Debates of Nov. 5th, 1997

Criminal Code

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for bringing forward Bill C-209. I also appreciate his thoughtful and rightful initiative in doing so.

We all know joyriding is a serious crime and a serious problem. It is not a joyful ride. It should be called a painful ride. This problem affects communities all over the country and any one of us could be a victim of this crime. We do not know who will be a target tomorrow in our communities. The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln said even he was a victim of this crime.

It is disappointing to hear members from the third and fourth parties opposing the bill.

In my riding 27 cars are stolen every day. Most of them end up being used for a so-called joyride, which I call a painful ride. The fine imposed for this type of crime is unproportional to the loss and damage caused, including the innocent lives which are lost in these types of accidents. As a result of this, insurance premiums are increasing. They are skyrocketing. Innocent victims are affected not only by the damage but also by the increased insurance premiums.

The hon. NDP member for Vancouver East stated that an increase in penalties, fines or holding the parents responsible will not help. What else will help to reduce this type of crime?

Let us consider the record of other countries, such as Singapore. There are no more joyrides in those countries because the penalties are harsh and tough. Young criminals know that the penalties are tough. That is the way to control these crimes. Someone has to be held responsible for these painful rides. Who else will be held accountable? These young kids are stealing cars and going for joyrides. Why not hold the parents responsible?

This is an excellent bill. We need to bring about these changes. Measures to deal with joyriding should be in the Criminal Code. Someone has to take the initiative. The parents should be held accountable for the actions of their kids who are not properly controlled.

I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Considering the seriousness of these crimes, we need to take corrective action and hold someone accountable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley. The Chair should point out that as is the convention, as it is the member's bill, he will have five minutes but there will be no further debate at the conclusion of the five minutes.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. It is almost like a take note debate. Of course there will not be a vote on it because not all Private Members' Business is votable which is unfortunate. Nevertheless it has been interesting to hear the different points of view from the different parties.

I always find it a little unfortunate in Private Members' Business that people do not seem to listen to the speeches. They all craft a speech in advance and regardless of what anybody might say in presenting their opinion, it is as if they had never said a thing. Therefore I would like to run through again very quickly the reasons for this bill.

The NDP member mentioned that we have to do things to prevent crime rather than just come down like a ton of bricks on someone who steals a car.

I went through the list. I went through what the RCMP said would work well. I fully support that. The trouble is we cannot put all of that in the Criminal Code. We can only deal with code amendments here. A lot of other initiatives, both provincial and federal, are not code amendments. Of course I cannot put all of them into this bill.

I talked about the increased use of bike squads, getting out among the kids so they see a friendly police presence. I talked about the increased use of crime stoppers, nipping the crime in the bud before it becomes a big problem in the community. Then we have the increased use of street crews as we call them in my area which deal not only with crime, but also with drug use, drug abuse and so on. That is an initiative which works well in our area.

There is the block watch program where people look after not only their own assets but those of their community. If they see kids trying to break into a car, they can stop the crime. To prevent the crime of course is far better.

Citizen patrols have been very successful in my riding. The lock it or lose it campaign initiated by our local insurance company has been very successful. Ten to fifteen per cent of all auto thefts result from vehicles not being locked. That is a shame. It almost entices someone to steal.

We have an education program in our schools about the serious effect of this crime. It is a very good program which should be continued and expanded.

All of this I believe is Reform Party policy as well. I hope the member from the NDP will realize that the object of the Criminal Code amendments is not to say this is the only thing we are going to do. The object is to say that when all else has failed, what can we do?

Parliament has the privilege and the requirement to say that we treat this as a serious crime. By all means part of the restorative justice campaign is to pay back, to make restitution for damages, to pay for those crimes by perhaps working at the local stores.

One comment made in the speeches here today was that we should just make young people aware of the consequences of their actions. They are well aware of the consequences of their actions. Right now the consequence is a $100 fine. Fifty-two per cent of young people receive no fine. They receive total probation for a car theft with damages up to $4,000 on average. The consequences of the crime are very serious. The loss of a person's vehicle. Often there are injuries. Two-thirds of young people who steal cars end up in an accident of some sort, many causing bodily harm.

If we send the message to young people that if they steal a car, wrap it around a telephone pole and get caught, they can figure on about $100 fine, those are the consequences. These young people think they are immortal, they are young and do not think about the damage done to themselves or their friends. They just drive hell bent for leather and often hurt themselves and others and the consequence is a $100 fine.

We need to send the message that the consequences are serious, that we treat this crime seriously. We hope the young people will treat it seriously and that the courts, police and parents will treat it seriously as well.

All the talk about holding the parents responsible is very interesting. I hope that everyone has read the bill and the sections that I have tried to amend.

In subsection 2 of the bill I brought forward today it says that notwithstanding all the other portions of the Young Offenders Act, if the court is of the opinion that the case would be best met by the imposition of a fine, damages or costs and the court is satisfied that the parent or guardian of the young person who contributed to the commission of the crime, then they can step in. In other words—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I regret, but the time has expired.

