Stan Dromisky

[Mining, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the Canadian mining industry. Canada is the third largest mining nation in the world and the world's largest producer of uranium, zinc and potash. Almost 80 per cent of Canada's mineral production is exported.

Mining is the mainstay of employment in over 115 communities in Canada. For every 10 jobs created in the mining industry, 8 more jobs are indirectly created. For every dollar spent on mining research and development, there is a $3 benefit to the Canadian economy.

Over the past two years the demand for nickel has jumped 20 per cent. Fortunately Canadians have the resource, the workforce and the expertise to meet this anticipated demand.

It is for these reasons that we must work together in a co-operative spirit to foster an environment in which the mining industry may continue to flourish in this great country of ours.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House regarding Bill C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to the genital mutilation of female persons, proposed by the hon. member for Québec.

The bill aims to make persons who perform female genital mutilation or who aid, abet, counsel or procure the performance by another person of female genital mutilation guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

I state from the outset my personal repulsion of this practice. It is without a doubt a practice which causes great harm. However, we must not allow our disgust with the practice to cloud our reasoning about the member's proposed bill as an effective means of addressing this problem.

As for the cultural practices in other lands it is out of our scope to dictate what should or should not be included in their criminal codes. Societies practising female genital mutilation will change their behaviour only on understanding that the intent behind their action can be achieved by other less harmful means.

Female genital mutilation is a practice which inflicts harm on an estimated 85 million to 115 million girls and women, with about two million girls being subjected to this ritual annually worldwide.

There is no doubt that the practice can prove very harmful to the health of a baby girl and eventually of the woman. There is an indisputable medical link between female genital mutilation and a myriad of short and long term health consequences. Some have already been mentioned such as severe haemorrhaging, shock, infections, infertility, urine retention, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with child birth and even death.

As I mentioned earlier, this well intentioned bill poses certain problems. The Minister of Justice indicated in March he was of the opinion that an amendment to the Criminal Code was not necessary at this time. The minister informed members of the House that there are those who are knowledgeably involved who believe amending the Criminal Code at this time could inadvertently drive the practice even further underground, and the government agrees. Instead the government prefers to engage in a comprehensive educational campaign which outlines the health risk of the procedure and the criminality of the practice.

All hon. members should be made aware the Criminal Code of Canada does have a provision which could cover those who practice female genital mutilation. Presently sections of the code which apply include assault causing bodily harm, section 267, unlawfully causing bodily harm, section 269, and aggravated assault, section 268, all of which are indictable offences with maximum sentences of between 10 and 14 years. Section 268 refers to the situation in which a person wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

There are other sections of the Criminal Code which could be used to prosecute either the person performing the procedure or the parents for their part in arranging for it to be carried out. Also, a recent amendment to the code aims to address situations in which a Canadian resident is taken from the country with the purpose of committing an act against him or her which would ordinarily be an offence if committed in Canada. This section of the code provides for a maximum sentence of five years for an indictable offence.

Over and above existing Criminal Code provisions, the hon. member should know Ontario and Quebec have child protection laws which allow for a child to be taken into the custody of the province should reasonable suspicion exist that she may be subjected to female genital mutilation either in Canada or abroad. It is apparent that the Canadian Criminal Code already provides for the necessary measures to prosecute those persons perpetrating female genital mutilation.

Instead we must concentrate on educating the public but we must also educate the police, crown attorneys and the medical professions by informing them that female genital mutilation constitutes criminal behaviour and as such must be dealt with accordingly. We will work together and we must work together with the above stakeholders in order to ensure existing laws are enforced in this respect.

On the practice of female genital mutilation from a global perspective, I firmly believe we must not lose sight of the fact that denouncing the practice can make some of us feel better and self-righteous but certainly does not solve the problem worldwide.

The director general to the World Health Organization's global commission on women's health indicates that the purpose of the organization should not be to criticize and condemn; however, nor should we remain passive.

We know female genital mutilation is painful and can have dire health consequences. However, we must also take into account that human behaviours and cultural values, no matter how senseless or harmful they appear in light of our personal and cultural perspectives, do have a meaning for those who practice them.

