Debates of Feb. 24th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of second reading of this bill.

Under the procedures the House adopted a little over a year ago, we changed the rules with respect to the drafting of bills. As I indicated in my speech on the concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 9, this bill has been drafted by the committee and has now been introduced by the government in response to the committee's recommendation which was adopted by the House.

The order of the House constituted a direction to the government to bring in this bill. The bill is in substantially the same form as what the committee recommended. There have been some minor changes in technical aspects of the language and one earth shattering change that brings the bill into force on royal assent rather than on the date of proclamation. That I am sure has not upset anyone. It is a very minor technical change and one that the committee considered but opted for what it thought was the more convenient. It turns out that the government felt the other was more convenient and made the appropriate change in the bill.

I am looking forward to the study of this bill in the committee on procedure and House affairs.

At our meeting this week, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that the Bloc Quebecois would like an opportunity to speak during second reading of this bill. We accept their request and hope that today's speech will mean a saving in time later on during consideration of the bill.

This is why we are allowing the debate today, although the Standing Orders do not provide for debate at the second reading of a bill, as a general rule.

I am happy to have agreed to the debate today. I look forward to the speech of the hon. member from the Bloc who will be speaking on this matter. I recommend the bill to the House as I did on February 9. As I said everything that I think could be said about this good bill on that date I see no need to prolong my remarks today. I support the bill and invite the House to do the same.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on behalf of the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist party in Ottawa, on a matter of such importance as Bill C-69 entitled an Act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

Why is it an honour for me to speak at this stage? Because, once again, and I invite the government to listen carefully, I have the opportunity to defend the interests of Quebec, so long overlooked by the system.

Furthermore, I have another opportunity to express one of Quebec's traditional demands in this House. I have another opportunity to criticize the big guns in the system and attack the positions held by those across the floor for whom Lord Durham's report would still appear to be bedtime reading. The strategy, of course, has changed. The federal government has become more sophisticated. Things are more subtle now. Gone are the days of the great exploits to assimilate Quebecers.

The approach now is to chip away at Quebec's rights and political weight whenever possible in order to better mix Quebecers in with the masses in English Canada. Bill C-69 is a fine example of this. I must say, though, that this bill is not all bad, on the contrary.

I am delighted by the amendments proposed to improve the mechanism for readjusting electoral boundaries. The main amendments are as follows. Changes to the electoral map following a decennial census will be adjusted five years later in order to avoid too much upheaval in electoral districts. Electoral districts may vary by some 25 per cent from the provincial quota. This is fine.

The provincial commissions will be required to get public input before starting their work. This is fine too. The provincial commissions will have to consider community of interest, the size of each district and foreseeable geographic changes in determining electoral boundaries. Finally, the provincial commissions will have to produce three draft maps and hold new hearings, as required.

These proposals are acceptable, perhaps even necessary if we do not wish to be faced with aberrations again, as with the planned new districts. Without dwelling too much on details, I would like to cite the example of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm which I have the honour of representing. During the last thirty years, this riding has been called successively Berthier-Maskinongé, Berthier-Maskinongé-Lanaudière, and finally the present designation of Berthier-Montcalm. If the proposed electoral division or redistribution plan had gone ahead, I do not know what new designation the devisors of the system would have come up with. If things went as planned, the riding would hardly have been recognizable.

Regional county municipalities would have been divided, natural business and service communities split up; one municipality would have been attached to a neighbouring riding with which it had no affinity, with absolutely no regard for the region's history, all in the interest of numerical consistency and uniform representation. In fact, it was the very epitome of Canadian federalism.

Several members of this House opposed this readjustment of electoral boundaries and rightly so. We were not dealing with apples and oranges. On the contrary, the very essence of the riding and its historical baggage were at issue here. Thus, it was necessary to be realistic, practical while at the same time ensuring that the member of Parliament could be efficient in his work. Unfortunately, legal provisions applicable in this regard did not allow for this rational redistribution.

The report prepared by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs included a number of elements and proposals for improving the representativeness and boundaries of electoral ridings. This is why the Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the preparation of this report. Many ideas were put forward, specifically the official opposition's proposal to include in this legislation a mechanism allowing Quebec to keep 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Clearly, we could not in good faith vote against a traditional demand made by Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois regarded this as a fundamental element of this report and that is why we supported it.

