was a 34 per cent increase in four years. We have a very, very serious situation here. I just want to mention one thing.
We say that the young people need to be considered in this very important area.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you what the Minister of Justice said. She said too many young people "turn to crime because they are not finding their way in the education system and not finding their way in productive ways in society".
Madam Minister, it is a good guess but you have missed the mark by a mile. How can you expect the minister to introduce meaningful legislation if she does not even know the problem?
I want to quote from one very eminent psychiatrist in Ontario's Thistletown Regional Centre, Dr. Clive Chamberlain. He says: "The Young Offenders Act not only fails to ensure that kids who commit murder will get the psychiatric help they need. It does not protect the public from potentially dangerous criminals. Predicting whether a child is capable of an act of murder is like predicting an earthquake". That is very accurate.
The minister says: "No, that is not the case. They turn to crime because they are not finding their way in the education system and not finding their way in productive ways in society".
Government Orders
There are a great many young people from good homes and high income families committing crimes. An alarming number of them are highly educated. There are certainly a lot of young people who turn to crime from single parent families and are out all day with no supervision. A lot of them do not have a chance. They are ideal for those who want to exert bad influences on them.
To say that it is because they are not finding their way in the education system-talk to the teachers in the large cities in this country teaching students up to 17 years of age. They are scared to death. Young people are going to school, nine and ten-year-olds, carrying firearms. In one case the school expelled the students. They were ten and eleven-year-olds carrying firearms and bringing them to school.
Do you know what happened, Madam Speaker? The school did not get credit for that. It got calls from the neighbourhood saying: "Why are you putting these children out on the streets where they are a danger to the neighbourhood?" What are the teachers supposed to do? Allow students who are carrying handguns in school, at the age of 10 and 11? It is absolutely ludicrous.
What does this government do? Does it address the minimum age, which is 12 under the Young Offenders Act, and the fact that anyone under 12 is not considered culpable for a crime? No. You have to be 12 years old before you are even considered eligible to be under the jurisdiction of the Young Offenders Act.
There are sophisticated criminals on the streets who are 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 years of age. Let us look at this. All we are doing with this legislation is leading people into a false sense of security. It is absolutely irresponsible but this is what is being done.
Where is organized crime in this question? Madam Speaker, let me tell you where organized crime is. Organized crime is promoting young offenders. It sees that young offenders are committing crimes, going to court, getting a slap on the wrist and a little stem talking to by the judge and then they are out on the streets. Sometimes when they are convicted they are back on the streets in a few months.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
How can you expect young people to have respect for our criminal justice system? They are laughing at us. They are laughing at the police, and with good reason. They are getting away with it. Organized crime is putting these young people up front. They are the foot soldiers in organized crime because it knows if the young people are caught they will get away with a minor sentence. Let me say something else. Do not let me leave the impression that I am insensitive to young criminals, because nothing could be further from the truth. We have a real problem here. I want to say that doing what this bill recommends, doing what this government wants us to do without meaningful amendments to the Young Offenders Act, is only going to exacerbate the problem.
We have to take these young people and give them some rehabilitation. Some of them just do not understand. I talked to psychiatrists that say that young people commit murders and they do not even know what they have done, they are so mixed up. That is hard to believe. It is hard for me to believe, but this is what I am told. There are an awful lot of mixed up young people out there and a lot of them have never had a chance.
One can say: "Oh, well, he killed somebody and what chance did that person have", but let me say that attitude is not going to correct the problem. We need longer sentences. We have to have longer sentences. We cannot let these young people out after a few months because they need counselling, they need rehabilitation. If we have young persons in a facility for just a year or a few months, how are we going to give them meaningful rehabilitation? We cannot take a young person aside and say: "You must have counselling and rehabilitation", because the young person could say: "To heck with you. Go find somebody else to give your sermon to. I am not getting any counselling". So the young person is out on the street.
What is needed is for the young person to realize that he or she needs this counselling. That may take time, but we cannot allow these young people out on the street until they realize that they are in need of help and that they can get this help. This is for their safety, because they are young persons and they are going to be back.
Even if they commit first degree or second degree murder and even if they get sentenced to 25 years, they are going to be back on the street and they are going to be out in society. We do not want them to be bitter. We do not want them to say: "I am getting even with society because of the way I have been treated". We want them to be meaningful, important members of society. We just cannot afford to have these young people coming out and committing more crimes again. It is mushrooming. We have to do something realistic.
What we in the Liberal Party are saying is: Do not go with these transfers. Do not transfer young people to adult court. Have a unified family and youth court which knows of the young persons and their parents or parent or guardian from the time they were young. There is a history in the family court perhaps of family problems and problems with the youth and these judges can deal with it. They are trained in family problems and youth problems. Of course now a family court cannot deal with a jury trial, but that can be changed. There is no reason that a jury trial cannot be the privilege of the young person if he or she wants it.
There are also going to be incorrigibles. The person who said there is no such thing as a bad child was off the mark. There are young people-maybe it is not their own fault-who now are beyond counselling. That is a tough decision to make I know. I even find it difficult to say that some young person is beyond counselling. However there are cases where we have to make that decision. There are young persons who cannot be put in a youth facility because to do so is not going to help the people there who we feel can be helped. Perhaps we have to put such young persons in an adult institution. I am sorry, but perhaps that has happen in those few special cases.
The fact is that a youth court can still do that. There is no reason that we cannot give the youth family court the power to sentence someone to an adult institution if it feels he or she is incorrigible. The youth judge is a lot more able to do that than the regular judge who has not had this special history in dealing with family and youth problems. There is no reason we cannot have that court doing that.

We also feel that sentences in the youth court should be increased, for instance, for first and second degree murder. It is up to 10 years for first degree murder and 7 years for second degree murder. Sure, give longer sentences. Any psychiatrist or any counsellor who deals with young people says: "I do not like longer sentences. I do not think they help". Believe me, longer sentences are preferable to putting these people in adult institutions because if we do that, we have lost them. They say: "We admit there are cases where you have to have a longer period of time to reach these young people and then to give them the proper counselling". I feel that longer sentences are important. What we are trying to do is deal with something that will have a meaningful result.
I find it galling that this government has been in power for seven years. In 1984 the Prime Minister answered a questionnaire from the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. He was asked about the priorities of the Conservative government in the area of young offenders and he said: "The Progressive Conservative Party supported passage of the Young Offenders Act and continues to endorse its philosophy and principles. We are committed to assuring financial assistance to the provinces to allow for equal application of the law and availability of programs and services across Canada".


An hon. member:: Those are empty words.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Those are empty words. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact in 1989 the government froze assistance to the provinces in this regard for a five-year period.
We have a deteriorating situation in this country. People in our municipalities are scared to walk the streets, are fearful of the increased rate of crime and are buying firearms, which we definitely do not want them to do but which they are doing in response to the increasing crime rate.
We have police that have to deal with this without the satisfactory laws to allow them to do the job. We have counsellors and psychologists that want to help these young people but cannot do it because the governments will not give them any money.
It is nice that governments can build hospitals and schools and say at election time: "We have these lovely hospitals and schools". Of course the hospitals may not be staffed properly. They may not have the proper equipment. One or two floors may be closed because they do not want to spend the money to outfit and staff them properly. They point to hospitals because people
Government Orders
like hospitals. They feel a security from having proper hospitalization and proper education.
However, they will not spend it for young offenders' facilities. Why? It is because it shows that there is a little frailty in all of us and that if they build young offenders' facilities they are admitting to the public that there is a human failing, that perhaps some young people are going to need guidance, assistance and incarceration for a period of time. That is a bad message; that is a downer at election time.
We in this country are suffering from the shortsightedness of governments and their underestimation of the Canadian public. I also want to say that if we do not do something to address this matter, we are not only going to have a serious problem on our hands; we are going to have a catastrophic problem on our hands.
We have seen just south of the border what happens. We have to do something constructive to deal with the problems of increasing crime but, more important, the increasing crime among our young people. We have to do something constructive. This bill is not constructive. It is a retrogressive step. The fact that this should come forward at a time when we need the government on our side, to me is absolutely galling.
I just cannot say strongly enough how disappointed I am and how disappointed Canadians are going to be when they see and realize the hollowness of this legislation.
I want to say to the government in one final plea: please, please withdraw this legislation and bring forward something that is constructive and that is going to be meaningful in the fight against crime, aiding the people of this country, protecting and perhaps helping the young people who need this help, and at the same time giving the greater protection the government says it wants to give to the public. Please withdraw this legislation and bring forward something constructive.
This is just a terrible piece of legislation. I want to say as strongly as I possibly can that our party will not support this legislation. It is a disgrace. We demand that the government reconsider it and bring forward something that is going to be meaningful.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as my party's justice critic, as the NDP justice critic, to speak on this very important bill respecting amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
I think this is about the 19th time I have been up this week. I am sure other members and people who are watching are probably thinking: "Well, there is that fellow again. I thought they were going to get rid of him about a week ago". Of course I would not have wished

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
this, but I am beginning to think if they had suspended me from the House for a couple of weeks it certainly would have improved my health. Who knows, after the members had heard all my 19 speeches, it might have improved their health too.
In any case I think this is the last one. As the Chair knows, we are going to be spending the next week with our constituents and so we will get some feedback hopefully on some of these justice bills.
I want to say right away that I want to make three points. The first point is that this is a very limited bill. Indeed it is a wrong-headed bill to deal with a very big problem, and that is the growing difficulties with juvenile crime and the rehabilitation of juveniles in this country.
The second point I want to make is that I want to be positive. I do not just want to be negative. There is another approach to deal with this and I want to offer some of my views and the views of my party about what the other approach would be.
Third, I want to be straightforward and say this is the last part of a phoney war that we have seen this week, a phoney public relations war. It has not been a real campaign against crime but a PR campaign against crime: issue a press release or have a press conference as this government has been doing all week in the so-called protection of society agenda, or law and order week as it has been dubbed. It thinks that resurrecting some old bills and doing some press releases somehow is going to fight increased crime in Canada. I say to the government and to the minister it is just not going to work. The Canadian people are not stupid. They can see through that.
Indeed I will give a little example here. The minister had a press conference with other ministers to which he invited us and the media to come to talk about this agenda. At the same time on the Hill today and yesterday there is a man, a Mr. Maurice Rose to whom the hon. member from Cape Breton made reference, whose son was killed in a tragic event. A number of juveniles were involved and Mr. Rose feels quite strongly, I think with good reason, that justice was not done in the sentencing of those people. Mr. Rose asked to meet the minister. He met with the hon. member, the justice critic of the Liberal Party. He met with me this morning. He
asked to meet the minister but the minister did not have time to meet him. They passed in the hall.
This is the mistake of the minister and the mistake of this government. It is all glitz, it is all PR, but it is not people.


