Debates of Sept. 29th, 1998

Criminal Records Act

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great interest that I take part in the debate on Bill C-284.

Let me say from the outset that this bill should get the unanimous support of the House, on behalf of all the children in this country.

I would first like to praise the member for Calgary Centre for tabling such a pertinent piece of legislation. Bill C-284 which proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to sexual offences against children is important in the sense that it focuses on one of the highest priorities this assembly should have: the protection of children from abuse.

Indeed, as parliamentarians we have the responsibility to fulfil the fundamental role of government to ensure the protection of our citizens. This is especially true for the most innocent in society, our children.

Millions of them, throughout the country, are counting on us to find the path that will safely lead them to the adult world.

With the innocence and the openness that are their trademarks, children successfully meet sports, recreational and educational challenges; they take part in community activities with enthusiasm and creativity; they fill us with joy and contentment and give meaning to the role of guide and protector that society has bestowed on us, today's adults.

We must not betray the trust that children put in us. Better still, we must earn that trust. To this end, it is imperative that we shield their efforts and their valuable contribution to the building of tomorrow's society.

Unfortunately, children are all too often the victims of the trust and the authority they bestow upon us with such spontaneity and candour.

As a mother, I am always disturbed by statistics such as those telling us that one girl out of three is the victim of a sexual assault before reaching the age of 18, and that one out of every six boys suffers the same fate before the age of 16.

This is even worse when you consider that we, in this country, have the means to deal with sex offenders who, as you know, have one of the highest recidivism rate among criminal offenders.

These statistics suggest that we are sorely failing as legislators. The bill proposes a way to increase our vigilance by creating a fair balance between the right of offenders to return to society, and the right of our children to remain full members of our society and to be safe.

Some may wonder about the right to privacy. As the sponsor of this bill explained when he introduced his legislation in the House, the privacy commissioner has already ruled that the act he administers does not prevent the disclosure of personal information when this is done in the public interest.

It is without a doubt in the public interest for children not to be exposed to those who have abused them in the past and who are likely to do so again in the future as the relevant statistics so clearly show.

Who is targeted by this initiative? Any adult convicted of a sexual offence against a child who applies for a new job and could again be tempted to use a position of trust and authority to abuse, once too often, young victims placed under his care.

That is the only purpose of this bill. The proposed changes are explicitly aimed at people applying for a position of trust and authority with respect to children.

Who among us has never had to put a loved one under the supervision of a day care centre, a sports monitor or a recreation leader? Beforehand, we enquire about the reputation of the agency or the group in question.

This reputation, which is crucial to the survival of any organization dealing with children, can easily be tarnished by unscrupulous individuals who readily take advantage, to commit more offences, of the position of trust the organization or group put so much energy and patience into building up.

Make no mistake about it: when such a crime occurs, it is as much a tragedy for the organization as it is for the actual victims. Therefore, we have to provide these organizations with the tools they need to maintain a flawless reputation and significantly contribute to the harmonious development of the Canadian society.

We all know that Canadians need to believe that organizations in which they entrust their children's safety have taken all the necessary actions to protect them.

The bill would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about whom they hire by having the capacity to identify and eventually keep out those who present more of a risk when in a position of trust.

Let us be clear. Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children can never be pardoned. It does not propose either that if one makes a mistake such as this it should be forever on one's criminal record. What the bill proposes is that if one sexually abuses children the person could effectively be prevented from holding a position of care or authority over children again.

Children must remain our absolute priority. They are the ones that will have to deal throughout their entire lives with the often painful and sometimes disastrous effects of an experience they should have and could have been spared.

Permit me, if you will, to point out the government's position in this regard: “The experiences of Canada's children, especially in the early years, influence their health, their well-being, and their ability to learn and adapt throughout their entire lives”.

This quote from the speech from the throne brings us back to the point and encourages us to assume our responsibilities towards those who represent our nation's future. I therefore encourage the government to support this bill, which invites us to assume our responsibility as lawmakers and to help all victims according to the widely shared principle of prevention.

In this regard, we will recall that the government made a commitment to provide an additional $850 million annually to improve the Canadian child tax benefit. I congratulate it on this, although I maintain that the benefit should be indexed.

That said, would it not be ironic to hear our leaders say, on one hand, that they want to invest in our children while, on the other, refusing to take the measures necessary to protect this investment.