However, the government is as usual systematically refusing to examine Canada's duality. It is postponing studying another traditional demand of the people of Quebec and is doing absolutely nothing to try to find a solution to the demand made. The bill resulting from this report includes only a tiny portion of its proposals. Indeed, Bill C-69 does not mandate a parliamentary committee with finding a solution to the problem of the erosion of Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. Worse still, Bill C-69 does not provide any guarantee whatsoever that the decline in the number of Quebec members in the House of Commons would be stopped. On the contrary, this bill maintains the formula set out in section 51 of the British North America Act, which weakens Quebec's influence within federal institutions.

Until Quebec decides on its future, and undoubtedly, it will vote in favour of sovereignty, you will understand that it is of the utmost importance that it maintain adequate representation within those institutions.

History has proven that despite the senatorial clause and the grandfathering clause, for the 127 years since it was founded, Quebec has been and still is the only province to have a smaller number of members of Parliament than it should get under representation by population.

Ontario, in contrast, was granted several extra seats at the beginning of the century. This eloquently demonstrates once again the double standard, and two occasions where the federal government has shown favouritism towards English Canada. Why should this surprise us; the tower of Pisa also always leans to the same side.

In this bill, the House fails to acknowledge that there are two founding peoples. The central government has been trying to forget this fact for 127 years too. Must I remind the House that Quebec is home to one of Canada's two founding peoples; Quebec is the cornerstone of French culture in the Americas; Quebec has its own separate culture; Quebec is the only French society surrounded by a sea of English; Quebec deserves and has legitimate claim to 25 per cent of all of the seats in the House of Commons.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Is that what you think of francophones outside of Quebec.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

In fact, this last request is not new. I know that I am probably frustrating members opposite by confronting them with the truth this morning-

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You are right, francophones outside of Quebec are frustrated, because of what you are saying.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Nevertheless, I would ask the hon. member to listen to me a while longer.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Once again, you are abandoning them.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Just listen, Mr. Whip.

In fact, this is not a new demand, it is one that we have always made. But, once again, I am only repeating to the members of the House of Commons what the Bloc Quebecois has pointed out time and time again within these walls and what politicians from Quebec, even some of the most timid Liberals in your ranks, have been clamouring for too long.

The government would like the official opposition to vote for the bill, even though it all but ignores Quebec's demand.

No, members of the Bloc Quebecois will not help the government disregard one of Quebec's legitimate demands. We are here to defend Quebec's interests, and in the interests of Quebec, we must vote against this bill.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

But you voted for it in committee.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

This is unbelievable.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I can already hear government members mention in this House that the only way to guarantee Quebec a minimum of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons is to amend the Constitution. At best, this amendment would be subject to the rule of the seven provinces or 50 per cent of the population or, at worst, to the rule of unanimity.

This is a smokescreen and a constitutional disinformation campaign.

In 1985-and I would urge the people across the way to listen-the principle of proportionate representation in the House of Commons stated in section 42(1)( a ) of the British North America Act was altered indirectly and very subtly through a simple act of Parliament.

[An hon. member]

We did no such thing. This is nonsense.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Through a simple act of Parliament.

By guaranteeing some provinces a minimum of seats on the grounds that a province cannot lose seats, they altered the principle of proportionate representation in 1985 by passing this simple act of Parliament. Was this act challenged? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Was it invalidated? No, Mr. Speaker.

In the case of Campbell v. Canada (1988) 49 DLR, 4th edition, page 321-they can write this down as good reading material-the British Columbia Court of Appeal pointed out that the protection of representation despite the decline in a province's population does not affect the principle of proportionate representation and therefore does not require amending section 41(1)( a ) of the British North America Act.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is clear.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

We have a double standard, Mr. Speaker. That, too, is clear. One law for English Canada's demands and another for Quebec. That, too, is clear. But you will not hear that from the people across the way.

With that precedent, the government will tell me once again that it could not guarantee Quebec a maximum of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons under Bill C-69? No, the Quebec people are not fooled and will soon render judgment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, please note that the official opposition, proud defender of Quebec, cannot support a bill which does not provide any way to counter Quebec's loss of political weight in this House.

Bloc Quebecois members refuse to accept the gradual erosion of the power held by those representing one of Confederation's two founding peoples.