Dennis Joseph Mills: All tactics and no substance.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: "All tactics and no substance", as the member from Broadview-Greenwood just said. He put his finger right on it.
That is the problem with this government. Wake up, there are people out there in this country. They have real needs. You cannot fight crime by press releases. It does not work. It is phoney and it is dishonest.
I said another approach could be used in juvenile cases and I think it is incumbent upon us to put forward that approach. I will come to it when I am a little further into my speech. We could treat juveniles as juveniles.
We should not be afraid to punish them. We could be tough. There could be short, sharp punishment for offences. We should not be afraid of incarceration. We should beef up treatment facilities and so on.
Once you put a juvenile in adult jail, God, that is a school for crime. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who worked as a social worker until he was fired by the old Bennett government in British Columbia decided not to get mad, but to get even, so he became premier of the province and got rid of the government that fired him. He made a good point in an earlier debate here.
He said: "You put a young man who is 15, 16 or 17 in an adult jail and they are going to be raped within days. They are going to be criminals within six months to a year. They are going to learn all the tactics". We have to deal with juveniles as juveniles, I believe, but we must have the facilities to do it and we have to not be afraid of not having tough punishment also for juveniles as juveniles.
If the Prime Minister would read his own speeches at the United Nations, he would notice that he says one thing at the UN in the great light of world opinion and then brings in a different bill here, although he has amended this bill somewhat to conform with the speech at the UN but not completely.


November 8, 1991

Anyway, there is another way of dealing with juvenile crime. The other thing is not only should the minister talk to the families of victims like Mr. Rose. She should talk to some of the people who came before our committee who wanted a vastly changed bill. Instead, we got a very limited bill.
What this bill has, just to summarize it for the House, is three objectives: to make it easier to transfer a youth to adult court, to increase the penalty for youth convicted in youth court of first or second degree murder from three years to five years less a day, and to permit earlier parole eligibility for youths transferred to adult court on murder charges.
It is a very narrow bill dealing with very few of the real problems that we have, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys pointed out in his excellent speech.
Rather than reiterate some of the things he said, I want to emphasize a couple of the amendments that I proposed that were ruled out of order. I offer them in third reading as a potential for talking about later on or bringing a new bill and really dealing with the subject, not the PR war but the real war as I call it.
The first one is reference to an amendment I proposed about a statement of principles in the bill. I wanted to amend the statement of principles as set out in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act to affirm the principle of giving cultural needs, especially of native youth, special consideration in the delivery of services, programs and facilities for young offenders and to affirm for the first time in the Young Offenders Act that the principle of rehabilitation of young offenders best serves the interests of society.
I was particularly concerned by some evidence that we received in committee from the Canadian Council of Children and Youth. I will quote from pages 24 and 25 of its brief to the committee on what was then Bill C-58: "Consideration should be given to improving the act's declaration of principle found in section 3. These principles are sometimes cited by court, policy makers and politicians and probably influence the outcome of individual cases, and policy decisions.
Government Orders
They also have important symbolic value for youth, professionals, politicians and society as a whole. The long-term protection of financial interests in society are best served by the rehabilitation of young offenders and their successful reintegration into society".
"And their successful reintegration into society" is the end that we are all trying for.
The council pointed out that the declaration of principle explicitly acknowledged that the interests of society are best served by the rehabilitation of young offenders and their successful reintegration into society.
That was in the statement. That could conceivably require the provinces and the federal government to provide real facilities for young offenders, and it would be there in the law. They would be required to do that.
The council also has a concern that services, programs and facilities for young offenders must be culturally appropriate. In particular, in many places services for aboriginal youth are not appropriate to their values, culture or language. In a number of provinces child welfare legislation contains a declaration of principle to the effect that services and programs for youth must be provided in a culturally appropriate fashion and in particular one that recognizes the special needs of aboriginal youth.
There are too many youths in our adult jails and this is a tragedy in Canada. We never really recognized that and dealt with it in the bill. That is a smaller area but a really important area.
There is another area that we were unable to get into the bill. Because of the way the system works, you get a narrow bill and you hear witnesses. You realize what needs to be done in the juvenile system, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys pointed out, and then you try to bring in the amendments but they never get in because you only can amend the particular bill. That is why we need new legislation. We should strike now while we are very well aware, unless of course you want to fight a PR war on crime. If you want to fight a real war then you start getting some real amendments.
Here is another one. This again comes from the recommendation of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. It said in its brief to the committee on Bill

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
C-58: "There should be an ongoing national research and discussion in the area of juvenile justice. The council favours the establishment of a national institute for juvenile justice to undertake ongoing research, stimulate informed public and professional dialogue and take the lead in professional education and training. Such an institute would require federal funding to be a viable venture. A number of other countries have such a national juvenile justice institute".
It went on to say: "We have incomplete information at this time on the impact of the Young Offenders Act on the numbers of youth in custody, the numbers of youth diverted in the alternate measures program and so on. Because of the incompleteness of the information this bill is premature and ill-considered. We should get the information before we proceed. To do so, we must make it compulsory that all jurisdictions in Canada collect and report to the institute statistical information respecting arrests, charges, diversions, alternate measures and custodial disposition".
Of course, that would mean not fighting a PR campaign, would it not? That would mean getting some real information. That would mean really starting to build a workable bill. There is another amendment that could be considered.
I said the government was not listening. I mentioned Mr. Rose. I just want to read the letter that Mr. Maurice Rose is writing to members of Parliament. Let me read it and put it on the record: "Let me begin by introducing myself. I am Maurice Rose of LaSalle, Quebec. On March 17, 1989 my wife and I left for North Sydney, Cape Breton for what was to be a very short trip. On the morning of March 19,1989 I received a call informing me that my son Joe had been murdered at an MUCTC bus stop at 3.30 a.m. of that day by four youths armed with knives".
I think it was at the Frontenac metro station, on March 19, 1989, in Montreal: "Of the youth that killed my son the 19-year-old was tried in adult court and was sentenced to seven years. One 15-year-old received a sentence of three years in a youth home. The other 15-year-old was sentenced to 11 months and the 14-year-old to six months. It must be noted that in the case of the 14-year-old the social worker held a foot-high file and clearly informed the judge that this young offender was a danger to society. It took the judge a
mere 15 minutes to render a judgment which amounts to a mere slap on the wrist, a joke.
I wish to inform you of my fervent opposition to Bill C-12. Included herewith you will find a copy of a petition I have circulated across Canada. To date over 800,000 signatures appear on this petition to present it to the Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell", who would not even meet with this man, "thereby providing that the people of Canada also wish stricter measures taken toward young offenders.
I have also appeared before the committee. I am doing this without any financial backing. Hence I implore you to vote against Bill C-12.
The Young Offenders Act is far too lenient on youngsters having committed a crime. These individual need special assistance and guidance to ensure that the cycle is broken, so that they too can lead a responsible life in our society.
I realize that changes to the Young Offenders Act will not bring back my son. I do hope however that justice will be served for other youngsters and their families across the country who may also experience the pain and anguish my family and I have felt".
Mr. Maurice Rose can be reached at Box 664, Champlain Station, LaSalle, Quebec. I put that forward to the House and to the Canadian public so that they can help Mr. Rose in his battle. Mr. Rose spoke to the press. There is a good article in The Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, March 20, 1991, by Jack Todd where he says: "You know, first I ran into brick walls but the biggest brick wall was Ottawa and Kim Campbell refused to see him". He said: "Some people get it wrong. They think I am out to hurt kids. I am not out to hurt kids. I want them to get help. I want it mandatory and I want some facilities to help them". Here is a man pouring his heart out to Parliament and telling us to do something more than just PR, to do some real things about young offenders.
I said that this bill does three things. It makes it easier to transfer to adult court. The problem of course is that if you put a young offender in adult court and the adult system, the treatment facilities are not available and so this transfer means an abandonment of the youth.
The bill deals with a very small amount of people. We are dealing with murder charges which represents one-

fortieth of one per cent of all offences dealt with in youth court. That is a pretty small amount to deal with.
I had a meeting in my riding in a high school in which they discussed youth gangs. There was so much more to discuss rather than transfer on murder applications, but we do not have that in the bill.
The bill also deals with detention provisions and we mentioned this. I recognize that the government accepted an amendment that I first presented in committee in which we tried to keep young offenders separated from adults. I have some concerns whether that is going to work out in practice and I think we are going to have to look at this amendment. We passed it very quickly. It changes very much at the last moment and I think we are going to have to watch that and see how it is working. I flag that for the government.
There is also a provision in the bill for parole eligibility. You can get earlier parole if desired, but we should not confuse that because earlier parole has nothing to do with what it is like to be in an adult jail, which I said is a school for criminals.
I could go on and talk about this bill for a long time. We had a lot of evidence on the bill.
Perhaps I should bring my remarks to a conclusion and say that this is a very, very limited bill on a very important topic. There was another way to proceed. We could have really dealt with juveniles, kept them in the juvenile system, beefed up the juvenile system, short, sharper penalties, longer penalties in the juvenile system, decent facilities, psychiatric treatment when it was mentioned; that is what we could have done. Instead, we get a Willie Norton approach, if I can call it that. It is all PR and they are trying to convince the Canadian public this week that this government has met a kind of law and order agenda. Well it is all PR. It is just not so. If you look at this thin bill you will see that it is not really dealt with.
The minister says she will consult now. She had better have a new round of consultation with the people who work in this system. I think there is evidence in this bill that there has been no consultation.
If you really want to have a crime agenda and not a PR agenda, if you want to really attack crime you attack illiteracy. If you really want to attack crime, you attack child abuse. If you really want to attack crime, you attack poverty. If you really want to attack crime, you attack
Government Orders
unemployment. If you really want to attack crime, you get to the root of it by having a decent juvenile system that works.
The problems of youth crime are not easy ones to address, but we must resist the temptation to supply simple solutions for complex problems. Increasing sentences, building more jails and eliminating the distinction between children and adults may appeal to public fears, but that approach does nothing for real treatment, nothing for the protection of the community and nothing for services to the victim. All you do is guarantee a steady, unending supply of adult criminals in the future. That is what this bill does and that is why we oppose this bill.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to direct the hon. member's mind to two points that he made. He mentioned the lack of consultation on this bill. I would suggest to the hon. member that there was considerable consultation that I mentioned in my remarks to the House. I think the proof of that consultation was the support that we found at the committee stage of this bill.
I would remind all hon. members that this bill was in large part supported by the Canadian Bar Association and by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
I am not saying that everybody totally supported it. That is part of the committee process. But the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the thrust of what we are doing here along with the two representatives the committee heard from the judiciary. They had suggestions and in fairness it should be said that most were related to the second phase that the government has proposed on this. Most of the suggestions or criticisms that were given were directed toward the second part of this.
But the two members of the judiciary and the Canadian Council of Youth found positive aspects in this.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to talking about the second phase of a bill we have never seen and something of which we have never heard.
How many times have we heard that somebody is going to do something and bring forward other legislation? There is no second phase before this House and I resent any mention of it as if he knew what he was talking about.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member resents most is that I am calling him to task on his comments that this bill was not supported at the committee stage. He said nobody supported it with the exception of one witness. He said the minister did not support this. The hon. member knows this is not factual. The Minister of Justice is obviously very supportive. This is her bill and her government's bill. This is our bill. She is very supportive of it.
I bring it back to the hon. member for Port Moody- Coquitlam. I suggest to him that we found substantial support at the committee stage and I think that was as a result of the consultation process.
I want him to direct his attention to one other matter. Most of this bill deals with the transfer provisions and the penalties for young people who are convicted of murder. Toward the end of his speech the hon. member said: "What young people need are short sharp sentences". I would like him to clarify this. Was he referring, as this bill does, in large part to those convicted of murder? Was he referring to short sharp sentences for them?
Would he not agree that if we followed the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys for these longer sentences and keeping them in the youth system we would have a situation where we would have 24 and 25-year-olds who get this long sentence. In effect we would have adults with young people, 14 and 15-year-olds. That may not be exactly what the United Nations had in mind when it said separating young people is not always in the best interest of young people who might remain in the youth system detention facilities for a period of 10 years.
I would ask him to address the two parts.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With reference to the latter part on short sharp sentences I meant for other juvenile crimes which we could not deal with because the bill does not deal with it. The bill deals with about one-fortieth of one per cent of all the offences. The government did not really deal with that. I think there should be adequate sentences for murder of course.
I did not say the government did not consult with people on the bill. I said that there would be further consultations and that government should listen.
There is one person the government did not consult with. The hon. Minister of Justice was asked to meet with a truck driver from Cape Breton who came to the Hill. She would not meet with him. She would rather have a press conference on the PR aspects of the week. This is what it is all about. This man came and he does not have a limo. He is a truck driver. He does not have an executive assistant. Sorry. He is just a ordinary truck driver from Cape Breton. He has no millions of bucks like this government spends on PR. He is just a truck driver who lost his kid, that is all. He has none of these big PR assistants or executive assistants to do things. He is just a little guy in grief and she would not even meet with him. That is how much they think of the Canadian people. That is their problem. They do not care about people and that is why they are going to get thrown out at the earliest opportunity Canadians get.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my hon. friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam a question. He has done a good deal of work on this case and worked hard on the committee. It is my understanding that while there might have been some parts of this legislation that some of the witnesses did approve, there was only one witness who approved this bill and felt this was sufficient to go forward as it was, without major changes.
I do not ask the hon. member to remember but the consensus from committee was this bill needed more work and that it was not satisfactory. I would like to know his feelings on it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I could not agree more. What has happened in some of these justice bills as they come forward is that when we started hearing about the bills they were quite narrow. This bill deals with three aspects of the Young Offenders Act. We kept hearing about a lot of other things that need to be done.
In the Young Offenders Act I mentioned the justice institute, native kids, better facilities and co-operation with the provinces.
In the gun control bill which was one of the good things we passed this week we had evidence that there is now a problem with legally buying restricted handguns in cities. That was just coming out in this evidence.
November 8, 1991