Yet there is no point in hoping that the government can successfully build a true partnership with the private and volunteer sectors for the development of our children, if it does not first and foremost take the necessary steps to protect both the organizations in question and the young people they serve.

I would like to point out, if I may, that this bill dovetails perfectly with the youth justice strategy announced by the Minister of Justice this past May.

At that time, one of the recommendations she made was publication of the names of all young offenders convicted of serious sexual assault charges.

What is being proposed here is merely an extension of that measure to adults, along with a framework for doing so. People must not draw the conclusion that what is involved is a blanket disclosure. On the contrary, these amendments would apply only within the context of an offender's applying for a position of trust with respect to children. As well, disclosure would not be done without his knowledge, because the bill stipulates that applicants are to be informed.

In closing, I am calling on all members of this House for unconditional support of Bill C-284, hoping that we can place the interests of our children foremost, before any partisan differences.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak in support of my colleague's bill, Bill C-284. The member for Calgary Centre has done a lot of hard work on this very important issue.

Many in society are concerned about the safety of our children. Many are concerned about ensuring that those responsible for children will not abuse their position of trust. Many are concerned about how difficult it is for children's organizations to know whom it is they are hiring and to be sure they are not putting children at risk. These are the concerns which Bill C-284 intends to address.

The bill would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about whom they hire. Bill C-284 will give parents with children and third party care the assurance that those responsible for looking after their children have not abused this position of authority in the past.

Bill C-284 is specific in its intent to better protect our children from those who have been abusive toward them in the past. Bill C-284 proposes to allow for the limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a position of trust with respect to children.

Such a disclosure will include an individual's criminal record for a previous sexual offence against a child or children, even if one had served one's sentence and had later received a pardon which had removed the notice of conviction from the individual's criminal record.

I am glad to note that this is a votable bill and that so many members are speaking in favour of this very important bill.

It is certainly in the public interest for children not to be exposed to those who have abused children in the past and are more likely to do so again. It is in the public interest for parents to have confidence in those who are caring for their children.

As a former teacher and child care worker I know the importance that working with children has and the position of trust individuals in those positions are entrusted with. I emphasize that the limited disclosure, which I mentioned earlier, will only take effect when an individual applies for a position of trust with respect to a child or to children, a point which we hope the government takes note of.

I also support this bill for other reasons. This bill does not propose that sex offences against children can never be pardoned. This bill does not propose if one makes a mistake such as that, it should be forever on one's record. Rather, Bill C-284 proposes that if one does sexually abuse children, that person should effectively be prevented from holding a position of authority with children again. Those responsible for children will be able to see that a job applicant has abused such a position of trust in the past and thus be more judicious in their hiring practices.

Why is Bill C-284 necessary? Essentially it sends a message that the protection of our children is of paramount importance. What more valuable resource do we have, as other members have alluded to earlier in this chamber, than our children? Not only as individuals, as families, but as a society we must protect our children.

We see that many statistics and reports have been made that show that individuals who have committed these types of offences are more likely to offend again. I am not saying that all do, but research shows that individuals are more likely to offend again if they have committed these types of offences before.

I would also like to mention the point of privacy which was brought forward by the government member. In a May 1996 discussion paper the Privacy Commissioner explained that the Privacy Act does not prevent the release of personal information if it is in the public interest to release such information. In fact the act specifically permits the release of personal information in the public interest.

In April 1996 an RCMP protocol manual said that they defined public interest as evaluated on the basis of whether it is specific, current and probable, and where there is a possible invasion of privacy balanced against the public interest consideration may be given to who would be receiving the information and whether any controls can be placed on the further use or release of this information.

I would submit to members of this House that the disclosure provisions of Bill C-284 fall well within the accepted protocol for the release of personal information of which one's criminal record is a part.

I would like to close by noting a particular case that happened in the town I lived in when I was a youngster. In fact, this story was brought to mind by an article written in the Ottawa Citizen back in November of last year by an individual whose name is Abby Drover. For those who have suffered from sexual abuse, she characterized it as a life sentence.

I remember this particular case because of its gruesomeness. I do not want to go into the details of it, but just say that those who would commit such offences against children violate not only our children but us as a whole and as a society. We must put the emphasis on protecting our children because they are the most valuable resource that we have.

As the father of four young children, I speak strongly in support of this bill. I urge all members when we vote on this very important bill next week to give it their full support.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering if it would be agreeable to the House that I might seek unanimous consent to conclude debate on this particular bill in the time remaining.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members for the support that has been given to this bill. It clearly demonstrates that we can work occasionally in a non-partisan way. I also appreciate the comments.