Mr. Speaker, do not ask us to go against our demands or vote against the interests of the Quebec nation. As you can understand, we will vote against this bill. I invite those who say that the bill is consistent with the report to read both the report and the bill. They will see that there is a difference.

I understand their wanting to close their eyes, their unwillingness to give Quebec its fair share of seats in this Parliament. I understand that their only goal is the assimilation of Quebec, pure and simple. What better way than to start with the House of Commons, so that francophones and Quebec cannot defend their interests in this House. That is why we will vote against this bill.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a surprise to be debating Bill C-69 this morning, but it gives me another opportunity to outline some of the problems and dangers contained in the redistribution bill.

The bill is the government's justification for wasting about $5 million of taxpayers' money in the previous readjustment process that has to be repeated now because we are reimplementing it. The government feels that the changes introduced in the legislation are excuses for the more than $5 million wasted by scrapping 11 months of work by the redistribution commissions.

The government is keen to get the bill passed as soon as possible so that the new boundary rules will be in place in time for the next election. That is the way it should be. It realizes that

its unprecedented suspension of the democratic process might have caused the next election to be contested under the old boundaries based on the 1981 census. This would have put government members in a very tenuous constitutional position, not to mention having faces as red as their infamous book.

The entire debacle that began with Bill C-28 and continues with Bill C-69 has put the Liberals on very shaky ground when it comes to a politically neutral election process. The government obviously feels that Bill C-69 excuses its tampering with the electoral process. Bill C-69 fails to live up to all these claims.

Also very interestingly my friends in the Bloc have finally come to the realization that there are some problems with Bill C-69. I say finally because all through the meetings of the procedure and House affairs committee members of the Bloc seemed happy with the direction and contents of the draft bill proposed by the committee. The draft bill had been introduced by the government as Bill C-69. The Bloc presented no dissenting opinion to the Liberal report presented to the House.

On November 22, when Reform members indicated that a minority report or a dissenting report would be included, the Bloc Quebecois declined the opportunity to dissent to what the government was pushing through and voted for every clause of the bill that now appears as Bill C-69. That party was instrumental in defending the need for a 25 per cent variance. I find it peculiar that the Bloc would all of a sudden push for an unusual debate at this stage of the process. I have to wonder why it favoured the report and everything in it at committee but is now rushing to oppose the bill at this point. It seems to be a rather odd position to be taking.

It is clear the crux of the Bloc's concern over Bill C-69 is the matter of guaranteeing Quebec 25 per cent of the seats of the House of Commons regardless of population. This is obviously an undemocratic position. The make-up of the House has always been based on the principle that all Canadian citizens are equal. Equality of voting power is fundamental to Canadian democracy. I do not understand why any party would advocate giving some Canadians more political power than others. The words and actions of Bloc members on Bill C-69 betray their true motives and values.

To demonstrate how unviable that kind of approach is, one need look no further than my province of Saskatchewan. In the early 1920s Saskatchewan was Canada's third most populous province. At that time Saskatchewan had 21 seats out of a total of 225 in the House. If we were demanding to have our historical proportion of seats today, Saskatchewan would need 28 seats in Parliament as a result of the upcoming redistribution rather than the 14 we now hold.

In order for Saskatchewan to have more than its fair share of seats in the Commons, other provinces must get less than their fair share. I wonder which provinces would currently be willing to give up seats for Saskatchewan. Fourteen extra ridings have to be found, so more than one province would have to share the burden.

Would the extra seats come from Ontario which already has many ridings with well over 100,000 population? How about B.C., the province with the fastest growing population and the one most in need of the greater share of seats in the House? What about Quebec? Would our friends in the Bloc be willing to give up some seats in Parliament so that Saskatchewan could reclaim its historical share of seats in the House? I think not.

Is Quebec more special than Saskatchewan? I think not. Is Quebec superior to Saskatchewan? I think not. Is Quebec inferior to Saskatchewan? Does it need more seats to get representation in the House? I think not. Quebec is equal partners with all provinces in Confederation and the laws of the land must indicate that principle.

The reason that Saskatchewan does not have 28 seats is that population patterns have changed. It is a fundamental part of Canadian reality that other parts of the country have grown more rapidly than Saskatchewan. As a result our share of seats in the House have gone down. People in Saskatchewan accept this because it is sensible and fair. If population patterns change again our share may go up.