We need another justice round. I think we all agree we need to update some of these bills. We just started to find things. People came before this committee such as the police who wanted a change in this bill. The sentence for murder was too lax or too great. We can understand that.
It opened up a whole bunch of other things to which people were responding. I certainly do not want to end on a negative note this week. I want to end on a positive note. I think if there is anything good we have learned it is that we have a lot more work to do. Let us not just have a PR campaign. Let us have a real campaign on terms of Canadian security and justice.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more point. I would like to ask the hon. member for his opinion.
The parliamentary secretary referred to 24 and 25-year-olds being in youth institutions. The parliamentary secretary knows that need not be the case. It was in his own amendment that while they are waiting for resolution of the question as to which court, adult or youth, they are tried in when they reach 20 they automatically go to an adult court. This is fine. In most of the cases young offenders will serve their term before they are 20. The ones that do not will at least have the opportunity of rehabilitation and training. They need not be 24 or 25. I personally feel that up to 20 is fine.
I would like to know the feeling of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments that were introduced at the last moment. I said the other day that I congratulated the government for bringing it in line with what the Prime Minister said at the United Nations.
You are not going to have 25, 26 or 27-year-olds in this situation. It seems to me that the principle is that they are sentenced as a juvenile and treated as a juvenile and then they are kept apart so they do not go in the school for crime. They finish out their sentences.
Then the public, someone like Mr. Rose or others, says that they did get a decent sentence and they did get punished. The victims feel that justice has been done. They do not, as Mr. Rose says, pound the courtroom desk with a hand after the sentence. We give justice as far as possible to some of the victims and families of victims. At the same time we hit the young offenders but
Government Orders
we do not put them in a school for crime. I think that is what was developing in the committee and that is what the hon. member was talking about in the institute.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.
During the last campaign the Young Offenders Act was one of the issues in my particular riding. It was an issue because we have an awful lot of drug related crime in my community. The police consider my particular riding in downtown Toronto to be one of the worst ridings in Canada for crimes relating to drugs. Most of those crimes are committed by young offenders.
I would walk the streets in Broadview-Greenwood and listen to the constituents and also listen to the police forces. Time and time again they said that one of the difficult problems that they have when they are dealing with young offenders is that the rehabilitation process is voluntary rather than mandatory. I campaigned in the last election that if this bill came before the House I would fight for an amendment to this act. The specific amendment would be that the rehabilitation process for crimes by young offenders with drugs would be absolutely mandatory.
As we debate this bill today that is just one of the many amendments that are not in this bill and certainly do not meet that test.
But I want to pick up on something that was said earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He said that as we were processing this bill through first reading, second reading and report stage we consulted with the Canadian Bar Association and the police association, et cetera. It seems to me that with this government the word consult is almost like a buzzword. It consulted people on the goods and services tax. It consulted people through the Spicer commission and it is consulting people now on national unity. The minister of trade announced two weeks ago that he was going to be consulting people on competitiveness and prosperity.
If you reflect on this government's consultation process you would almost think that this is one of the most open and consultative governments that we have had around here in many years. But when you strip away the veil of this consultation process you discover that very rarely does this government listen to what the consultants are saying.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
When I go home on the weekend and listen to my constituents it seems that what they are telling me, whatever the issue, is totally different from what the government consultants are saying. This particular bill on the young offenders is just another example.
The parliamentary secretary said here this morning: "We have consulted". He did mention the police forces. I consulted as well with the metropolitan Toronto police force. On a bill like this I naturally called Police Chief William McCormack last week. His staff superintendent Grant Waddell responded. He wrote the following letter regarding the Young Offenders Act. He wanted his input to be amendments to this bill and I am going to be very specific. Here are the recommendations from the metropolitan Toronto police chief's office.
Recommendation No. 1 was publication of wanted youth. If a young person has committed an indictable offence or is alleged to have committed one there is reason to believe that the young person is dangerous to others. Publication of his name and description is necessary to apprehend him.
Such notice of publication should be in effect until he is apprehended. At the present time it is only in effect for 48 hours.
This is my exercise of consultation and I say this with respect to the parliamentary secretary.
The admissibility of statements taken from young offenders is such a contentious issue that it is felt a distinct new caution should be written into the Young Offenders Act along with guidelines so that each police force deals with it exactly the same.
This way there could be no misunderstanding and the judges could accept them. Distinct rights to counsel should be included in this caution as well as the secondary caution.
Judges should be appointed as youth court judges and deal slowly with young offenders' matters. At the present time family court judges sit as youth court judges. They are dealing with family matters one day and criminal matters the next.
The fourth recommendation concerns sentencing. The maximum sentence a young person can receive is three
years, that is if he is convicted for a crime for which an adult could receive life imprisonment, i.e. murder.
For any other offences the maximum is two years. These maximum sentences should be increased to five years less a day for the most serious. It should be three or four years for crimes involving violence and two years for less serious offences. The five years less a day would still eliminate jury trials. Also at the present time youth can only receive a concurrent sentence. Repeat offenders should receive consecutive sentences.
For youths under 16 years mandatory treatment should be implemented on recommendation from the court's psychiatric assessments. At the present time children can refuse any type of psychiatric treatment after they are convicted. Children 12 to 15 years are not always capable of knowing what treatment is needed or required to benefit them.
An adult over 18 years charged and convicted of an offence committed when he was a young offender serves his time in a young offender's facility. Theoretically a 20-year old adult could serve three years in a facility with 16-year-olds. Anyone over 18 years convicted of an offence under the Young Offenders Act should serve their time in an adult minimum security facility.
Presently a youth sentenced to secure custody can be transferred to open custody by the administrator of the facility. This should only occur if the youth has received some form of treatment and is progressing satisfactorily.
At the present time the young offender's criminal record, not stayed or withdrawn, is kept on file for five years. This should be increased to at least seven years for the purpose of sentencing if he continues his criminal career as an adult.
These are recommendations from the metropolitan Toronto police force.
We talk about consultation. It seems to me that if we are really serious and really committed to drafting legislation that is more than just a public relations gesture, if we take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice's words sincerely, when he said this morning: "This law passed the test of protection of the public", if we are really sincere about that, how can we then ignore the advice of one of the finest police forces in the world?

November 8, 1991

These are men and women who deal with young offenders day in and day out. It is like asking a carpenter to build a home and not giving him any tools.
How do you expect the people on the street to enforce our laws? How do you expect them to stay committed? How do you expect the reputation for law and order in this country to be maintained when we are ignoring the very enforcers?
Let us talk about our judicial system. Our courts, as the Liberal Party justice critic, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, said earlier today are so backlogged right now, our system is so jammed up that we have just finished cancelling 50,000 cases. He gave the example of the young 14-year old girl who was raped by six young offenders and they got off scot-free.


Rob Nicholson: On a point of order. I would not normally interrupt the hon. member but he should know that the case is presently under appeal. As a result I do not think he would want to be referring to any of the details of that case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I am sure the hon. member would understand that advice.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I take the point but we have been talking about this case all day. However there are similar cases that we all know and have heard about. That is the travesty of our system in Canada today. We do not have enough judges in the system. We do not have enough correctional centres. We do not have a separate system for young offenders in this country and yet we expect our police forces to do a good job. It just does not add up.
We in the Liberal Party are not supporting this legislation. There are several areas of concern. There is no allowance for rehabilitation training. There is no commitment that young offenders will be incarcerated separately from adults. There is no allowance for the establishment of a separate juvenile justice system.
I want to remind the House of the speech made by my colleague from York South-Weston earlier this week, on Monday morning. He stood up in this House and said: "This justice week is a scam. It is a public relations exercise. It is all tactics. It has no substance". We had an opportunity to address a very important piece of legislation to every region of this country. This Young Offenders Act is something that people in Canada are concerned about.
Government Orders
They send us here as legislators to craft legislation, not for tactical reasons but for substantial reasons. In terms of substance this bill does not pass the test of making protection of the public paramount. Those are not my words. They are the words of members of the metropolitan Toronto police force. We have consulted with them. We have listened to them. When you consult with people day in and day out and come back to Ottawa and do not listen to them they begin to wonder what is the point of being consulted if their advice is never taken.
The problem we have in this country right now is that this government has abused and destroyed the consultative process with Canadians. It has set up programs or commissions on issue after issue: the GST, the Spicer commission, the national unity commission and now we are about to get this prosperity and competitiveness consultation process. When you set up these programs and then do not listen to the advice or do listen but do not act upon the advice, what happens? The trust breaks down. We are seeing this trust break down with this government's consultative process right now. We saw it break down on the GST. We see that it is breaking down on national unity. God forbid, no one in this country wants it to break down. The same thing is going to happen on the Minister for International Trade's prosperity and competitive consultative process.
Here on a very important issue, young offenders, a very important piece of legislation, the government said it consulted, but it did not listen. It did not act in a substantive way on any of the advice, or veiy little of the advice that it was given.
As a result we in this party are not going to support this legislation. We are asking the government to withdraw it, come to its senses, start to rebuild some trust in this institution, realize that it is more than just a PR scam, it is more than just a tactical operation, it is more than a public relation show. Let us put some trust back into the system, and withdraw this bill.
I beg the government to listen to tne metropolitan Toronto police force. Give the men and women who walk the streets in my town the tools to do their job. Give the judges and the court system the tools to do their job so that we can make these streets clean again, not just in my city but in every other part of this country.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that it was precisely because of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: On a point of order, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am again wanting to have my knowledge of the rules updated. There is a rotational process for questions and comments, I presume.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I will recognize this member and have him speak and then I will recognize you, sir.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the subject of consultation. I would like to point out to the House that it was precisely because people were telling us, including police, police associations and those who work with the juvenile justice and the criminal justice system, that some improvements could be made on the transfer provisions of youth from the youth system to the adult system. It was as a result of that consultation that we made clear in this bill that where the interests of keeping the youth in the system cannot be reconciled with the best interest of the public the interest of the public would prevail on the transfer.
I just have a simple question for the hon. member. What did Chief McCormack say specifically on the transfer provisions? As the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam pointed out, this is not a rewriting of the Young Offenders Act. This is an improvement in certain areas of the Young Offenders Act. More will come. I have indicated to this House that I know it will receive the enthusiastic support from the Liberal Party and others as has our justice legislation this week.
Be that at is may, what did Chief McCormack have to say about the transfer provisions? I would like to ask the hon. member this as well. Will he follow the parliamentary tradition of, having once quoted from a document as he has quite extensively, tabling the document with the Chair?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all as I mentioned earlier in my remarks this correspondence from the desk of the police chief, and I mentioned it was signed by Staff Superintendent Grant Waddell, I will be happy to submit to the table.
On the actual transfers, this specific piece of advice that I received from the metropolitan Toronto police force does not address that specifically.