The key is to convince people they can give up a certain practice without compromising the important ideals cherished by their cultures. Also instrumental is the need to impart on adherence of the practice the great health risk that can result from this diabolical practice.

Parents across the globe are similar in that ultimately they want what is in the best interests of their children. If they are presented with credible options, an alternative to female genital mutilation in a way that takes into account their own social, cultural and economic environments, we will then be able to find a global solution.

I thank the member for Quebec for bringing this crucial issue to the attention of the House.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the market forces play with the laws that exist on municipal, provincial and especially federal levels. They are all in harmony with each other and the industry will continue to prosper as it is at the present time.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Medicine Hat in a sense has misconstrued or has deliberately altered my presentation. I did not state the free trade deal was to destroy the magazine industry in Canada. I said the presentations being made by members of the Reform Party, especially by the member for Medicine Hat, with all the attributes and perceptions that were sort of misguided, would result in the death knell of the magazine industry. I was criticizing, debating and discussing the presentations of the members of the Reform Party versus the stability, sustainability and health of the magazine industry in Canada.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we have been listening to presentations from Reform Party members. They have presented us with a large collection of suppositions, perceptions and attributions. Many of them are based on personal feelings, personal perceptions and misguided information. Clearly it is a position which would result in the death knell of the magazine industry in Canada. It would mean the loss of thousands of jobs. Millions of dollars would be taken out of the economy. That is the present position of the Reform Party.

Reformers are slow learners; there is no doubt about it. We know that one of the characteristics of an effective learning model is the use of repetition. My Liberal Party colleagues have clearly pointed out some very hard core facts which support the need for Bill C-103. It is through repetition that I will continue to present the facts. I hope Reform Party members will be able to handle the data in a much more effective and positive manner and will see the need for support by the Canadian people of the Canadian magazine industry.

The key messages in Bill C-103 clearly point out that the commitments of the government made on December 22, 1994 will be supported. This is not a new policy. It is merely an extension of the government's longstanding policy to support the Canadian magazine industry, to channel Canadian advertising revenues to Canadian magazines and not to American magazines. These measures are not intended to restrict foreign magazines from access to the Canadian market. In fact our market is wide open to publications from all over the world.

It is the government's view that the proposed bill is consistent with our international trade obligations. As a result, no one south of the border should be disturbed by the actions of the government.

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has clearly pointed out that the new excise tax is not a new consumer tax. I must repeat some hard core data for this effective learning to take place.

What is a periodical? A periodical is published more than once a year but not more than once a week. It does not have more than 70 per cent advertising content. It is available to the general public.

For the fiscal year 1993-94 a Statistics Canada survey reported on over 1,300 titles. The survey covered six types of periodicals in Canada. The general categories were: general consumer magazines, special interest consumer magazines, business and trade magazines, religious magazines, farm magazines and scholarly magazines. There we have in six categories publications in this country covering the field, tailoring to the needs of every man, woman and child.

Dealing with the hard core data, according to Statistics Canada advertising revenues fell to $485 million in 1993-94, an 8.3 per cent drop from the previous year and a 14.3 per cent decline since 1989-90. From 1985 to 1991 periodicals saw their market share of advertising dollars drop from 6.6 per cent to 5.7 per cent, a clear indication that the Canadian government must do whatever it possibly can do to change that movement.

Advertising revenue is crucial to most magazines. It supports the cost of the editorial content and makes it possible for the publisher to provide the magazine at rates the reader can afford. In some cases, believe it or not, it provides the magazine at no cost to the reader. Approximately two-thirds of all revenues of Canadian magazines come from the advertising area. The main thrust of federal magazine publishing policy has been to direct Canadian advertising revenue to Canadian magazines.

The effect of the recession on advertising revenue has been quite serious for the Canadian magazine industry. However Canadian companies have been very effective in competing even though the recession has taken place.

The magazine industry has demonstrated a remarkable resilience in the face of a decline in advertising revenue. Periodicals have managed to earn profits and to increase them recently by keeping a tight control on costs. Since 1989-90 some cost cutting has been achieved by reducing the number of full time and part time employees. As well the use of contract work has increased. Salaries, wages and fees fell 3.9 per cent in 1993-94. Non-salaried costs fell 6.8 per cent during the same year and dropped 16.5 per cent during the previous four years. Clearly that is action of responsible companies.