Why is the Bloc asking for the allotment of seats to the House of Commons on any other basis than population? To entrench such a principle in law would be dangerous. It would also create ill will, resentment and all kinds of representation problems we already see today. Provisions like the senatorial clause and creating provincial floors have led us to some of the dilemmas we face in the House and the problems created in the Senate.

As we can see, the idea of claiming a certain proportion of seats regardless of population creates many inequities. It is unfair, discriminatory and lacks common sense. I do not buy the argument that more seats in Parliament are necessary to preserve Quebec's language and culture. Quebec has a rich history and has special cultural values and traditions. I am glad it is part of Canada. The people who can do the most to foster the French language and culture in Quebec are the people in the Government of Quebec.

If the provincial Government of Quebec were given the authority and responsibility for language and culture with no interference from Ottawa, the threat or perceived threat to that culture would disappear. That would be a much more constructive way to solve the cultural issue. Taking representation and therefore political power away from other provinces would lead to resentment and ill will from the other provinces of Canada, not to mention that more MPs by themselves would not have much of an impact on cultural considerations.

Guaranteeing Quebec or any other province a certain proportion of seats would only add to the problem of the size of the House. Not dealing with the growth in membership in the House is a major flaw in Bill C-69. My Reform colleagues and I have spoken often about the need to reduce or cap the size of the Commons. We have demonstrated how the number of MPs can be capped and reduced. It is clear that the Liberals have no interest in limiting the size and cost of this place.

After only one short year the Liberals are showing their true colours. They like big government, big cabinets and big spending. I have no problem with the appointment of a new Minister of Labour. I am sure she is a very fine person and very capable, but there was no corresponding demotion from cabinet when she was appointed. The pretence of frugality is slipping away from the government. First the cabinet grew by the appointment of the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs and now has increased even further with the new Minister of Labour.

The Liberals are increasing the size of cabinet while cutting the civil service. They are increasing the size of the House while not properly reducing the MP pension plan. They will increase taxes while cutting frontline services to Canadians.

The old spectres of Liberal elitism and political self-interest are reigning supreme at the expense of rank and file Canadians. Liberal elitism and favouritism can manifest itself again with the inclusion of a schedule of special ridings as provided for in this bill.

The bill makes reference to the schedule but offers no guidelines or rules as to how one is to be created. It simply states that ridings can be added to the schedule by an act of Parliament. This means the government alone can decide who gets on the list and who does not. It is possible for the Liberals to place virtually all their ridings on this schedule. Every sitting MP and every party organization would like to contest elections with boundaries they have already won with.

Establishing a loosely defined schedule of ridings exempt from the rules of redistribution, rules that are designed to ensure fairness and neutrality, makes the possibility for gerrymandering endless. The way the provisions for the schedule are worded in this bill, the government would have complete control to play politics with boundary redistribution.

Imagine what former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney could have done with this kind of provision. Constituencies would have been scheduled all over the map. Our constituency redistribution system would have been taken no more seriously than appointments to the Senate.

The current Prime Minister can now do the same should this pass without the necessary amendments. He will have the power to create special Liberal safe seats all across the country. In no time we would see ridings like Labrador or perhaps Prince Albert-Churchill River in Saskatchewan being scheduled. The irony is that if the Prime Minister pushes his Liberal arrogance this far, there will be no such thing as a Liberal safe seat.

Bill C-69 fails to place a limit on the number of scheduled ridings. When the Liberals get carried away with their new powers under this bill and schedule too many ridings in the same province, they will discover they have created all kinds of headaches for the boundary commissioners. In many cases the presence of scheduled ridings will make effective redistribution impossible, as more fixed lines will severely limit the options available to the cartographers.

I suspect that Parliament would have the legal power to remove a riding from the schedule, but politically it would be extremely difficult to do so, especially for the Liberal government.

What would happen if a northern riding that was on the schedule had a large increase in population? Populations in Canada move significantly over time. Who would have predicted the dramatic growth of the west at the time of Confederation? The political leaders at the time did not. This is obvious from the way they allocated seats to the Senate.

Population shifts could happen today even to scheduled ridings. Take for example the riding of Skeena in B.C. It is a large northern riding and a likely candidate for scheduling, apart from the fact that it is not a Liberal riding and the Liberals have complete control over the process.