An hon. member:: It is a big gap.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member says it is a big gap. I did say in my remarks that there were some things in this legislation. That does not change my mind at all. Just because there are one or two good things in the legislation, that is no reason to let the legislation go through. Also, the government is already talking about phase two of this legislation. Why enshrine legislation now if you are already admitting that it needs repair? Why not pull it back, fix it, listen, put the amendments in there so that we can all get behind the legislation?
The member smiles. I naturally defer to my justice critic, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. It seems to me, if I understood his remarks, that if the bill were to address these substantive changes, these amendments, we in this party are not adverse to supporting the government on this legislation.
My goodness, just this week we see that the gun control legislation is illusory. It is not what the Minister of Justice said it was this morning on Canada AM.
I must give this government credit for one thing. On tactics it gets 10 out 10, but on substance, I will not even make the judgment. I will let the people of Canada judge. I believe that if this bill was withdrawn and we put some of these substantive changes in here the metropolitan Toronto police force is recommending-and I am sure it has had these discussions with many other police associations across Canada-then we on this side of the House would feel a lot better and we would probably get behind it. Is that not what the people of Canada want right now? Do they not want us to get involved in crafting legislation where we can somehow galvanize this country, where we can come together?
November 8, 1991

I see the critic for the New Democratic Party nodding his head in concurrence. Let us get a substantial piece of legislation crafted here so that people can be proud of this House again, rather than put through something that is nothing more than a public relations gesture.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is so important in the whole field of corrections is if the police, the court process, the prison system, the conditional release system tie together as a whole to push one part and not deal with the others, you might as well forget it.
The bill today is a public relations exercise that will be accepted. I wonder if the previous speaker would agree that correctional facilities to which these young people are charged in Canada do not protect society and they do not correct offenders. Anyone who survives a prison experience and does not become a recidivist should never have gone in the first place. There were far better and more effective mechanisms to deal with them.
Prisons are one of the unsafest places in the world. I happened to work in one while I was going through university for three years, as a correction and security officer. There is no law in a jail. You do not catch these people, but there are sexual assaults, physical assaults, robbery, extortion and it is one of the most violent, unlawful, unsafe places in the world. When anyone goes there, their life is in jeopardy from the time they go in until the time they come out.
It destroys any positive values of persons who go to the institution because they join with a group of people who believe they are wrongly there. They have no contact with the consequences of their offence and the victims. They usually go there because they have no societal support system. Their only support system is their fellow inmates with a value system that is absolutely wrong, one that they quickly learn.
These people who go to jails go because they have no family, no positive social supports. They are in serious jeopardy of becoming worse instead of better.
The government's restraint program involves staff cuts, failure to provide professional support systems in jails. You do not get psychiatric treatment in any effective way. You do not get counselling in any effective way. You do not get treatment and you do not get corrected.
Government Orders
Working staff ratios in prisons of correctional officer to inmate run 100 to one if you are lucky. As a working correctional officer, I needed the inmates to run the units I ran. If I did not use the inmates, the whole unit turned on me because those inmate leaders who committed the assaults, who did the robbing and extorting, then turned the other 100 inmates on me, and every other correctional officer is in exactly the same position. Therefore you let the offenders and the others run the institution. If you did not, you would not run it.
Staff need inmates to run those institutions. There are not enough of them to do it effectively themselves. Staff, police and correctional officers develop a disease which I call "scum of the earthitis". You had to believe that the people you were dealing with were the scum of the earth in order to do some of the things that were done to them.
Basically, because of the restraint programs of this government and because of single public relations exercises, this is bound to failure. This does not address the needs of the entire system to protect society and reform offenders. Would the member agree?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will give a short answer.
Here is a perfect example of where this House of Commons is just upside down. No wonder people consider this place irrelevant. I am not a lawyer. I am a small businessman who happened to get lucky because he knocked on a few doors and listened to people.
Here is a member of Parliament who has probably had more experience in working with the correctional service system than anyone else in this House. How can we not listen to his point of view? We do not need to go out, hire consultants and spend millions of dollars. I can only agree with the hon. member. I think his experience, his observations and his recommendations should be plugged right into the amendments of this act.
That is the kind of thing that would make this legislation something of substance.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this bill. I have had some experience in the correctional system in Canada, and as a result of it through the conditional release system and the police system in which the three are an organic whole along with the courts.

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and my brother from Comox-Albemi have also worked in the correctional system and do have a good broad base in it.
The point I would like to make is that the Young Offenders Act deals with murder. I think my colleague overstates the case when he says it deals with one-fortieth of one per cent. It is probably not even that high.
Given the absolutely small, narrow scope of this bill, it is a real tragedy. In every community I represent, property offences are rampant. They are absolutely rampant. They break into businesses and steal all kinds of goods. They break into homes and steal. They break into automobiles, and it is just of epidemic proportion.
What is happening is that we do not have enough police. We do not have enough public consciousness in those communities to stop them. The most rampant offences are property offences.
In one of the communities in discussing with the RCMP the matter, it said that if we could remove six young people from the system who we know are doing it, we could end half the property offences in the community: six young people.
He said that they are all repeat offenders, and he said: "We know exactly who they are, but catching them is a terrible problem. Not only that, once we have them, dealing with them is even worse of a problem".
This bill does not protect citizens from crime. It increases a penalty for murder. Once they go to a correctional facility, society is not protected because they come out. They still do not have the support systems and there is no effective treatment. The chance for repetition is certainly there.
It misses the mark because of the epidemic proportion of property crimes, the fact that police know who the offenders are and we in this Parliament have hamstrung their ability to deal with them. We have to correct that and stop this nonsense about PR.
I had the occasion to sit on a family court committee in Courtenay, B.C. for a period. I chaired it for a while. The
judge who dealt with it was an individual who was sentencing young people to what he thought was an institution that unfortunately had been closed years before. When it was pointed out to him that he was sending them to an adult institution, he was shocked. He had thought it was for young people, and in fact he was sending these young offenders to an adult institution.
I am sceptical that judges have enough background. They tend to rely quickly on things like incarceration of offenders. I think there is the matter of education and experience of judges with the correctional system. That is sorely needed. It does not protect society. Those people come before them again and again. But we do not place very much in the hands of the courts either in terms of flexibility.
I think we have to look hard at the tools we provide the courts with. Definitely prison sentencing has to be there. I am one who believes that in an appropriate institution we should probably sentence people to the maximum sentence possible. The judge may have an opportunity to state the minimum time that the person should spend there, but also the maximum, and we should make it very easy for conditional release.
Under conditional release the person finds a sponsor who will support them to return to the community, because so many of the people who go to jail have no social support system other than other offenders. Their parental control has fallen apart. The school control system has fallen apart and their friends, their source of values, their source of incentive wind up being other offenders. That is a serious problem.
An offender who goes to jail must have the responsibility of planning a conditional release program. The person has to take responsibility for that. The longer the sentence, the more incentive there is going to be to plan an acceptable release program.
An offender needs a sponsor, somebody who has the general acceptance of the community. The old Borstal system in English that was transferred into some areas of Canada had the most successful recovery rate for offenders because it did rely on a sponsor system. The sponsor
November 8, 1991

Government Orders
and the inmate worked out the conditional release program. It involved employment, education, where to live, who the contacts would be, and a gradual step by step process by which the person had a very positive individual to work with. That kind of a commitment on the part of an offender to find a sponsor, somebody who will befriend them, assist them, and to work out an acceptable release program is certainly going to be a positive move forward in helping that offender not to repeat again.
Before a person goes to jail, compensation and restitution have to be part of the system. The offender must confront the victim, if it is acceptable on the part of the victim, and there has to be some form of compensation and restitution. It certainly deals a lot more heavily with the offender, the consequences of the offence, and it is an absolutely important thing.
In terms of giving the court tools, longer sentences where there is a much easier opportunity for acceptable conditional release would be a very positive move. Offenders who decide they do not want to become involved in working out pre-release arrangements that are acceptable certainly will spend a longer period of time in there and will be exposed to treatment over a longer period of time, and there is an incentive to change.
What appears to occur in correctional institutions is that those who are convicted and have short sentences say: "I would rather serve my full sentence and avoid conditions when I leave, rather than get tied up in a parole system and long conditional releases". It is not in the interest of society to have that happen. It is not in the interest of society not to have offenders appreciate the full nature and consequences of the act they have done by being able to avoid the victim in the situation.
I have already made my remarks about the correctional system, and I would like to repeat them in part. Correctional institutions do not protect society because offenders are released. They do not correct offenders because they are not provided with enough money by the government, this government or previous governments. Some of the lowest salaries, I would assume, in the government are probably paid to correctional workers. Staff training and the ability to obtain professional help in the form of psychiatrists, counsellors and others generally are very limited.
If we are going to deal with young offenders, we have to address the court system. We have to address the number of police. We have to address programs within the society. We also have to put some support into the correctional system and demand from the correctional system some accountability in making sure that the recidivism rate drops. If it does not they are not doing it correctly. If we do not provide them with the resources it is not happening correctly.
They are the unsafest places in the world. We cannot guarantee the safety of an inmate. I had an experience of travelling through the unit one morning after working night shift and finding an individual who had his head severely pounded by his fellow inmates who decided to put rocks in a sock and beat the can off the individual. There are hundreds and hundreds of these stories where somebody goes into a stairwell and does not come out the other end. They have either received a knife or a terrible beating because of some problem.
We cannot guarantee safety. One night in the institution on parade, as we were getting a briefing on the circumstances, the sergeant in charge said: "There are 100 knives missing from the kitchen tonight. The institution is not upset. It does not feel upset, but there are 100 knives floating around in there". It was an interesting shift. There is no way of guaranteeing the protection of the people who are confined there.
The value system is very important. Everybody serving time in jail believes they are there on what is called a bum, that they have been placed there incorrectly and improperly, that they were not responsible for what happened. Every other person is convinced of that. It is the easy road to believe. The accountability of anyone who goes there diminishes and it is the other side's responsibility. That is a very unhealthy thing to happen in terms of correcting an offender.
Again talking to staff is a punishable offence in the inmate community, so you do not befriend staff members who are working with ratios of 100 to 1. You do not communicate in any confidential way with staff members. Your confidants, your communicators and your people who set your value system for a number of years are the other offenders of the institution. It is an extremely unhealthy situation.