As no other member wishes to speak, and the motion has not been made a votable item, the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

The adjournment proceedings are to start in seven minutes. May we have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.? However, we may have to suspend to allow time for one of the members to arrive for Adjournment Proceedings.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Oslo conference on child labour reflects a growing and worldwide concern about child labour, particularly the urgent need to eliminate its most extreme and intolerable forms.

All the delegates at the Oslo conference agreed that the countries of the world must take every step possible to suppress such atrocities as the sale and trafficking of children, forced and compulsory labour, debt bondage and child slavery, and the use of children for any type of work that is likely to jeopardize their health, their safety or their moral and social development. The use of child soldiers in recent armed conflicts was identified as an issue that requires immediate and specific attention. There was less than consensus opinion, however, on how to best address the larger issue of the 250 million child labourers between the ages of 5 and 14 who are forced to work to survive.

Everyone everywhere agrees that poverty is both the root cause and a major consequence of child labour. In that light strategies to fight poverty are central to any serious efforts to alleviate child labour. Canada falls short in this regard. The international community has targeted 0.7% of GDP as the level of industrial development aid. Canada now stands at 0.34%, a drop of $780 million. Both Norway and Great Britain have announced increases to a full 1% of gross domestic product.

Canada falls short in other tangibles as well. The Canadian government says that it does not support the use of boycotts or labelling programs. It does not agree that projects like the Rugmart labelling system will end the exploitation of children in the carpet industry even though there is broad support for that program in many parts of the world. The government does not believe in legislation such as the Harken bill in the United States which bans the importation of goods made by bonded child labour. It has refused for over 25 years to sign International Labour Organization convention No. 138 which deals with the minimum age of workers entering the workforce.

The government does not agree that international trade agreements must include labour standards in spite of the fact that speaker after speaker at the Oslo conference cited liberalized trade agreements as a key cause in the escalation of the use of child labour in the world.

Consumers and governments in developed nations can and must use their purchasing power and any other instruments at their disposal to put pressure on those who participate in the economic exploitation of children. Voluntary compliance with codes of conduct will not help the child who sits chained to a loom as we speak.

Do we know that consumer boycotts and non-tariff trade barriers work? The garment manufacturers of Bangladesh at the merest hint of a boycott by the United States cleared their workplaces of child labour within three years and now use the fact that they are child labour free as a marketing tool.

Critics would say that boycotts result in these children being thrown out of the workplace and winding up in the streets or some worse form of exploitation. My point is that there are 50 million child labourers in India and over 100 million heads of households who do not have meaningful work. It is simple. We take the children out of the workplace. We put their parents in the workplace. We put the children in schools where they belong.

The government has not done enough. When questioned on October 3, the Minister of Foreign Affairs again repeated he was not willing to engage legislation and tools such as the Harken bill in the United States and he was not willing to sign convention No. 138 of the ILO.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

Some child experts question the effectiveness of measures such as the one my colleague has just been speaking about, that is banning imports of forced or indentured child labour. The underlying cause of child labour is poverty and the long term solution is to attack poverty. This point came out clearly in the speech of the minister for international development at the Oslo child labour conference last week.

The conference was hosted by the Norwegian government in conjunction with the ILO and UNICEF. It unanimously adopted an agenda for action which appears consistent with our policy on the issue of child labour.

Our efforts are focused on three issues: providing affordable access to primary education particularly for girls; improving the status, role and economic security for women as equal partners in development; and encouraging governments to enforce existing laws governing the employment of children.

Canada is actively supporting the work of the ILO to develop a new convention by 1999 on the most intolerable forms of child labour including bonded labour. Canada is to host a preparatory meeting in Ottawa for principal donor countries that were invited to the Oslo conference.

Within our region, the United States, Mexico and ourselves are examining the child labour and working conditions of young people. Our labour minister spoke at a trilateral conference in Ottawa last month which was attended by over 100 government, labour and NGO representatives.

We also believe that business can play a role that reinforces international action by government response to ethical, environmental and social concerns. A private sector alliance developed an international code of business ethics for firms operating overseas.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 24, I put a question in this House to the Minister of Transport. My question dealt with a statement made to the newspaper Le Soleil by the secretary of state for agriculture and agri-food, and fisheries and oceans, who is also the hon. member for Bellechasse, the riding next to mine.

The secretary of state was quoted as saying that the station in Lévis would close on December 1 and that rail service would be transferred to the north shore, in Sainte-Foy. I thought that statement was rather strange, which is why I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport a question. I asked him if the decision had been made at his level, even though there had been a recommendation by the national transportation agency. He said no.

During question period in the House, we do not have much time. I would like to use my time today to get further information on the subject I raised in my question.

I found the answer of the minister very interesting when he said:

We are looking at a number of options for rail service across the country. On the matter of the Lévis station, no decision has yet been made. I will gladly consider any idea or opinion my colleague or anyone else might have on the subject before I make my decision.