Within the riding of Skeena is the Windy Craggy mineral reserve estimated to be worth between $10 billion and $40 billion. If this mineral reserve is developed, tens of thousands of highly skilled, high paying jobs could be created. However, the provincial government decided that jobs are bad and decided instead to turn the whole thing into a park.

If that unfortunate decision is reversed and those jobs are allowed to flourish, the riding of Skeena could have a population that tops 200,000. However if the riding has been scheduled, redistribution would not occur. The member for Skeena would be the busiest man on the Hill, having the largest population to serve and one of the biggest chunks of Canadian geography. This whole concept of the schedule has not been properly thought out and should be removed from the bill.

With the overly generous 25 per cent variance there should be no need for a schedule anyway. I have heard some of the Liberal members say the same thing, but when it comes time to actually do what they believe, they wimp out. They do the politically convenient thing. They go along with inequities and a variance of plus or minus 25 per cent.

This plus or minus 25 per cent allows ridings to be set up with a 50 per cent differential in population. This is at the beginning of the redistribution process. If there are population changes that occur during the period before the next redistribution, the discrepancy gets far more severe.

Surely this 25 per cent variance gives enough flexibility to accommodate any so-called special cases. We should not need scheduling. Of course without the schedule, the government will not be able to do quite as much manipulating of the electoral map.

The mention of special cases reveals another flaw in the bill. In creating this bill the procedure and House affairs committee heard from a list of rural members complaining that their ridings were too large. Even the member for Kingston and the Islands knows that several of his colleagues told him that they were afraid that the redistribution process was going to get out of hand and that their ridings would become larger than they could manage. They asked that the rural ridings be kept to a manageable geographic size, even if it meant staying below the provincial quotient.

However, the member for Mississauga West pointed out that many urban ridings experience rapid growth and should therefore be kept closer below the quotient to allow for this growth. The inherent contradiction in this bill becomes clear. How can both the rural and the urban ridings of a province be kept below the average? It just does not work.

The member for Mississauga West in this House during the concurrence debate said to me: "I must thank the member for pointing out something I had hoped would sneak by rural members". Those are the words in Hansard . ``Would sneak by rural members. He knows I was hoping it would sneak by''. That is found at page 9396.

The Liberals are again talking out of both sides of their mouths. They cannot have it both ways, but they are trying to do that in Bill C-69.

Does the government not realize that if all the rural ridings are kept at or below the quotient and all the urban ridings are kept at or below the quotient, that there is no one left to balance things out by being above the quotient? There is no one left. It is impossible.

Given enough time every member in this House will be able to find a reason why some special consideration should be given to his or her particular constituency. Our committee heard from many of them. The only reasonable thing to do is to apply the same rules to everyone. Otherwise we will end up with a set of rules that are effectively meaningless and useless.

The suspension of the redistribution process initiated by C-18 was a very serious breach of political non-interference. The government tried to cover its tracks by shrouding that action in a review of the system. Bill C-69 failed in its attempt to represent fundamental improvements to redistribution.

I call on all members of this House, on all sides to reconsider their support for this bill. I know that for the wrong reasons the Bloc members have changed their position on the bill. I reiterate, it was for the wrong reasons, but there are a number of correct reasons why this bill should be opposed.

I know that many members have an interest in fairness and equality in our electoral system. This bill creates and perpetuates some grave inequities. I would ask them to defeat this bill or at least help in providing some constructive amendments needed to save this legislation.

In order to come up with a good bill we need to clarify the issue of schedules. We need to tighten up the allowance variance to protect the voting powers of Canadians. We desperately need to address the growth in this House.

It was interesting yesterday when we had a visit by the President of the United States. We had a picture of what would happen in this House if we let unrestrained growth continue. These curtains would have to be removed, seats would have to be placed in the middle of the floor. That is where we will be in just a matter of a few decades.

Certainly there is no need to have to knock out walls in the House of Commons because we cannot deal with the problem of growth in the House for a country of 30 million people. Surely we can respect the wishes of Canadians for less government, smaller government, rather than for unbridled expansion of the House of Commons.

Without these improvements, no member who has an interest in fairness or common sense should support Bill C-69.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to standing order 68(7) and to the order made Wednesday, February 22, 1995, the motion is deemed to have been adopted on division.

Therefore, the bill is referred the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

Young Offenders Act

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of my constituents regarding the proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-37.