During the past five years profits before tax as a percentage of total revenue has ranged from a low of 2.1 per cent in 1990-91 to a high of 5.7 per cent in 1993-94. Profitability varies by category with business and trade periodicals earning the most profits and religious periodicals earning the least.

As reported by Statistics Canada, paper costs will likely have a profound impact on periodicals in the near future. According to the industrial price index, paper prices rose 26 per cent in the first four months of 1995 compared with the same period last year.

It is clear the magazine industry faces challenges on a number of fronts: increasing competition for audience attention, increasing competition for the advertiser's dollar, the need to adjust quickly to rapid price changes, and rapid technological change. The role of government policy has been to provide an environment in which magazines can meet their challenges.

A range of government policy and program instruments have been put in place and will continue to be supported by the industry as well as by the government. These instruments include: section 19 of the Income Tax Act, tariff code 9958, grants through the Canada Council, the postal subsidy for paid circulation Canadian magazines, and the lending programs offered by the cultural industries development fund.

The Canadian magazine industry is an important pipeline between the generators of Canadian information, ideas, views and the Canadian public. As noted by the O'Leary Royal Commission on Publications in 1961, magazines "can protect a nation's values and encourage their practice. They can make democratic government possible and better government probable. They can soften sectional asperities and bring honourable compromises. They can inform and educate in the arts, the sciences and commerce. They can help market a nation's products and promote its material wealth. In these functions it may be claimed, claimed without much challenge, that the communications of a nation are as vital to its life as its defences and should receive at least as great a measure of national protection".

I could not have said it better. The government recognizes the importance of periodicals in Canada for and by Canadians, much as it did over 30 years ago when the O'Leary report was completed. We will continue to support the industry by implementing appropriate structural measures such as the ones proposed by the recent task force on the Canadian magazine industry.

Bill C-103 is a key element in continuing that support. Therefore I urge all members to ensure the bill is quickly passed.

[Endangered Species, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues its initiative to halt the trade in endangered species under the convention on international trade in endangered species.

Training workshops for federal and provincial enforcement staff are ongoing. Airport photo displays advising travellers not to purchase endangered species and products are currently being installed at five major airports in western Canada. Negotiations for formal agreements to implement the government's new wildlife trade act, WAPPRIITA, the wild animal and plant protection and regulation of international and interprovincial trade act, are well under way in three of the four provincial and territorial jurisdictions in western and northern Canada.

A number of prosecutions and seizures under current endangered species legislation have also occurred in western Canada recently with substantial penalties levied.

Nationally a video was recently produced for use on international airline flights and new posters discouraging the purchase of endangered wildlife products are being distributed to airlines-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to convince anybody on the government side as to how they should vote on this bill. I know that members of the government are extremely rational individuals who are very very concerned about the safety of their compatriots, their constituents and the citizens of this country.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the arguments and challenge being presented right now are the very kind of questions that were probably asked in the 1930s in this Chamber. In the 1930s the very same principles were being advocated by opponents to changes in our laws.

We have identified various groups in our society in the history of this country who have been victimized by hate. Various individuals have been attacking specific groups. The need arose. The need was identified and a responsible Parliament of the day made a change in the Criminal Code to make sure that we could protect that segment of Canadian society from various ignorant people, as I would like to call them.

We have reached a point in the history of this country where for some reason or other a group of individuals is being attacked, hatred being the main motivating factor. As a result we are taking into consideration the need to protect this segment of our society. That is why a change has taken place in that section.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the victim in this case has been robbed and in the process has received a physical form of abuse that could be very devastating. In both cases we have laws to cover them. I do not think the attack was perpetrated by the attacker knowing the gentleman was a Jew. Therefore I think the law covers it and states very clearly exactly what type of treatment the criminal must receive in this case.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-41. In particular, I would like to address the proposed change to section 718.2 of the revised Criminal Code, which deals with crimes that are motivated by hate, hate being deemed an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

More specifically, this section of the Criminal Code looks to criminalize those who commit an offence that was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation.