I just conclude on some of the points that were made here today and give a clarification on some key themes that were repeated.

In Canada today almost 99% of those who apply for pardons actually get a pardon. It is almost a case that if you want one, you get one. Currently there is no information kept as to what kind of crimes are pardoned and which ones are not.

We know for a fact that pedophiles have a high rate of recidivism and we put people at risk who are in their care, particularly children of course. This is what the bill is trying to address which is what we have talked about.

Another key thing we have talked about is that this is in the public interest, so much so that it overrides the privacy concerns of the Privacy Commissioner and he has even said so.

It is an important bill to support. Sometimes what happens with specific bills like this is that the government says it has to do a much more comprehensive review of the issue. Things go on hold and we live with the status quo. Sometimes when we go with the comprehensive review, the idea is that it is too comprehensive and something more specific is needed so nothing ever happens.

This bill, if it can help one child being delivered from abuse and not having to experience the life sentence that abuse is, is worth us putting in place. If we want to do a more comprehensive review on a go forward basis, I have no problem with that.

My appeal to the House is that even if this just stops the abuse of one child then is it not worth it to move this bill along and make the larger changes if need be in the future.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the question is deemed put and the recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 6, 1998 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

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

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, on June 2 I urged the transport minister to ask CN for a standstill on rail line abandonments until Justice Estey's report is received at year end. This question was precipitated by CN's announced closing of the Imperial subdivision in my riding.

The transport minister said he was counting on the goodwill of the railways not to abandon lines until the grain transportation review by Justice Willard Estey was complete. So much for goodwill. Both CN and now the CPR have announced their intention to close branch lines under the new process implemented with changes to the Canadian Transportation Act.

This request seemed reasonable because every day in question period the government told us it was waiting for the MacKay report on the bank mergers. Well why wait for MacKay but not Estey? That is what I want to know and so do the farmers in Saskatchewan.

For the record, the mandate of Justice Estey's review includes “ensuring that Canada has the world's most efficient, viable, and competitive grain handling and transportation system to meet the ongoing and long term expectations and demands of all customers”.

I guess there are a number of ways to do that but the way the Liberal government has approached the entire grain transportation system is not one of them. Here is what the Liberals did instead: They spent millions of taxpayers' dollars to upgrade CN's rail lines. Then they privatized the CN. Then CN announced it would abandon those lines for a salvage value of between $25,000 and $80,000 per mile, lines that will cost $1 million per mile to rebuild.

The Liberal government also changed the Canadian Transportation Act to remove the federal transport minister's ability to say no to rail line abandonments. Now when asked to support a standstill he can say “my hands are tied”. It is a great trick. Houdini ties his own hands. Just like Houdini, maybe the minister could untie them again by making amendments to the CTA, like the ones suggested by the Government of Saskatchewan.

I do not have time to go into the list today of what the government has proposed, but if there is no action from the Liberal side of the House, I will introduce a private members' bill to deal with those amendments myself.

A major cost associated with this policy of rail line abandonments is the increased wear and tear on Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba highways. Justice Estey during public consultation meetings in Saskatchewan said that roads are the biggest single issue facing this review.

The provincial transportation ministers agreed at their May meeting on a proposal for federal participation in a national highways program. Canada is the only OECD country without one. They suggested that the federal government take the $300 million it already spends on various highway programs, add $500 million more from the debt reduction fuel tax, for a total of $800 million which the provinces would then match. This proposal was endorsed by the premiers. As yet we do not know what happened to it from the federal government.

A number of new developments have occurred. A number of recent developments on the rail issue should be brought to the attention of the House today. It concerns me because it makes it seem like the tail is wagging the dog a bit.

The Sask wheat pool announced the closure of 235 elevators in 170 locations on September 15. Then the CPR announced six branch line closures on September 17. Then the transport minister told his provincial counterparts on September 25 that there can be no official moratorium on rail line abandonments. But CN officials told me months ago which elevators the wheat pool would be closing. The wheat pool told CN that it would not tell me as a member of parliament and it did not announce it for another four months publicly. I wonder, did they tell the transport minister? Did they tell Justice Estey?

To conclude, I believe that most participants in the grain transportation system have confidence in Justice Estey's work. That is why we should wait for the report. I worry that the federal government is undermining his work though by letting the railways get away with announcing closures now and that the wheat pool is doing more or less the same thing.