In my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam a rally of over 5,000 Canadians took place on September 25, 1994 to publicly demand changes to this act. This rally reflects the national demand for change to a justice system that caters to the rights of the criminal, young or old, rather than the security of society. A few brief weeks ago over 2,000 more concerned Canadians near my area marched for changes to the justice system on behalf of Melanie Carpenter.

The Minister of Justice has stated that such public outcries are an emotional response to media headlines. How wrong he is. These are the responses of people who have had enough and now realize they are not alone in their hurt and anger.

Yes, there is a shocking, tangible anger against the system. The rallying cry of the Jesse Cadmans, the Graham Nivens, the Melanie Carpenters, all tragic victims of this system, has served as the catalyst for a too long silent and threatened majority. Their concerns are real and widespread. And they, the people of Canada, must be heard.

Today I wish to speak directly for my constituents. I cannot do less. In August last year with requests pouring in, my office sponsored a meeting to respond to demands to organize a public rally following the senseless and tragic death of Graham Niven. We arranged for a room to accommodate 20 and then 50 people. That night over 300 people came to volunteer to make something happen.

Led by a core dedicated committee of about a dozen committed individuals, literally hundreds of community volunteers organized and successfully ran the rally one month later. Their message echoes the concerns of Canadians across this land.

Young offenders should be held individually responsible for harm done by their acts. They should know that they face certain consequences for breaking the laws of this land. Police officers must be given back the mandate to enforce laws designed to protect our communities. Parents must be given the authority over and the responsibility for the actions of their children. It is only thus that the very real fears of youth, women, parents and seniors, all citizens, of this rising violent attitude in our streets and in our schools can be adequately addressed.

The current Young Offenders Act has a statement of principle which recognizes that young people should have a special guarantee of their rights and freedoms. This has been interpreted by the courts to mean that any treatment of a young offender requires their consent. This same misled interpretation would still apply unless specifically addressed in this new legislation. Let me share with you some real life examples.

A Richmond court worker, a frontline worker, wrote that Bill C-37 does not go far enough. He said: "Young offenders are laughing at us and rubbing our noses in a system which leaves them unaccountable for their actions". It is not uncommon to see young offenders laugh at their sentence and wink at their buddies in the public area of the courtroom. He said that it was time that we stop giving them something to be proud of and instead give them something to think about.

The system is not tough enough and this only encourages recidivism. The statistics speak for themselves in that approximately 75 per cent of 12 and 13 year olds are first time offenders. This decreases to 58 per cent of 14 and 15 year olds and falls further to 50 per cent of 16 and 17 year olds. The study declared that those youths who did reoffend usually had far more than one prior conviction. These young offenders are obviously not deterred from continuing to violate the law. The present experience with the law and the court system obviously does not serve the offender or society. Canadian families pay the price for this failure.

Share for a moment the grief of a Langley, B.C. couple whose 17-year old son was shot and killed by a 16-year old who had just been released from custody. They wrote in their letter to me: "Ours is a lifetime loss of a young man with a brilliant future. We will never forget him or the atrocity".

Diane Sowden, a mother of a 14-year old young offender in my riding, shared her frustration with the judicial system at the rally. Her daughter at the age of 13 left home because she resented a 9.30 p.m. curfew. The police informed the parents they were powerless to do anything.

The girl was assigned to two group homes and three foster homes but she refused to stay at them because they also had rules. Diane reported that there was no curfew, no order to go to school, and no order to reside with the caregivers, completely against their request as parents. The story goes on to include pimps, drugs, schoolyard solicitation for child prostitution, heroin addiction, ignored parole violations and nothing anyone could do about it.

"We wanted stricter consequences for her actions, rather than no consequences", said Diane. "We as her parents want some say in what is happening to our daughter". Presently this 14-year old girl works the streets and the Young Offenders Act will respect her right to continue down this path of self-destruction.

We have accomplished nothing giving young people so many rights that the consequences of their actions are no longer relevant. The interests of young offenders are not best served

when they cannot be required to respect the authority of law or even the authority of their parents.

Unless there is proven reason, parents should both know and have a say in their children's treatment and those children should have no choice but to face the consequence in treatment, reparation and penalty for their illegal actions.