This section takes into consideration that there are crimes against individuals and then there are crimes against a group. The latter crimes have the potential to hurt and hurt deeply and injure a collective group of people. Hate crimes put a group at psychological unease, deteriorating their psychological quality of life and inducing mental injury. As we all know, mental injuries and traumas can lead to physical illnesses, commonly referred to as psychosomatic illnesses. However, everyone within the designated group will be affected to some degree, some more than others. Above all, practically every single one will feel a deterioration of self-concept and eventually feel themselves second class citizens.

It is important to take note of the fact that all of the groups specified in the proposed legislation are afforded equal protection. I reiterate: equal protection. For example, hate crimes against males are treated in the same manner as hate crimes against females. Caucasians are afforded the same protection as Orientals; Christians the same as Muslims; anglophones the same as francophones; heterosexuals the same as homosexuals; and Ukrainian Canadians the same as Iranian Canadians and native Canadians.

Each of these mentioned groups at some time or other can be potential victims of hate crimes. All of them have been singled out for excessive negative treatment by someone for some reason. Why? It is ignorance, pure and simple. Ignorance is the foundation of this negative form of behaviour. It is nurtured by someone for someone's advantage, whether it is for control of a group, greed, or to keep people in a state of ignorance so that they will never know there is something better around the corner.

Fear is another controlling factor. This points out to me and to everyone else that there is a desperate need for education, education that will enhance the image of every single Canadian to the point where they will feel secure in the decision making and the choices they make and someone else who is trying to manipulate them for some unknown reason will not degrade them, debase them, and humiliate them to the point where their self-concept is practically destroyed.

Remember that most people who attack other people and hate other people have very poor self-concepts. Because of the poor self-concept they have, they are trying their very best to knock someone else down to a much lower level of esteem.

Given the above realities, one is astounded as to how opponents of the bill can possibly come to the conclusion that any particular group is being granted special protection. The above clearly indicates that in fact everyone is treated equally. Yes, every hate crime as well is treated equally.

Bill C-41 does not give special rights to anyone. It protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender, a sexual orientation, and a religious belief. If there is a member in the House who believes he or she is an exception to this rule, please let them stand and be counted.

Since no one has risen, I will assume I was correct in my assumption.

Another misguided criticism regards that claim that inclusion of the term sexual orientation would somehow serve to promote homosexuality. This allegation hardly deserves a response. I cannot for one moment think of a way in which this bill would serve to promote a certain sexual orientation, or any other group protected by Bill C-41 for that matter.

Some opponents of this bill have been misled into believing that Bill C-41 involves changes that would include the recognition of same sex marriages and even same sex benefits. This is absolutely ludicrous. This bill deals with crimes in the Criminal Code, not with same sex issues.

The civil and political rights of gays and lesbians will be debated in a completely different context, that being within the context of national and international human rights. Those civil and political rights are completely unrelated to the bill that is being discussed today. Some members in the House have been able to make the distinction. In fact, judging from the debate I heard today and yesterday in the House, some members have been having a terribly difficult time in doing so.

Furthermore, I fear that some have utilized this debate as an opportunity to voice their dislike for certain lifestyles. Although I do agree that they are privy to their own opinions in this respect, I most certainly believe that today's debate is not the forum for them to voice these opinions. We must deal with this area of concern in a rational manner and not emotionally.

Today's debate is concerned with the pressing need to prevent offences of hate motivated violence in Canada. This distinction we must keep in mind.

It is quite apparent that the allegations and criticisms aimed at Bill C-41 are entirely unfounded and misleading. These criticisms are based upon half-truths and misconceptions as well as misperceptions.

For those who are opposed to the listing of the various characteristics of the individual in this clause, please remember that the hate crime section is meaningless without the list. In several rulings the Supreme Court of Canada has warned that any hate related legislation must be very, very precise and identify target groups it intends to protect.

I urge all members in the House to objectively analyse the debate surrounding this bill and make a decision based upon the principles of justice, equity, and fairness.