I encourage the Minister of Transport to step up his efforts with the railways, consider amendments to the transportation act to give himself back some clout in this regard, and to keep fighting the Minister of Finance so that we can get a national highways program in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the matters raised by the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre on June 9, 1998 regarding the discontinuance of operations over railway lines.

Mr. Estey, who is studying all aspects of the grain industry in western Canada, has been asked to recommend ways to ensure Canada has the world's most efficient, viable and competitive grain transportation and handling system to meet the ongoing and long term expectations of our customers. Mr. Estey's recommendations will not affect the economics of the operation of any prairie branch lines. Those lines with low or declining traffic owing to the closures of elevators by the grain companies will remain classified as uneconomical.

However, the rail network rationalization process was designed to encourage commercial purchases of low traffic density lines. In the event that commercial transfers are not possible, it will allow for provincial and municipal governments to preserve these lines by purchasing them at net salvage value.

Rail network rationalization in Saskatchewan is to be driven by the decisions of the grain companies. As grain companies divert grain to newer or expanded loading facilities, country elevators are closed and traffic disappears from these branch lines. The province of Saskatchewan has not exercised its right under the Canada Transportation Act to acquire these lines at net salvage value.

In closing, I would emphasize that the rail rationalization process has proven to be very successful. At the urging of the Minister of Transportation, the railways have not proceeded with the discontinuance of lines if community groups have expressed interest in acquiring them. For every line discontinued six lines have been transferred. Therefore, the government does—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, last April, I asked a question about employment insurance eligibility.

There is a problem in the maritime regions with all the cuts in cod and crab fishing quotas and even a moratorium on cod fishing. We have talked several times, here in the House of Commons, about the hardship experienced by fish plant workers. For the past three years, the federal government has had to send money to the provinces for what is called the black hole, which stretches from February to May.

People wonder if they will have to live like that for the rest of their lives. Will fishers and fish plant workers have to experience that kind of hardship for the rest of their lives? Will all seasonal workers have to experience that kind of hardship for the rest of their lives?

Who can live on $165 a week? Not the Minister of Finance, I can guarantee that. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister can live on $165 a week less taxes.

Today, in fact, I asked the Prime Minister a question. In February 1993, when he was in opposition, he had taken the time to send a letter to a Canadian. In it, he said that when—he did not say if—he was elected in the fall, he would make sure that something was done about EI, as well as the GST and pay equity. But what kind of Prime Minister do we have? What are the Liberals now doing for Canadians? They are making find-sounding promises that they cannot keep.

The EI fund belongs to workers. It is not there to reduce taxes. It belongs to workers and businesses. Is it not their fund? Morally, the government has no right to touch the money.

It is disgraceful what is happening in our country, how the government wants to grab the money in the EI fund so that it can proudly tell us how it has balanced the budget. It has balanced the budget and reduced the deficit to zero. How has it done this? On the backs of workers.

It is not true that workers will put up with this. It is no different from an insurance company. Suppose that today you purchase an insurance policy for your car and that, ten years from now, you have an accident. You have paid insurance for ten years, and when you go to collect, you are told: Sorry, the insurance company has used the money for something else.

This is an insurance policy that belongs to workers. It is time the Minister of Human Resources Development stopped letting the Minister of Finance push him around. He should stand up to him, do the job he is supposed to do, and assume his responsibilities.

It is unacceptable. Today the Prime Minister told me I did not know what I was talking about. I would encourage the Prime Minister to pay a visit to my riding. We would love to see him.

Let the Minister of Human Resources Development come to my region, where winter finds 46% of workers on EI because there is no work.

The government should assume its responsibilities and quick.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about unemployed workers in Atlantic Canada and we are working to improve their prospects. In response to the member's comments regarding access to EI, let me point out that nearly 80% of unemployed workers in New Brunswick receive EI benefits contrary to what the member continues to assert.

Second, I point out that the government is taking strong steps to help unemployed fishers and fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada. Rather than trying to set up temporary programs for those affected by the collapse of the fishery we are trying to give workers the tools and programs they need to get on with their lives. This summer we announced $730 million in fishery restructuring and adjustment measures for the Atlantic groundfishery. These measures include early retirement, active employment measures and economic development.

We also have the transitional jobs fund which has been very beneficial to Canadians living in areas of high unemployment. The transitional jobs fund has already created over 31,000 jobs. In New Brunswick alone we helped create over 2,300 jobs for New Brunswickers and we expect to create more.