Let me share with the House the experience of Erma and Dennis Vietorisz. Erma addressed the rally in September as a teacher and a parent who has seen the consequence of rising violence in her school and the community. She wrote me again on December 29, 1994 about an attack on her son and a friend the month before, after the rally: "There was no provocation, no argument, nor any reason for a brutal attack on these two young people. After being taken to the hospital, our son was told he had a broken jaw and had to undergo emergency surgery and spend six weeks with his jaw wired shut. His friend had six stitches to his eye. Meanwhile the attackers had gotten away without consequence. Why? Because the police said there was very little they could do to protect our son from retaliation if charges were laid. The police could not detain the attacker after they arrested him as the courts would release him back on to the street to await trial even though he was very violent in his behaviour. All the police could do to protect our son was to put a restraining order on the attacker which would only help our son if he was attacked again".

After much deliberation and consideration the parents decided not to lay charges because the judicial system could not protect him. They decided not to subject themselves to the very real possibility of more violence. The attacker had nothing to fear from a system that is powerless to restrain him from inflicting fear and violence on others.

Erma recently received a letter from Premier Harcourt of B.C. who criticized her for not giving the judicial system a chance. What mockery. On the one hand we have a brazen offender who has, and will likely continue to accumulate a history of violence. On the other we have a judicial system with a mandate from the government that puts fear into the heart of the victim and not the offender.

Bill C-37 further entrenches this deplorable pattern. According to the latest studies published in January 1995 by the forum of correctional research, youth crime is on the rise. In 1986, 179,000 youths were arrested by police and 113,000 were charged. In 1992, 211,000 and some were arrested by the police and 140,000 were charged. Violent offences have increased from 9,275 in 1986 to 20,033 in 1991. That is over a 100 per cent increase in just five years.

Take these statistics in light of the fears of victims and their families such as the Vietorisz. Take these statistics in light of the pat on the head that first, second and third offences get or the total lack of consequences or recorded incidence of crime for all those under 12 years of age in the present system. There is an epidemic out there that our justice experts refuse to recognize.

I have received over 13,000 letters and faxes and over 15,000 signatures on petitions from concerned Canadians calling for real change to the Young Offenders Act.

Like Mrs. Sandy Mahoney of Maple Ridge, B.C. whose 14-year old daughter had to move to Ontario to live with her grandmother because she was constantly beat up at school, constantly harassed by what the authority and school officials called gang members. It is very clear that young criminals are not afraid of any authority, is what she said.

Another woman, Marian Jutila from Coquitlam states: "As a community we demand you immediately follow through and begin revamping our Young Offenders Act".

Many seniors have written to me, those who fear to leave their homes and also many who fear that violence will actually break through the walls of those homes. Perhaps the most compelling was the cry at the end of one letter that concluded with a handwritten note: "You must help us".

In conclusion, let me read the words of 17-year old Jamie Lipp, a dear friend of Jessie Cadman who was killed by a young offender. Jamie spoke at the rally: "What kind of society do we live in where young people are not held accountable for their crimes? What kind of society do we live in where we must fear for our lives within a few blocks of our homes? What kind of society do we live in when there is no respect for life?"

Bill C-37 does nothing to reflect the concerns of those who have spoken up with such clarity and sincerity. I cannot in good conscience support such a bill. We need a legislative overhaul which demands accountability for the sake of society and the young offender, that teaches respect for authority and the rights and lives of others, and that reverses the trend of fear and intimidation experienced within our community.

Today I implore the Minister of Justice to listen to these Canadians. They have something to say that he must hear.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the speech of my hon. colleague.

She is from British Columbia. She would find from coast to coast and down on the Atlantic coast where I am from that there are similar sentiments with respect to safety in the community and a desire to ensure that the legislative tools we have at our

disposal such as the Young Offenders Act, are balanced. That balance periodically must be reviewed.

At least the bill is a step in the right direction. What I hear from my community is that there is a legitimate concern. Individuals want to feel safe in their community. However, Canadians are also very tolerant individuals and they are not harsh in how they deal with individuals that somehow find themselves at the opposite end of the law.

As a member of Parliament I have seen over the last few years a marked change in the way Canadians view the criminal justice system, the fairness of the system and whether they believe that the rights of the accused have priority over the rights of the abused. Many times this is the case.

Dealing specifically with the Young Offenders Act, some measures in this bill are supportable by most reasonable thinking people. Certainly the move to transfer 16 and 17 year olds who are accused of very serious crimes like first or second degree murder and other crimes like attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault to adult court is very positive.