Afterwards, I called for public consultations and I tried to find out if the national transportation agency had held public hearings, because it did hold a few public hearings in 1991. But there were no public hearings this time because the NTA decided there would not be any.

Because of public interest, since there had been no agreement between Via Rail and CN, the then Minister of Transport, under the Conservatives, decided, on March 16, 1993, to close Lévis station. It seems that the situation is the same today because, on February 22, 1996, CN got permission to abandon lines along the St. Lawrence River.

However, negotiations between CN and Via Rail have yet to be completed. Since there is still no agreement, Via Rail has let it be known, probably through the member for Bellechasse, that it would be forced to go to Sainte-Foy. In the meantime, two trains stopped at the Charny station every day, but VIA announced in an internal bulletin that they would no longer stop in Charny, which means no more train station on the south shore.

In these circumstances, as a member of Parliament, I decided to hold public consultations on November 11 and 12. I will consult the people, ask who is for and who is against before the irreparable closing of the Lévis and Charny stations so that people who disagree with this decision can express their opinion.

Today, I ask the transport minister's representative to help me by insisting that VIA Rail make all pertinent documents public, which it has refused to do until now, so that people can express an informed opinion.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me assure the hon. member for Lévis that the minister is very aware of the situation involving the Lévis station and he is intent on resolving the matter soon.

As the hon. member knows full well, the problem of the Lévis station has been around for a number of years and there are many divergent opinions on what to do about it. Consultations with stakeholders and local community leaders have been ongoing since 1990. Because of the very divergent views on the subject of the Lévis station and the Montmagny line, a number of extensions have already been obtained in order to keep this station open.

First and foremost, the government's primary consideration is to ensure that any solution is safe and that it minimizes the inconvenience for the roughly 17,000 rail travellers who use the Lévis station every year.

I know the hon. member for Lévis is anxious about the situation in his riding, but I am sure that, at the same time, he would not want the minister to make any decision without first considering all the possible options.

The minister is extremely concerned about looking at all the options in order to make the right decision. For this reason, the minister wrote some time ago to Mr. Ivany, the president of VIA Rail and asked for opinions with respect to the Lévis station.

Let me assure my hon. friend that his concerns have not gone unnoticed. On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I would like to assure him that a decision on this matter will be made shortly. In the meantime if the member learns of any opinions from his constituents at his hearings next week, please, I would ask him to forward them to the minister because I know that he is open to suggestions.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, I asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue concerning the employment insurance eligibility of tip employees.

The minister stated that consultations were ongoing between the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development and himself to find a solution to ensure that the policy implemented by the Quebec government is compatible with employment insurance eligibility.

I wanted to come back on the matter because, in a way, it requires urgent action. The bill introduced in the National Assembly is now at the clause by clause study stage before a committee and we need to know if the federal government will make the necessary technical changes.

We must remember that the Quebec government wants tip employees to claim their tips, in consideration of which they could use those revenues for their employment insurance entitlement, something that is easily understandable.

The analysis made led to the conclusion that employers should collect only 20% of tips to simplify the process. We are waiting for the federal government's decision. We know there was some kind of agreement in principle, but the regulatory change is yet to come.

Would it be possible to have an announcement on the matter by the revenue minister, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Finance or the three of them if they wish? We would like to finally go ahead with the new system designed by Quebec. I know that it could interest other provinces as well. If the necessary regulatory changes were made, the new system could be implemented for the coming fiscal year, thus allowing tip employees to earn employment insurance benefit entitlement for the tips they actually earned.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

In its 1997 budget, the Quebec government announced measures to help ensure that the tips of workers in the restaurant and hotel industry are reported and subject to tax. It announced that this would be accomplished in part through new measures to be introduced in legislation which would oblige the workers to remit their tips to their employers.

The Quebec budget also announced that tips would be eligible income in the calculation of various social benefits, notably employment insurance.

Prior to the Quebec budget announcement, Quebec officials had explained to federal officials that employees would be required to remit tips daily to employers who, in turn, would record them, withhold the appropriate deductions and return the remainder to the employees. On that basis, Quebec was advised that tips would be insurable for employment insurance purposes because they would be employer controlled.

Under the current employment insurance legislation, tips can only be regarded as insurable if they are employer controlled as a result of being remitted by the employee to the employer on an ongoing basis.

We are aware of the underlying objective of the Quebec government to curb the underground economy and address the under reporting of income, more specifically tips in restaurant and hotel industries.

The federal government also understands that following the publication of the Quebec proposals, major concerns were expressed by employers as to their added administrative burden. As a result, Quebec considered a number of options for alleviating this burden and has asked the federal government to advise whether these changes would be acceptable for EI coverage purposes.

These are being actively reviewed. I will assure the House that the federal government is aware of the importance of the issue and the tight time frame of the Government of Quebec to implement its program by January 1.

The government is treating Quebec's request as top priority. Quebec will soon be advised of the federal government's position on the matter.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)