Debates of Feb. 19th, 1999

Young Offenders Act

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in Motion No. 508 the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is calling for this House to state that the federal government should increase its share of the financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

The Minister of Justice and this government cannot support the motion as it currently reads. As members know, new youth justice legislation will be introduced in the next few weeks. This is largely the result of extensive consultations which have been ongoing with our partners, the provinces and territories, over the past several years, despite what the hon. member said earlier. Part of this groundwork has included discussions of financial issues.

The minister is well aware that the provinces and the federal government share responsibility for ensuring an effective Canada-wide youth justice system.

She also wishes to note, as she has done on a number of occasions in the past, that additional funding will be necessary to implement the new legislation she is about to table, as well as to support the services and programs that will play a direct role in the achievement of several priorities on which the federal government and the provinces agree.

As for the use to which federal funding is put, I would remind the House that, in April 1997, following a thorough examination of the youth justice system, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs submitted certain recommendations regarding federal-provincial shared-cost arrangements with respect to services for young offenders.

The committee made it clear that it favoured an approach based on early intervention where prevention efforts, community and family based informal, non-criminal justice and non-custodial strategies are given primacy. The committee came to the conclusion that cost sharing arrangements should be adapted to reflect this new approach.

It is important to understand that while acknowledging the importance of adequate funding for youth justice services and programs, the committee did not recommend a return to an open ended 50:50 sharing of all provincial costs.

On the contrary, the committee specifically recommended that discussions with the provinces and territories be undertaken with the goal of shifting resources away from custodial institutions or incarceration and into community based services.

The fact that, in recent years, Canada as a whole continues to be among those nations with the highest number of young offenders in custody, continues to concern us. Although international comparisons are difficult, because of systemic differences, it appears that Canada incarcerates proportionally more young offenders than even the United States.

As well, the rates of incarceration vary considerably across the country, varying between 9% and 32% for 10,000 adolescents, according to provincial figures. The rates are generally higher where alternative sentencing is rare or non-existent. Finally, it is sad to note that the vast majority of youth in custody are there for non-violent offences, to which community approaches, which promote social values such as responsibility and accountability, would be a better response.

What makes the matter worse is that incarceration is extremely expensive. As more and more money is spent on custody, less and less can be dedicated to those alternatives that could eventually reduce overall budgets and provide for more meaningful consequences for the majority of offenders. A continuing deterioration of alternative programming could in turn create a vicious cycle by provoking an even greater reliance on custody, clearly the position of the Reform Party also.

[An hon. member]

That is baloney and you know it.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

You wanted to incarcerate 11-year olds.

Clearly funds have to be used wisely in support of overall youth justice policy that will be reflected in the bill that the Minister of Justice is about to introduce. It would be unwise for the federal government to accept, for example, to reimburse the provinces for 50% of the current cost of custody when its stated policy is to ensure that incarceration is generally reserved for the most serious offenders. With 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services, the federal government would be left with no protection against further increases in the use and the cost of custody.

Moreover, this type of agreement would seriously restrict federal ability to actively promote the development of alternative programming or to support the ongoing operations of such programming where it already exists.

Certainly the federal government responsibility for the youth justice legislation implies a responsibility to see that its various components are properly implemented.

That is why on Tuesday of this week we were extremely pleased to find that almost $400 million has been allocated for fighting crime at home and abroad, with $206 million of that money being allocated to the new youth justice strategy of this government.

This funding will allow the government to move forward quickly, implementing a new approach of giving more money to the provinces.

We believe the federal funding should be used to achieve two broad purposes. First, it should be designed to support the implementation of the new federal legislation across the country. Second, it should be used to ensure that special attention is given to required services and programs that do not yet exist or are currently under funded.

We also have to ensure that federal funding is equitably allocated to the individual provinces and territories. Obviously and open ended 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services and programs would offer no particular support in the achievements of the above purposes. It could actually have a detrimental effect in encouraging an inconsistent partial implementation of the legislation across the country.

While the provinces are responsible for administering justice and can legitimately choose various means to enforce the law in a way that suits their individual priorities and specificity, the federal government must ensure that the law is applied in compliance with its principles.

As members will see when the new legislation is introduced, it will provide maximum flexibility to the provinces, so that they can administer the youth justice system in a way that is best for them individually.

I should point out that the provinces themselves made that request, during our consultations. We listened to them and we will follow up on their request.

Also, it is perfectly legitimate for the federal government to plan its funding so as to give priority to those general services and programs that are critical to achieving the main objectives of the law.