The people I represent understand that wherever possible we have to have a system that takes young people who happen to find themselves on the wrong side of the law and wherever possible work to rehabilitate them. We do not want just incarceration for the sake of vengeance. What we truly seek is rehabilitation.

There must be a recognition that there are some cases-I stress that it is the minority of cases with young offenders-where we have individuals who are 16 or 17, dangerous offenders, repeat offenders, who have carried out the most despicable and unspeakable crimes that are still protected by the act. They are protected as a young offender when their crimes are severe enough to be treated more seriously by the criminal justice system.

The move to adult court as a requirement under this bill, with the provision that the offender or the prosecutor or the counsel for the accused can argue before the court that the offender should not be transferred, is a proper one.

I also agree with the increased sentences for first and second degree murder. Canadians want to make sure that individuals who are convicted of these most serious crimes do not find themselves being convicted and sentenced and in a few years back out on the street, perhaps to commit such crimes again.

I also support with some qualification the provisions in the bill that deal with access to youth records, particularly for repeat offenders, and particularly for young offenders who seem to have a goal in life of continuing to wreak havoc in their communities.

It is essential in certain conditions, and these conditions are outlined quite well in the bill, that law enforcements officers and peace officers have access to those records during the course of investigations when dealing with serious crimes. It is also essential that the courts, in the case of young offenders who have a long criminal record under the Young Offenders Act and are once again before the courts as a result of further violations of criminal law, have access to these records. However, this section does not go far enough. I have to agree with my colleague opposite.

I live in a community of approximately 70,000 people. By and large it is a law-abiding community. People feel relatively safe travelling the streets. I have three children. The oldest will be 11 in a few weeks. I have an eight-year old and I have an three-year old. I want to see my children grow up in a safe community. I get concerned when I hear on the street-and I can never figure out whether it is simply hearsay-that there are some violent young offenders who go through the system who actually abuse the system and who use the protection under the act to remain anonymous.

At the school my daughter attends, if there is a 14, 15 or 16 year old who has been convicted under the act of a crime with violence or aggravated sexual assault who has been known to carry a weapon, the rights of the people of the community to live safely far outweigh the right of that young offender to anonymity for the crimes he or she has committed.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

I am worried, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Reform party are actually applauding me. I may have to rethink my position.

Canadians as a caring and just people have to understand that the accused has rights but there must be a recognition in law of the right of individuals to have safe communities.

I would like to see the government look at this provision. Maybe when this bill is studied further the government will assent to look at some exceptional circumstances where the rights of the community to safety override the right of the young offender convicted of a heinous crime, of a violent crime, to anonymity.

There is one other thing that is not in this bill which I have to raise because it deals basically with young people. It deals with offences against young people. I have spoken in the House before on this. An epidemic is going through the country of criminals who are committing perhaps the worst crime possible in our society today: adults who lure young women and in some cases young men into prostitution.

I say it is an epidemic. It is an epidemic which has not been spoken about loud enough or long enough in Parliament or in provincial legislatures. We are literally seeing some of our young children being lifted off the streets and forced into prostitution.

When we deal with the crimes of young offenders, the government must give priority to dealing with crimes against young people as well. I urge the Minister of Justice to quickly bring in new laws and new regulations to deal with this most serious crime. We need strict punishment and maximum sentences for those convicted of living off the avails of juvenile prostitution.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member for Dartmouth wishes to continue, he will have another two minutes when we resume Government Orders.

It being eleven o'clock we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Model Parliament

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I pay tribute to the young men and women who participated in the annual Queen's University model Parliament in this place from January 19 to 21 of this year.

In particular I would like to congratulate Mr. Sacha Bhatia, a student at Queen's University and a constituent of mine who sat in this very chair as the member of Parliament for Victoria-Haliburton during the model Parliament.

It is also important to thank the various members of Parliament who participated in the weekend: the Speaker of the House, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Lanark-Carleton, to name a few, as well as the table officers, security guards and others who made this model Parliament very successful.

It is my understanding that the students enjoyed a fine weekend, heard an excellent speech from the throne, debated bills and participated in committee work.

Being in my constituency at the time I did manage to watch the proceedings on C-PAC along with many other constituents and noticed what a fine job these students were doing.