Government Orders
There needs to be far greater flexibility in terms of conditional release. When inmates are ready to go they should be released immediately. Maybe the prison administrators need more authority. Then when persons have worked out a conditional release arrangement, have found a sponsor, have found a training program and an acceptable set of conditions to go back to society and try to make, they should not have to wait for an extended parole board operation. Inmates held up for three to six months. Once the program is in place there should be a way of letting them out to try a fast tracking of the arrangement.
Those things are coming into place but when they get out there, there seems to be very little effective supervision. If we limit the number in a restraint program of probation officers, if we do not involve parents and sponsors effectively, we are not going to be successful because they are going to gravitate back to their friends who have been released from the institution and the people who got them into difficulty in the beginning. The cycle will begin again.
The failure to provide adequate supervision and adequate resources after release or while on conditional release certainly mitigates against protecting society, correcting an offender, and brings us right back into the cycle again.
The Young Offenders Act changes today are just a very small window dressing aspect of this entire problem. It would be useful I think to very frustrated police forces in Canada if the recommendations of the member for Broadview-Greenwood were incorporated and if a great deal more attention was given by this Elouse to placing in the hands of the courts more flexibility in sentencing and to more resources for the institutions that treat these people so that they can protect their lives while they are in there, that we do not see a massive erosion in their value system and that they can effectively plan a conditional release program.
The probation and parole supervision system should be supported with enough people and enough resources so that when offenders are released on conditional release there is half a fighting chance that they can get out in society and correct their behaviour.
It is a subject of long-standing frustration. It is not a
matter of a bleeding heart. I believe offenders should be forced to face the consequences of their act fully, that they should be required to make restitution and compensation to victims. We should provide the resources and the incentives for them to return to society and work at self-correction.
One of the areas where we are missing an opportunity is that of much longer sentences. If an offender refuses to work out an acceptable conditional release program and refuses to work to develop the support in society that will make them positive citizens then they will have to stay in the institution until they are prepared to do so.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. member because he referred us to his own personal experiences. I am sure I am not the only one who was dismayed to hear about the conditions in prisons that the hon. member has personally experienced. That is a great tragedy and I think most Canadians would be extremely disheartened to learn that there appears to be no order in the prisons of today.
I do not want to talk about prisons. I want to talk about young offenders. My question is addressed to the member based on his experiences.
I gather that the point the member was making is that: "You cannot guarantee the safety of an inmate because of their own law within the prison". We are certainly in agreement that young offenders should not be placed in an environment like that.
If we have correctional facilities set apart for young offenders would it not be the same sort of law and the same type of behaviour, only with younger people? What sort of protection could be offered in that kind of facility to ensure that those young offenders in a correctional facility devoted solely to them would not in fact become merely a younger mirror image of the place where the hon. member worked?
I hope the hon. member will have constructive comments on that.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the correctional institution at Haney was in its day one of the leading institutions in Canada. The first warden of the place is probably still kicking around in the federal correctional system.
November 8, 1991

It aimed at treatment of offenders from age 14 to 25. The oldest individual was 25. At one point we had somebody who was 40 and was very carefully selected before being allowed to go there. It usually involved special training and education.
Most of the crime in society is committed by younger people. Some of the worst crimes that I have ever heard of, or had the misfortune to open the folders on, were committed by teenagers who wound up in that institution. Those people were responsible for the most violent assaults; they had that kind of value system. Clifford Olson was an inmate of that institution. For 10 years afterwards I read in the paper of people who came out of there and promptly went into the B.C. penitentiary, having murdered people and committed all sorts of offences.
At the beginning it was a school for the penitentiary. There were incredible tragedies in the place. It was basically young offenders inflicting the kinds of things I was talking about on other young offenders.
The failure in the place was the staff to inmate ratio. You cannot do anything when you are dealing with 500 inmates. On an afternoon or night shift after program we were looking at eight staff for 500 inmates. I can remember being left in the movie theatre with seven other colleagues and 500 inmates. There were not enough staff to cover the lights and the projection room. We were locked in and there were four other staff and the administrator outside patrolling the outside areas. When the order in the dark broke down there were eight of us and 500 inmates.
I was under the impression that they were going to be peeling us off the wall by the time the RCMP finally got in and broke it up. When you are dealing with effective working staff ratios of 100 to 1 you cannot do anything effective. In many cases you need the leaders of the unit to assist you in keeping it running. That is a common technique staff use to survive.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question. I listened to his speech and I was very impressed, particularly with the fact that he has actually gone through it. It was not second hand or third hand. He has actually experienced it. It was quite informative.
Government Orders
I wanted him to reiterate whether he thought, particularly with respect to young people, there is any rehabilitative function at all in prison if they do not get organized rehabilitation and counselling from properly trained officials. Is there any rehabilitative nature in prisons at all?


Raymond John Skelly: Over a three-year period it dealt with a very large number of people. One of the most violent people I have ever known was one of the hardest workers. He was one of the most respectable individuals but under a stress condition he lost it. He was about 18 years old, a very large strapping guy. The chance that he would go out and kill somebody was very high. He was in for an auto theft on a very short sentence. He was a problem that was going to create a problem for society but nobody could do anything. It was like having a bomb going out on to the street.
Six people were drunk, broke into an A & W, attempted to fry up some hamburgers and were too drunk to accomplish the task. The judge sentenced them to almost 18 months in jail for that offence. The cost to the public was terrible. The destruction of whatever faith they had in the value system was nearly complete. One of them almost killed himself because he developed a habit of sniffing gas.
Rehabilitation is directly related to quickly catching their interest in getting released with an acceptable plan, in trying to develop in a failed family the supports to get that individual out of jail. The faster you can get them out of jail, the better off society is going to be.
I had the impression when I worked there that if we released every single person the crime rate would not go up appreciably.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Like the other members, I found the member's comments from first-hand experience fascinating.
One of the things that twigged my mind was the role of victims. I wondered whether they felt anything toward their victims or whether the victims could be brought into the process. About a month ago when I was coming home I saw a policeman in front of my apartment building and I thought "Oh, no".

November 8, 1991
Government Orders
I went in and my apartment had been broken into. They had caught the culprit right in the living room, arrested him and took him away. I have never seen him. I heard it was a young man. I do not know who it is. I lost a couple of small things, like my TV. Luckily that is all I lost because they caught him. However they took that away as evidence. They never called me, never talked to me. The police have not contacted me. I never got any of the things back. As a victim there has been no connection at all with the attempted robbery.
I wonder if the hon. member can tell me if he has had any experience in terms of how the inmates feel about their victims, how we could bring the victim into the process and maybe how the police could start talking to the victims.


Raymond John Skelly: I have a couple of thoughts. I do not think a short jail sentence particularly bothers a person that has been there before. In Okalla there was a phenomenon around Christmas time when it is cold out on the street and they do not have a square meal if they are poor. So they threw a rock through a window. The first time they would get 30 days, then 60 days and then 90 days. A group of people in Vancouver used to call it "doing life on the instalment plan". It provided them with room and board and a good job and all their old friends.
Going to jail and not confronting the victim almost eases the penalty in some cases for the offender because the personal problem of having to confront a victim in some cases is more threatening, more guilt generating than going to jail.
In the area I represent just recently two people spent 30 and 60 days in jail for some nasty property offences. They got out and it became a badge in the rest of the community for them to say "I have been to jail". It enhances their status and prestige. Confronting the victims and being forced to discuss the nature of the offence and what would be appropriate restitution could be far more threatening than a short period of incarceration.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys for giving me this opportunity to
speak on Bill C-12, the proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act.
The bill focuses mainly on, first, easing the criteria under which applications for transfer to adult court are to be judged by the youth court. For example, transfer would be more easily obtained.
Second, it would increase the maximum period of incarceration for first and second degree murder from three years to five years less a day. This would eliminate the need for jury trial.
Third, for the first time the youth court could deal with parole eligibility and could set the conditions for conditional supervision for those charged with murder.
Looking at those points, there seems to be a shift away from treatment and rehabilitation to protection of society or enforcement of the law.
The reason I wanted to speak on this bill is twofold. First, there is the question of the United Nations resolution on the rights of the child. Canada's role in fulfilling its commitment, in particular section 37(c) of the charter, would not be fulfilled unless Canada guarantees a separate facility for youths and adults.
Somewhere in this bill the government has to make sure that the criteria are met. It is my belief that the government will come up with a reservation on this particular point. Looking at the Young Offenders Act it does not seem to be evident to me that the government will be able to fulfil its commitment.
It is my hope that whatever those reservations are the government will proceed with the ratifying the charter and will fulfil its commitment internationally.
The latest Statistics Canada report, which was published in the spring of 1991, indicates that youths between the ages of 12 and 17 were responsible for nearly 25 per cent of all Criminal Code offences, as violent crime in Canada reached an all-time high. Nationally the 1991 violent crime rate is about 1,012 offences per 100,000 population, which is the highest in the history of Canada.
Approximately 20,000 more violent crimes were committed this year over last year. For instance, British Columbia, which had the highest rate, had approximately
15,000	incidents per 100,000 population. Ontario had approximately 9,500 per 100,000. That is quite alarming.
November 8, 1991

As my previous colleague indicated, the property crime rate rose by about 7 per cent last year to approximately 5,869 incidents per 100,000 population.
If you look at the total number of incidents or the total number of people who got in trouble, youths between the ages of 12 and 17, in 1990-91 there were 38,000 defendants that age who appeared in youth court.
They faced approximately 118,000 charges. That is approximately 4 per cent over the last year. If you look at the population in Canada, the youth between the ages of 12 and 17, we have close to 1.125 million. Females, we have approximately 1,069,500. This is a total of approximately 2.195 million males and females between the ages of 12 and 17.
Thirty-eight thousand is quite a number of people who get in trouble. If you look at the crimes that were committed, charges have risen by 20 per cent over the past five years while the majority of those were committed in property crimes. Fifty-eight per cent of all charges relate to properties.
The rest of the crimes involve breaches of probation orders, drug offences and a variety of miscellaneous offences. The sad thing about this whole situation is that 70 per cent of those cases produced a guilty verdict with probation.
The most common sentence in a jail or a half-way house is only 25 per cent of those cases. While this is an interesting statistic, it is my suggestion that jail is not doing the job. I will remind you of a study which was done by Professor Handleby who looked at the province of Ontario.
He said that in the first study ever of its kind, actually 17 years survey of males first incarcerated under the Ontario training system, there was a 90 per cent failure rate. It is a 90 per cent failure rate.
Among the 150 young inmates originally interviewed in 1970 when they were aged 12 to 14, only 9 per cent incurred no subsequent conviction, according to Mr. Handleby. He is saying that in fact in 1987, when he did the tracking of 97 per cent of those original groups, he learned that they had accumulated in excess of 2,261 convictions since they turned 16. This is an average of more than 15 each, ranging from drug possession to murder.
Government Orders
In fact, 48 per cent of the original 150 or 72 individuals had committed violent crimes. In general, the survey concluded that the earlier the age at which the youth breaks the law, the more likely he will go on to offend again. That was the result of the finding.
It looked like dealing with the problem after it occurred. It does not seem to address the question at hand and does not seem to be producing the solutions we are interested in.
What I think is extremely important for us is to look at the people we are dealing with to see who they are and where they are coming from. According to information which we were able to obtain from the province of Ontario, the ministry of social services looked at the profile of kids who get in trouble. They were able to identify 12 characteristics which I would like to share with you, Madam Speaker, and with Canadians.
The first characteristic of a young offender is that he or she will come from a lower class origin. In fact, 65 per cent of parents of kids who get in trouble have less than grade 10 education.
The second one is they look at problems in the family of origin, for example, long-term reliance on welfare; criminality in family of origin, for example the parents, siblings, other relatives; multiple psychological handicaps, low verbal intelligence.
Third, the ministry indicates that the profile of kids that get into trouble shows personal temperament, attitude and early behavioural history. They looked at the issue of aggression, restless energy, the impulsive, the adventurous and a taste for taking risk and again, below average verbal intelligence, poor problem solving, coping, self-regulation skills.
Fourth, they indicated early and current family conditions again repeat itself, low level of affection, cohesiveness, low level of supervision and poor discipline, neglect, abuse.
Fifth, which is in my view one of the most important ones, school based risk factors, below average efforts, lack of interest, being bored, not worrying about occupational future, conduct problems.
Sixth, schooling again, personal, educational, vocational, socio-economic achievement and they indicated the low level achieved in education, for adults long periods of unemployment, reliance on welfare.