While it can be expected that some provinces may question specific aspects of the proposed legislation, it would be a mistake to underestimate the existing degree of support for the new approach it reflects. Similarly, where there might be some differences of views with certain provinces in terms of defining specific priorities for funding, it would be erroneous to think that this is a case where the federal government is imposing its views on the provinces.

Provincial views have contributed significantly to the shaping of the new legislation and will continue to be the key in the implementation of it. Past discussions and continuing discussions have also demonstrated there is considerable consensus on the need to promote more alternative ways of dealing with young offenders.

We should be able to build on the basis of a consensus that federal funding should first and foremost support the development and maintenance of programs that provide significant alternatives to the reliance on courts and incarceration. As for the provinces and territories, they will continue to be responsible for determining how these programs should be developed and implemented.

Financial arrangements will be part of what we hope will be over the next several years a flexible implementation phase of the youth justice renewal strategy, undertaken in close partnership with the provinces and territories as a reflection of our shared responsibilities and commitments to youth justice.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 508 as presented by the member from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We appear to be united on this issue. Maybe there is some hope for my hon. colleague yet.

The motion says that, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

This motion is essentially calling for the federal government to fulfil its original commitment to maintain its 50% share of the costs of enforcing the Young Offenders Act.

It is my understanding that as little as a decade ago the federal government managed to keep up to the commitment of providing half the cost of this legislation. This was a promise made when the Young Offenders Act was brought into force in 1985. It is also my understanding that the federal government has been slowly chipping away at this commitment to the extent that it now provides something close to 30% of the bill.

I realize that in the recent budget the government appears to have committed itself to providing some $200 million in what it calls new funds toward youth justice. Let us remember, however, that in spite of months and months of promises we have not yet seen this government's new youth legislation and justice initiatives.

There is little doubt that there will be additional costs involved. There is little doubt the provinces will be required to commit additional funds toward the new legislation should it ever come into being. I anticipate that the newly committed funds will in no way approach the federal government's original commitment.

The failure of this government to maintain the 50:50 split no doubt came into discussion when the Minister of Justice was negotiating with provincial justice ministers over co-operation toward new youth justice initiatives. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice was threatened with complete provincial withdrawal from the funding of youth justice because of the continuing shortfall of funding on behalf of her government. She would certainly not want to have a recurrence of the Bill C-68 situation land in her lap where some of the provinces have withdrawn from firearms control financing and have left it up to the federal government to operate. Our provinces can only be pushed and downloaded on so far.

Speaking of being pushed too far, I will take a moment to mention this government's actions with conditional sentencing and its impact on the provinces. The federal government's bill became too high in the area of corrections. So what did it do? It brought in conditional sentencing to permit criminal offenders to serve their time at home. Now violent and even repeat offenders are able to escape from serving any time in our institutions. This freed up beds and kept the costs from escalating for our corrections systems, but it did not necessarily reduce the costs to the provinces that have to continue to monitor, police and enforce the conditions placed on offenders serving their time at home. Costs were downloaded to the provinces. I would think the provinces would want to make sure the federal government does not burn them in the same way with its new youth justice strategy.

I have been actively involved in youth justice issues for a number of years now. I have participated in various youth diversion programs. I have been actively involved with our crowns, our courts and our communities in my home province of British Columbia. There are significant demands for additional funding to properly operate a successful youth justice program. Indeed, virtually all aspects of the youth justice program are presently short of appropriate funding to properly do the job.

Youth diversion programs are by and large operating primarily on the good intentions of community volunteers. While these folks are extremely dedicated to the young people in their communities and do wonderful work, often a few dollars will do much to soothe many of their frustrations. It is difficult to have a young person repaint a neighbour's fence that has been covered by graffiti when there is not even enough money to buy the paint. It is difficult to arrange counselling sessions or group discussions when there is no money with which to rent a room. We cannot expect volunteers to continue to support programs from their own pockets indefinitely.

We are all aware of the shortfalls in funding for programs for young people placed under secure custody. They are often released back into the community with no education or treatment to modify their unacceptable and criminal actions. If society continues to show little interest in helping these young offenders they will have little interest in helping themselves. It all comes back to proper funding.

The statistics make it quite clear that young offenders often become adult offenders. If we spend effectively on our young offenders now, we will benefit in the long run because we should not have to investigate, charge, convict and sentence time and time again. If we properly treat the non-violent first time offender we will for the most part avoid escalation into more serious criminal activity.

The justice minister was recently quoted as complimenting Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta for their efforts in the use of community sentencing options instead of custody to sanction our troubled youth. All provinces should be encouraged to follow and expand on the present successful programs. To do so, however, additional funding will be necessary to set up and operate progressive options. How will the provinces be encouraged to do so unless the federal government makes significant moves toward fulfilling its end of the bargain?