Simply providing passive income support through regular EI benefits is not a sufficient response to the unemployment problem. That is why we have worked with the provinces and territories to develop labour market arrangements tailored to local and regional needs. These arrangements are aimed at providing real solutions for unemployed Canadians.

I wish to remind the member that we are transferring $228 million over three years to the Government of New Brunswick so that New Brunswickers can access programs that better respond to the particular labour market challenges of New Brunswick than was possible in the past. In addition, many social assistance recipients will have access to these programs.

This is just a highlight of the steps we have taken to help Atlantic Canadians and Canadians in the member's own province, and I can assure the House that we will continue in our efforts.

Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, last summer Canadians suffered from increased smog levels causing breathing problems, increased hospital admissions and premature deaths.

Smog results from the burning of oil and coal creating nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds together with other substances which lead to the formation of ground level ozone which is then part of the smog phenomenon. Scientists identify nitrogen oxides from the burning of fossil fuels not only because it forms smog but also because it is a component of acid rain.

We have here a domestic problem as well as an international one because at the Lennox plant in eastern Ontario, Ontario Hydro has not installed the equipment needed to reduce nitrogen oxide pollution. In addition new United States pollution regulations designed to reduce smog could force Ontario Hydro to install emissions abatement equipment if it wants to export power to the United States.

Selective catalytic reduction technology is available to reduce smog and Ontario Hydro should bite the bullet and install it. From an international perspective one must remember that in 1991 Canada and the United States signed the air quality agreement whereby each country is responsible for the effects of air pollution it causes in the other country. Canada and the United States also agreed to consult and deal with any existing transboundary air pollution problems.

Therefore what we do in Canada to reduce nitrogen oxide is desirable not only to improve air quality and prevent health problems but also to make a case to the United States that it should do its part in reducing air pollution. However the reverse also applies.

Last week we learned of a significant announcement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that 22 eastern United States will be required to cut nitrogen emissions by 28% starting in the year 2003. Such steps could lead to a substantial reduction in smog formation.

Will Canada reciprocate? This is why I am asking the Minister of the Environment what progress has been made to ensure Ontario makes every effort to minimize air pollution through the reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions.

Unfortunately Ontario Hydro has apparently made the decision not to outfit an oil burning power plant in eastern Ontario with the next generation of pollution control devices which permit the reduction of nitrogen oxides.

As I did on March 30, I would like to inquire of the parliamentary secretary whether the Minister of the Environment will ask her Ontario counterpart to intervene with Ontario Hydro and see to it that its decision is reversed; that the nitrogen oxide reducing equipment is installed at the Lennox plant, thus permitting Canada to keep its international commitment; and to reciprocate to the United States Environmental Protection Agency initiative of issuing new tough standards for emission of nitrogen oxides aimed at reducing smog levels as reported today in a national newspaper.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for raising this important issue which the Minister of the Environment has taken seriously.

In September 1997 the federal Minister of the Environment expressed her concerns regarding the Ontario Hydro situation in a letter to her provincial counterpart, Norm Sterling. She encouraged Mr. Sterling to ensure that Ontario Hydro took full account of environmental issues as it developed its recovery strategy.

As the House may know, Ontario has laid up some of its nuclear power plants and is using more of its fossil fuel fire power plants like the Lennox plant to ensure Ontario's energy demand is met. The member will be pleased to know that Ontario Hydro has indicated that it plans to modify two of the units at Lennox so that they will operate on natural gas, which of course is a cleaner fuel than oil.

In Mr. Sterling's response to the minister he ensured that they would look at the mitigation of the environmental impacts of Ontario Hydro's recovery plan and that it would be a major consideration for the all-party select committee on Ontario Hydro nuclear affairs formed by the provincial government as would the investigation of the economic and environmental viability of alternative energy supply options.

Our Minister of the Environment is prepared to discuss this issue again with Mr. Sterling to further impress upon him the need to ensure that the electricity supplied by Ontario Hydro is generated in a manner that is both safe and environmentally sound and to encourage him to consider actions to further reduce air pollution in Ontario.

Mr. Sterling's ministry has placed a cap on nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide emissions from Ontario Hydro facilities and the company has indicated that it will continue to meet those demands. Minister Sterling is also aware that further reductions in those emissions will be necessary in order to address both domestic and transboundary acid rain and smog issues.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.)