Government Orders
Seventh, interpersonal relationships, generalized indifference to opinion of others, weak effective ties, for adults an unstable marital history.
Eighth, companions, association with anti-social, drug using others, isolation from non-criminal others.
Ninth, personal attitude, values, belief, feelings.
Tenth, behavioural history, criminal history, juvenile and adults.
Eleventh, psycho-pathology.
Twelfth, other risk factors, being male for instance, being young, 14 to 24 and a variety of other issues.
Just looking at all of those 12 points, there is one thing I think that jumps in front of everybody in this Chamber. There is one leading factor, that most of those kids are coming from a low income family, where the family's education is less than grade 10, 65 per cent of them. Those kids are not going to school. In every single one of these 12 elements, directly and indirectly, one would conclude without question that lack of education is the leading cause of the fact that we have the situation we are in right now with young offenders.
That is why in our society rather than all the time dealing with the problem itself, we have to try to find a solution to the problem and go right to the source. It is fine if I have a headache and I take an aspirin, but I think it is far more important for me to deal with the problem at the source in preventing the headache.
That would lead me to some of the examples in my community, what the people who are enforcing the law are doing at the same time. I am going to take the example of the Ottawa police force under the leadership of Chief Tom Flanagan. It has embarked on a most magnificent ventures, that is crime prevention as it relates to youth.
In May 1990 the Ottawa police force established a youth centre. The youth centre was established to provide a facility where area youths could participate in activities supervised by volunteer police officers. The objective of this was to provide a range of activities that challenged youth of all ages and to provide a safe recreational environment that encourages team work and enjoyment, to encourage local residents and nonpolice volunteers to participate and promote a better understanding between youth and police.
You may ask if this is the role of the police force, to be involved in recreational activities. Well, just hang on. The initial start-up fund for this particular centre was received from the city of Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Commission, service clubs, which is the private sector, and various concerned members of the community. The centre is located in a renovated old fire station provided free of charge by the city of Ottawa at 1463 Prince of Wales at the comer of Meadowlands Drive. This location, and this is the most important point of this whole debate, was chosen because of its close proximity to a housing project, an area with a long history of police enforcement. It is hoped that this police initiative will allow area youth to relate to police members in a positive environment.
Some of the things that the youths in that area will do at the centre is play volleyball, basketball, ball hockey, broomball, football, soccer, boxing, weight-lifting, table tennis, pool, and various social activities are also available such as field trips, movie nights and dances. Many of the youths use the centre on a drop-in basis to meet their friends and, more important than anything, as a hanging out centre.
In this area, approximately 150 youths, predominantly male between the age of 7 to 16, attend on a regular basis with 50 every day on the average, every evening, and approximately 90 per cent of them live in the surrounding area.
The Ottawa police looked at the geography and demography of the area and set up a centre in order to recruit kids to come to that centre so it would be a joint venture between the Ottawa police force and the community so they can create some sort of an environment for these kids to go and hang out.
In this centre they have two paid positions. Funding is provided, in some cases, by local businesses and they have many off-duty police officers. We also have a community college which is involved with the police force. Constable Brian Edge of our Ottawa police force is the police liaison officer for the youth centre and oversees the facility. He reports to Bruce Harrison who is in charge of this department.
The reason why I want to give this example is to tell you how proud I am of members of our police force not only looking at the letter of the law, but by going beyond the call of duty and recognizing, because they are like my

colleague from the other side of the House, the need for preventive measures before the problem occurs. They do this on their own time and at their own expense, giving unselfishly so that they can deal with the problem.
Why can they not spend more? The funding is the question which my colleague from Cape Breton and my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood spoke about many, many times, saying that funding is a key question when it comes to preventive measures.
There is one segment which is extremely important and which I have an interest in. We as a society do not recognize the magnitude of the problem when it comes to our youth. Here are some shocking statistics. A Senate committee published a report indicating that over the next 20 years approximately 187,000 children will quit school because of the effect of no money at home. For the purpose of this analysis consider them simply as an economic unit which will affect our national well-being for good or bad.
The report goes on and is bad, as it turns out. These
187,000	dropouts will cost the federal and provincial treasuries about $7.2 billion in income tax.
In addition they will cost the rest of us another $1.15 billion in foregone consumption taxes such as the terrible GST. Our society will lose $220 million in reduced unemployment insurance contributions as a result of poverty shaping these units. Furthermore, it will cost us $660 million in increased unemployment insurance cheques and another $710 million in extra welfare bills.
I am going to move on very quickly and tell the House that Canada's Gross National Product will be cut by an estimated $23 billion in lost income from these 187,000 unproductive units, these 187,000 kids who are leaving school. The total national bill for these poverty induced dropouts will come to $33 billion.
Here is the conclusion. The report argues that spending $5 billion over those 20 years on things like classroom assistants, child and youth workers, other skilled people, hot lunch programs and proven techniques to build the self-esteem of low income children could erase that $33 billion cost.
Imagine, a $33 billion return on an investment of $5 billion over 20 years. That is better than the best of blue
Government Orders
chips. For a nation that is already overspending at the rate of $30 billion a year and that has a national debt rapidly approach $400 billion, surely we could spend the $5 billion to deal effectively with the incredible question of illiteracy and dropouts in our society.
. Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to listen closely to the comments of my colleague from Ottawa Centre on the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act. I listened to him talk about the shift away from treatment and rehabilitation and about the high rate of offences by youth between the ages of 12, 17 and in many cases even younger than 12. He went on to talk about the city of Ottawa and what the city's programs are doing to deal with these kinds of offences and with these young people.
Something I might like to add is that it could be my child or your child. It is not necessarily always somebody else's child and it is not necessarily somebody from a low income family.
If I could relate back to my own riding where the average income is probably slightly higher than the national average, the police service department in our community has had to recognize a very serious problem with our young people. It has done something very similar to what the city of Ottawa police department has done. In the community of Barrhaven it has set up a youth centre in the Walter Baker Centre. Many people will remember that Walter Baker was an esteemed member of this House of Commons who unfortunately died a few years ago.
The people of the community are involved as is the police department. They act almost as sheriffs or policemen. They are community members. They could be young people. They could be parents or whomever. They are set up within this centre. It has been a year in operation now and it is very successful.
I just found out this week that we are in the process of setting up another one in the Bayshore community. The Bayshore community is an entirely different community from Barrhaven. Barrhaven consists mainly of young people whose parents are professionals. Bayshore is an apartment building area and it is in the process of being set up in that area. Again the community will be involved.

November 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
I want to ask the member a question. He was talking about a shift away from treatment and rehabilitation. I know he is very familiar with the Youth Services Bureau as I am in this area too and the type of work it does. I think there are other centres across Canada. They have drug and alcohol programs for children who come from abusive family relationships, where the child has to be taken from that home and put into a centre. What is sad is that these centres and these resources all take money; they are a tremendous drain on the community. Obviously they have to rely on government for assistance to keep the programs going.
I am sure the member's city of Ottawa and mine of Nepean are probably not the only ones in this country that are doing this. Many communities are probably doing what we are doing-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. The next time we do study this bill, she will have the floor and there will be approximately five minutes for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to answer.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing marketing boards, income plans and price guarantees to ensure that income gaps within the farming community are narrowed and to ensure a continued supply of quality foodstuffs at reasonable and stable prices.
He said: Madam Speaker, today I want to discuss some of the background to the farm situation that has been coming before this House quite often. We have been hearing questions for a long time but particularly as the net farm income problem gets worse in this country. I only mention that because it seems to me that while we hear about it an awful lot in Question Period, in Private Members' Business and on opposition days, I am not sure that we always realize the background to the problem.
I am putting this motion before the House so that as private members we can give range to some ideas from all sides of the House to see if we cannot come up with some other solutions to the so-called income problem.
I do not think we have to spend too much time convincing ourselves that there is in fact an income problem. The projections for the 1991 calendar year project net farms income of just over $3.75 billion. That is down from the actual figures in 1989 of $4.8 billion. In 1988 we had $3.6 billion. In 1987 we had $4.1 billion. In 1986 we had $4.4 billion.
In other words that is six years of barely adequate incomes. We have had a great many bankruptcies and communities feeling extreme financial stress during those years from 1986 to 1991. Yet this year's projected net farm income, after all government programs have been factored in, is expected to be about $3.27 billion, down from almost $5 billion just two years ago. Of this projected $3.27 billion, $2.9 billion of that comes from government payments, which leaves less than $500 million arrived at from the market. So we begin to see, I hope, that there is a real problem out there. The answer is not simply for government to leave farmers to their own devices and sign a free trade arrangement at the GATT where it will swear an agreement that it will no longer provide assistance to farmers. There has to be something more; the over-all problem must be looked at.
The government proposes that a free trade agreement world-wide or with the 107 or 108 countries that are part of the GATT will be the solution. Some academics point out that is not much of a solution. They have done the econometric models with 100 per cent backing away from subsidies and tariffs. They say that world prices of grains and oilseeds will only rise at a maximum of 12 per cent.
Canadian data show the current proposal of 30 per cent reductions might produce an increase of about 4.8 per cent or 5 per cent. This is not enough to make any difference to the net income of Canada's farms.
So what is wrong? Government members are saying that it is a trade war. It is all Europe's fault. Other members in the House point out that the U.S. actions are not exactly Simon Pure either. We have to recognize that Canada has been caught up in responding to a lot of the same political realities that the Europeans and the Americans have put forward.
November 8, 1991

It seems to me that we are playing with a problem and a misunderstanding of agriculture that have been haunting this sector for many years. Agriculture has only been in existence on this planet for probably 5,000 or 6,000 years. Before that civilizations developed as hunter-gatherer societies. They let nature do the production and the people gathered the crops that were produced.
It was not until about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago that people began intervening and planting the seeds, growing the crops and cultivating them.
Why is it important? In Canada's economy it is extremely important because between 23 and 24 per cent of our Gross National Product has its beginnings in agriculture. Almost 24 per cent of the people who are employed in our economy would not be there if there was no food to process or transport or produce or retail or wholesale. Almost 24 per cent of the jobs in this country would not exist if we stopped producing our own food. We could probably handle imported food with 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the labour force as long as we could trust the supplies from all around the globe. We do not need to be rocket scientists or very clever economists to understand that the price of those imported foodstuffs would be much higher than they would be grown close to home.
All of this 25 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product is dependent on the production of slightly less than 3 per cent of the population who are farmers. They look after the land and the primary food production in this country.
Why do we get into these difficulties? Every 10 or 15 years we get into this sort of crisis. I think part of it lies in the fact that the industry is badly misunderstood by academics, politicians and business leaders and has been for a long time. We go back to the beginnings of the middle of the age of enlightenment and we have the parlour experts like Malthus who produced a well thought theory that said that as populations increased the world would eventually starve to death. He proved by mathematical formula that the population of people rose in a geometric progression and the ability to increase food production was only arithmetic. This was false. There is nothing in recent history or even back in the 17th and 18th centuries when this was very popular to prove that had any validity.
Private Members' Business
Farm people have been able to find all sorts of ways of producing surpluses on little spaces of ground where they should not be able to produce surpluses. We only have to look at recent events.
The country of China is the most populous country on the globe. It was considered a half a century ago to be unable to ever produce enough food to sustain the more than a billion people which it has now as a population. They are self-sufficient in food.
They simply changed the way that they did it. They changed some of the priorities of their society. They made the production of food something that was considered a worthy task and they paid accordingly. The food cycle works in that country.
That is an emerging developing country that has been able to do that. Look at some of the highly technical countries like those of the European Economic Community. Two decades ago the EEC was considered to be a food importer forever. It is considered by this country, Australia, New Zealand and the countries that have a low population and big land base with productivity factors for agricultural production, to be a perpetual market for their foodstuffs.
The Europeans noted that there are some big advantages to their own internal economies if they are selfsustaining in food because of the kind of factors that I will be mentioning shortly. If you take a relatively low cost food product and process it and take it through the economic system, you find that its value has increased many times and has provided wages and work and profits for literally hundreds of people.
They saw it as an engine of growth for their economy so they paid their producers very well to produce enough food to make them self-sufficient in the basic foodstuffs. That economy has emerged as one of the power groups on the globe today.
Another power group in the global economy is Japan. It is considered probably the pre-eminent industrial society on the globe today. When you look at the basic economic realities of their agriculture and their agricultural policy you find what for a lot of people is a surprising fact.

November 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
Japan is virtually self-sufficient in the production of food. It produces enough rice to feed itself and to meet its basic needs. Their fishermen can go out to sea and provide enough protein supplement in the form of products from the sea to meet the protein requirements. They have met their basic protein and hydrocarbon necessities within those small islands. As densely populated as they are, they are virtually self-sufficient in food.
Current parlour experts are saying that supply side economics will look after things. If we only have free trade everything will come to a harmonious balance. I think we should be looking again at the advice they are giving. Those nations which have ignored that advice are the nations that are the most profitable, the most prosperous, have the highest living standards and the most likelihood of a good and continuing future.
Why is Canada not looking at some of the examples of the Japanese and the Europeans instead of toying with a new parlour set of economics like supply side economics where we are attempting to let the market determine things by producing an excess of supply in order to keep things going.
One of the difficulties with this whole theory is that it cannot be sustained. The ultimate end of such an economic cycle is a continued downturn in incomes, in living standards and in future prospects.
If you want to see how the policy is affecting farmers you only have to go back and look at the net income figures that I have placed before the House just a moment ago.
The figures put out by Statistics Canada on agriculture show that net farm incomes have been declining consistently for the last six or seven years. That is the result of this kind of a policy.
What would happen if we followed the European or the Japanese example? Let us take a couple of cases. Let us look at something that was raised at one of the farm rallies in Saskatchewan over the last month. One woman stood up and mentioned to the assembled farmers that her family had been very fortunate this year in being able to sell a carload of malting barley for which they will get after all government payments and final payments approximately $8,000. This is for about 3,500 bushels of barley.
That barley when turned into beer, which is what it is going to be used for, will produce 1.3 million glasses of beer. The taxation revenue from that carload of barley or those 1.3 million glasses of beer will be just over $200,000. In other words, if the Government of Canada needed another $1 million all it would have to do is process five carloads of barley, which would easily fit in this Chamber. There would be $1 million worth of tax revenue generated but the farmers would get under $40,000 for their effort, for which they paid all of their costs for fertilizer, fuel, land rental and so on. They are not getting enough to have anything left over to feed or raise their families.
Wheat is now selling at $2 a bushel, which means that for a $1 loaf of bread less than 4 cents goes to the farmer. The other 96 cents of that loaf of bread goes to the people who are responsible for the transportation, processing and the packaging. In fact the package costs several times more than what the farmer got for the original wheat.
If that carload of barley generated over $250,000 worth of product, why is it only worth $8,000? What happens to the economy if they decide that they are going to finally have to stop producing the barley and over $500,000 worth of economic activity goes down the drain for want of a few dollars to keep a farmer producing the original product?
The market economy that we live in on a global basis is much more complex than these examples. However I think the House gets the idea about what can be obtained. The very complex societies like the European and the Japanese have fallen on this with a vengeance. They have put it to good use in their societies to keep both people and their social and environmental structures current in their particular landscape.
The reality we have to face in the kind of markets that have developed world-wide is that most of the trade in grain and food products is dominated by multinational corporations. They are pressing very hard for nation states to do away with boundaries and any regulations or controls that will have any effect on their ability to trade between nation states. They want to be completely free of any government control or influence of any type. The
November 8, 1991

free trade agreements being touted around the world right now will permit that.
What does it do to the rural communities, to the farmers, or indeed to those same nation states when such a regime is in place? It means that they have very little bargaining power and there is virtually no prospect for a firm and secure future for those nation states, those communities or those farm people.
We have no method of counteracting the power of these large multinational corporations in the marketplace, many of which have larger gross revenues than the gross domestic products of most of the world's countries.
With this motion I am proposing that we take a more serious look at the establishment of marketing boards and have permissive legislation so that farmers can group together and face these large entities in the marketplace on more equal terms.
I am suggesting that governments should be more cognizant of the role that the food producer plays in providing the basic impetus for the economy, particularly in that one-quarter of the economy is food based.
I am suggesting that some new approaches have to be raised and discussed. Until we change the policy direction this country has been following, rural communities and their farm people cannot survive. We have to look at something like I am proposing in this motion.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make a few brief comments with regard to the motion put forward by the member for Mackenzie. I know that he has spent a lot of time studying this issue and certainly relates to it very well. It is important that a number of things be outlined as to what is happening with the government and the agricultural policy in Canada.
As I read the motion the inference is that nothing is really happening. We talk about considering the advisability of establishing marketing boards. Everyone in this room and in the country knows that marketing boards are a very important policy element of this country and this government. In fact, the minister spoke about it earlier today in Question Period when a question was put
Private Members' Business
regarding marketing boards. He stated, quite unequivocally and quite clearly, that government support for supply management had not wavered. That applies not only to this level of government but also to the provincial level of government.
When talking about these issues it is important to understand what the government has been doing. It has been doing a lot of things when it comes to agriculture. I could go on with other things about income plans. If I have time maybe I will try to discuss some of those things.
The government embarked on a very comprehensive review of Canadian agricultural policy. A few months a publication called Growing Together came out. It explained to Canadians what was going on and what the future was for agriculture in Canada. As the member who spoke previously said, agriculture is very important to Canada. It is a very essential industry to the Canadian economy.
We have to develop the industry. We cannot say: Well, because we did this in farming or this in agriculture 50 years ago we can do the same thing today and expect the same kind of results. In most of the fanning community, certainly in the ones in my area, their methods of farming, their methods of agriculture and their productivity levels have changed dramatically in the last number of years, and I commend them for that. Those are the kinds of things which we must address. They are producing different crops today than even five years ago, in many instances. That is the kind of thing our agricultural industry is going to have to examine.
When we talked about Growing Together there were really four pillars. One of them was market responsiveness, so that the agricultural industry could relate to the needs of the Canadian economy and the world economy. The other pillars related to self-reliance in the agrifood industry so that farmers have the ability and capability to manage their own affairs, manage their own business and the tools necessary to do that. The other thing that was a part of that program was to recognize that farms in different parts of the country are different. Different parts of regions within the country are different. That was another aspect of it.

November 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
The final pillar really was an aspect relating to environmental sustainability. That is a terminology that maybe is a little difficult for us to understand because we think of the agricultural industry as being a very natural industry. It is an industry that is friendly to the environment and in many cases, and probably most cases, it is. There are methods and chemicals today. There are practices that are going on today that are not going to help our environment. I think that is a very major factor. I really commend the agricultural industry for taking that aspect into account when it looks at what it is and how it is addressing the particular industry and that part of the economy.
There have been many actions that have come out of this. Both the federal and provincial governments are working together to have a stronger and healthier agricultural sector and I think that is very, very important.
There have been a number of task forces put together, particularly in the supply management marketing board system and certainly in the dairy and poultry sectors. These groups are looking at different aspects as to just what direction their groups are going to go. They are certainly supplying the kind of support that is necessary to the ministry and to the minister to bring those levels together so that the industry will be stable and the income can be stabilized from within, not from government handouts and from other things. That is the kind of thing that they are doing.
The group that is working with the minister at the provincial level is talking about things like greater participation and accountability, transparency, market responsiveness and competitiveness within the systems. I think that is important to everyone who is involved and certainly it applies to the agricultural industry. It applies to the people who are marketing the products, the people who are consuming the products. A lot of times in these kinds of discussions we kind of forget about the fact that the consumer is a big part of the agricultural industry. It is very important that they get involved.
Another steering committee that has been designed between government and the industry, that is agricultural farmers and the consumers, has put together a committee to review this report and to develop action plans as related to the recommendations in that particular report.
As they make those recommendations, it is obvious that we are going to have to start implementing. We are going to have to bring some of those recommendations to the floor.
If we build on this kind of change, the kind of input from the various sectors that are involved, that is the kind of consensus and the kind of results that are going to be veiy positive for all parts and everyone who is involved in that particular sector. The industry was the first to recognize that change is necessary and, as partners with the supply management system, we in government must do the same. We must recognize that there are difficulties, but we must also be prepared to make changes.
In the area of safety net programs, for instance, the Farm Income Protection Act was brought in to really emphasize the whole farm approach to agriculture and to increase this co-operation, this tripartite agreement and the aspect of the agricultural farm community supporting one another in an income support program. That seems to make a lot more sense than some of the ad hoc programs that seem to have happened in the past. This seems to be an ongoing thing where people are contributing from within the industry, that they are not just waiting for a handout.
Certainly the farmers in my community whom I have spoken to are very pleased with this. It has got some problems and I will be the first one to tell you that, but they are very pleased with the concept and getting themselves involved with it. That becomes very healthy in that particular aspect of it.
When you look at this program, the Farm Income Protection Act, it has four parts that are really very critical to it, the Net Income Stabilization Account which I have talked about, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, and a crop insurance program. Those are the kinds of things that farmers are looking for to really get things under way and to make their industry competitive in the 1990s and beyond in the next century.
I think there is co-operation of governments at various levels, and co-operation of consumers who certainly are the end user. They have a very strong vested interest in this particular situation and it is very important that they do that.
November 8, 1991

The act also sets out very important principles for the establishment of any new program. The program should not unduly influence producer production and marketing decisions. The level of protection provided should be reasonably consistent with all other agreements, taking into account regional diversity.
The programs should be compatible with our international obligations. One more point, the program should encourage long-term environmental and economic sustainability. To this end we have recently announced the special assistance program of over $800 million. There have been other committees to examine special needs, whether it be oilseeds or sugar beets.
It is evident that we have in place a policy that will provide short and long term protection to the family farm to ensure that income gaps within the farming community are addressed.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to speak to the motion of the hon. member from Saskatchewan concerning the difficulties facing agriculture today, especially the need for marketing boards, income plans, price guarantees, and other arrangements to make agriculture in this country and in other countries viable.
I do not suppose there has been a time in recent history where there was a greater concern or financial uncertainty or uncertainty about the future than there is this fall. Certainly there has never been a time in Canadian history when so much was being decided in Geneva, Switzerland, that would have such a profound impact on Canadian farmers.
For the last six years the United States through its export enhancement program and other arrangements has been engaged in a price war to try to bludgeon the European Economic Community into submission and to try to regain part of the eastern European market for grain that it lost after the embargo which it placed on grain to Russia at the time of the Afghanistan war in 1980.
To try to achieve this it is spending something between $900 million and $1.2 billion subsidizing wheat and grain that would normally sell on the market for $135 or $150 a tonne for anywhere between $50 a tonne to $75 a tonne. It does not take a very wise person to realize that if farmers are getting something like $75 a tonne, or $2 a bushel for grain that costs them $4 or $5 a bushel to
Private Members' Business
produce, grain that has not sold for those prices since the early 1960s, there is absolute total chaos in the grain producing areas of our country, especially the prairie provinces. It extends of course to the grains and oilseeds sector of Ontario and other provinces as well.
At the same time that we face that kind of chaos in world markets for grains and oilseeds, the supply management sector of Canadian agriculture, that is the dairy sector and the poultry sector are absolutely petrified that this government is going to sell them out in the negotiations there and adopt an American proposal called tariffication which essentially would have a devastating impact on that sector of our agricultural economy which is the most stable, which is the most self-reliant, where people pay for their food in the grocery store rather than have it paid for from the public purse.
Thrown into this mix of uncertainty, last year because of the accelerated subsidies by the United States and by the European community countries, world prices for grain dropped from something close to $4 a bushel to about $2 a bushel. At the same time that was happening during the summer, fall and winter months of 1990, the Government of Canada in its wisdom chopped government support programs by almost 40 per cent. It chopped them from roughly $3.2 billion to $1.9 billion in that crop year.
It is not hard to understand why farmers are protesting across this country in little communities like Lucknow, where over 1,000 people showed up at a rally in early September, and in a half dozen other communities across Canada, including the largest one which was held just a couple of weeks ago in Regina where over 7,000 farmers showed up to protest the government's cutting of support programs by $1.3 billion, a 40 per cent reduction at a time when world prices were dropping by 30 per cent. Never has there been greater uncertainty for Canadian agriculture. That is a pity because Canadian agriculture is efficient. It is talented. It has a good resource base. It should be productive. It is very productive, but it should be reasonably profitable.
We have Canadian farmers today who have an average investment of over half a million dollars, $500,000 average, whose average income in 1989, which was a good year and it might be even lower today, was about $17,000. That is less than what the average farm family earns off the farm where the spouse has a job in the community.

November 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
As this motion proposes, it is absolutely essential that we try to bring order out of chaos. We need to have orderly marketing. We need to maintain the orderly marketing we have. If the government sells out the dairymen and the poultrymen, you are going to have that sector of our agricultural economy which has been the most stable, the most reliable, the most self-reliant, lined up at the steps of the legislature and lined up at the steps of Parliament, demanding billions of dollars of compensation, stabilization and support programs. So it is absolutely essential that the government maintain that orderly marketing in the domestic scene.
I hope from these GATT negotiations likewise that there will be an orderly marketing arrangement devised at the international level.
In 1968 we had an international grains agreement which proposed an arrangement among the producing countries of the world to share the market in a fair and equitable way. Attached to that was a food stabilization accord or agreement. I think that regardless of what happens at the GATT, we should have an international food fund. We have an International Monetary Fund to try to bring some stability and order out of the situation that we have in monetary and economic affairs of the world. We should have an international food fund as well, in my opinion.
We are spending about $300 billion to subsidize food around the world. For countries that have no other means of feeding their peoples, that is great. Flowever, we have the insane situation where we are subsidizing everybody. Canadian farmers earn about four cents on a loaf of bread that costs $1.29 in a grocery store.
It does not take much imagination to realize why there is so much chaos. What I feel we should be doing is putting some part of this $300 billion that we are spending to subsidize into an international food fund which would provide assistance and support to those nations and peoples of the world who cannot afford to feed themselves. It would assist them in providing food.
We should let the rest of the world that can afford the proper price that gives the producer a reasonable return
provide it. Let the market work. Let the people who can afford to pay an adequate price for their food pay for it.
If we want to solve the international farm financial crisis we must have orderly marketing internationally and domestically. That is not to say that every commodity will have supply management like we have for poultry and dairy.
Clearly for commodities marketed internationally to a great per cent it is not very practical to have a supply management system like we have for dairy and poultry in this country. There has to be reasonable, fair rules so countries like Canada that have a natural advantage in grains and oilseeds can sell them on the world market. We sell about 80 per cent on the world market in a fair and equitable way.
We might have to lower our input costs to be competitive with the United States and some other countries, but clearly the motion today talks about orderly marketing both nationally and internationally. These are my ideas of what this government and what governments around the world need to do if as a nation we are to provide a reasonable, sane, sensible way of maintaining our agricultural community and giving a reasonable return to those producers who work so hard, have such a massive capital investment and deserve a better situation than they have in Canada or around the world today.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon in response to the motion put forward by the member for Mackenzie.
If we look at some of the recent statistics in this country we can understand why the member for Mackenzie and others from western Canada are concerned about what is happening in agriculture. One of the things I wanted to do to reinforce that concern was to point out an article in The Globe and Mail today at which I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie and most likely the member for Algoma have had a chance to take a look. The Canadian Press articles mentions Saskatchewan specifically and the outpouring of people from that province. It tells us that the province of Saskatchewan lost 19,442 more people to other parts of the country than what it gained in return in the latest statistics available. That is a rate of something in the order of 19.3

November 8, 1991

per cent of its residents in the last couple of years. I believe that statistic is based on the 1989-90 year.
Those are very alarming statistics. It is not the only agricultural province that is registering those kinds of numbers. It is happening in other provinces as well, but most of them are coming from the farm. The farm sector is certainly under siege. There is no question about it. As the member for Algoma mentioned, we are into a subsidy war and Canada is paying a big price for that.
The price tag on that subsidy war between the United States and the European countries alone is running in the neighbourhood of $300 billion at an annual rate. There appears to be no end in sight. The treasuries of the United States and European countries apparently can afford to play that game although I am not convinced they can afford to play it. For the last number of years they have been content to play that game without coming to grips with the real problem. I think we are in full agreement with that.
The consumer at the end of the day pays the price for a commodity whether it is through taxes or at the checkout counter at the grocery store. To assume that Canada could take part in that high stakes game is an unreal perspective. We cannot and we do not want the Europeans and Americans to continue along that course. It is a very destructive course and we certainly pay the price in this country.
The statistics I mentioned in relation to the numbers of people leaving farms in western Canada and other parts of Canada tell the real story. If you are getting $2 a bushel for wheat there is no way you can pay the bills at the end of the day. We have to find a way to get out from under that.
Both of the members on the opposition side mentioned a couple of commodities. It is interesting that they did and I do want to reflect on what they said. The member for Mackenzie mentioned the price of beer in relation to the price of barley. As we all know in the beer process, barley is one of the key ingredients that has to be used in the production of that commodity. Obviously the grain farmer is not reaping the reward for his work
Private Members' Business
and for the product they use to manufacture the end product which is beer.
How can we achieve something different? The same is in relation to the price of bread. They are saying that a farmer gets about 4 cents for his grain when it is all factored into the price of that loaf of bread.
I do not have the answer to it but the trend today is vertical integration in the marketplace. Maybe that is an area we have to move more into in this country. Obviously there is risk in doing that because vertical integration means bigger companies and bigger farms with more assets than we would like to see in the hands of one group. The reason is that it probably means the end of the family farm if one competes on that level. I am not saying it is the answer but it is certainly a reality in other parts of our industrial society.
There was a conference sponsored by The Financial Post in Toronto yesterday. Some of the big players were there to take part in it and to take a look at this world-wide phenomenon of size in relation to marketing and products manufactured and how at the end of the day they can survive out there in the marketplace.
They were talking about the European market, for example. That is dominated by a handful of companies really. It is companies like Nestle, Unilever, Phillip Morris and BSN. They actually take a look at McCain Foods as well and some of the success they enjoy in Europe. They are big companies. To compete and to work through that whole chain where the consumer picks their product up at the supermarket, you have to have that integration within your industiy to be able to do that. At the end of the day one must have the price that will attract the consumer to buy one's product.
It is not all big business in my province of New Brunswick but one of the things we have been able to do is have the value added to some of those products in our province. Take the example of just selling the raw material. By selling grains like wheat and barley there is not a whole lot of profit there. Maybe that is something that some of the western provinces might take a look at.
For example, in New Brunswick the figure to value add it on our product is something in the order of 40 to 50 per cent. It is one of the highest in the nation. Whereas if we go into Saskatchewan I think that figure is in the 3 or 4 per cent range. Maybe the answer lies in vertical integration, taking value and putting the value on those prod-

Private Members' Business
ucts and further processing of those products before they leave the province.
If you want to take a look at the beer industry, Madam Speaker, that is a unique one. As you know at the end of the day you are talking about a very high priced product. I think there is probably an opportunity there for western grain fanners to take a look at how that product is used in the end product and maybe some improvements can be made in that process in western Canada.
Why is it that at the end of the day the key ingredient in that product, the barley, is a very small percentage of the price at the supermarket or the liquor store? It is the same with a loaf of bread or a box of cornflakes, as the members here have pointed out so often. I think the price of a box of cornflakes is less than 10 per cent of the price of the product. There certainly is room for improvement.
The motion before us reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing marketing boards, income plans and price guarantees to ensure the income gaps within the farming community are narrowed and to ensure a continued supply of quality foodstuffs at reasonable and stable prices.
Not one of us here is going to disagree with that statement. But how do we achieve that is the question.
I see that my time is quickly running out, but I want to reinforce the government's commitment to supply management. The minister is on record today during Question Period as stating that our commitment is an ongoing commitment. We have not waffled in regard to that. We
are going to continue with clarification of article XI. We are not going to give up on it. We are not going to cave in to international pressures.
There is a great deal at stake in the farming community and we realize that. We are going to continue to pursue the strengthening and clarification of article XI. At the same time we do have a task force out there examining milk marketing boards in attempt to identify what can be done within those marketing boards to improve efficiency and return for farmers within those marketing board structures.
It is a two-way street. I believe that our marketing board people are doing their best with those marketing board commodities that relate to the agricultural sector, but the government of the day is also doing its job. We are defending it and will continue to defend it. We will do it in the best interest of all of us: the consumer and the farmer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since no more members wish to speak, the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Pursuant to Standing Order 28(1), this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m, on Monday, November 18, 1991, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.52 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 18,1991