As it has been said time and time again, it does little good for this government to talk the talk, it must walk the walk. It must re-establish its 50% commitment to youth justice and it must ensure it never again lets itself fail in its responsibility to our future generations.

I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for putting this motion before the House.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is asking the government to increase the federal share of financial support for the provision of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of dividing the cost on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

One would think this is not a big thing to ask for. If the federal government wants to keep an eye on what is happening it terms of crime prevention, health care or education across the country, it should expect to pay its fair share. That is really what is being asked here.

This also means that many problems are created by government policies and regulations—provincial or federal. On the subject of crime prevention, many of the decisions taken are taken in such a way that it appears crime prevention was not the first thought.

The more invested in crime prevention, the lower the crime rate. Our young people who live in poverty cannot afford a post-secondary education and parents cannot send their children to daycare. These are things that lower the country's crime rate. We need governments that give priority to prevention.

We can talk about prevention as well in the context of halfway houses for battered women. Too many regions do not have such facilities for these women. They do not have the opportunity to stay in a safe location so they may make good decisions for themselves and their children. It is important to have such facilities, and that is what the majority of Canadians think.

We have to remember that. Often when youths commit crimes we want to throw them in jail and throw away the keys. That is not the solution. We have to look at the cause, why young offenders are in that situation. We need resources available to prevent children from being in that situation. Once they are we definitely need resources to help them out of those bad situations and put them in very good environments.

Unfortunately, with child poverty increasing on a daily basis, one goes with the other. If I look at just my area, in one week there were three bank robberies in small communities of 200 in one and 2,000 in the other. We have to look at that situation very seriously. The increase in poverty is certainly a big factor in crime. A woman in the Saint John area was badly beaten during a robbery.

If we look behind why all these things are happening we can track it to the individual not having resources available. I see it with teachers all the time who tell me that they do not have the resources to help the kids identified in our schools as needing help.

I was speaking with a friend who is a French teacher in Newfoundland. They have been told that in order to get a psychologist in their school they would have to let a regular teacher go. There are all kinds of situations in that school where children and their families need counselling. We have to look at the causes. When parents do not have a job or are the working poor it certainly does not help. We did not see any new funding going toward that.

There is really nothing in the budget to help in this regard. If the federal government wants to have input with the provinces, it has to pay its half. This applies to health care too. The government found itself in a very difficult situation at one point. It used to pay 50% of health care costs but this percentage has now dropped to 11%. The figure might rise to 12.5%.

It is very difficult for the federal government to say to a province “I want you to provide these services in this way”, when it contributes only 5% or 6% of the funding.

I have a 13-year old son and a little girl who is three years old, but I have no idea what the future holds for Mathieu and Mélissa. I hope they will stay on the straight and narrow. That is all we can do, to hope, because our children have to make their own decisions.

It is certainly good for them that their mother has a job, and it was great that I could work or be on employment insurance when I was off work, because there was food on their plates and a roof over their heads. I was perfectly capable of supporting them as a seasonal worker because, in those days, we could still get benefits between jobs. Without this income, I cannot imagine how those years would have unfolded. There was also education, including the post-secondary education I had access to.

We must ensure that our young people today have access to education and that they do not end up $40,000 in debt after completing a four-year university degree.

That is often the case, and we are not helping our young people with decisions that makes life harder and harder for them, when they have no job prospects at graduation.

The New Democrats believe that the government needs to invest in families by providing access to child care, support for parents and labour policies that encourage employers to respect family obligations.

I must say that I was lucky. All the years I worked, I was with the public service, so I had benefits. If my son was sick, I was entitled to five days a year at least to look after him. I also had a drug plan, which also covered replacements for eyeglasses. That helps a lot.

The federal government must make a real commitment to provide funding to the provinces for more community policing and to increase support services for both the rehabilitation of youth and support for victims of youth crime.

The NDP fully supports the motion before the House and encourages the government to adopt it and take immediate action to address the chronic underfunding of our justice system.

I think this is important. We ought to support this motion because the future of our young people is at stake. They are the ones who will be running this country in the future. We must look after them today to ensure that they will be there in the future.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion M-508 moved by my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

First, the debate on this motion is rather timely because it gives us an opportunity to refer to a item in the budget brought down with such fanfare by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday.

In fact, this budget, which has already distinguished itself with its many new examples of federal interference in provincial health jurisdiction, earmarks $343 million over three years for crime prevention, as part of the reform the Minister of Justice is preparing to introduce, a reform which serves no purpose, in the opinion of justice stakeholders in Quebec.

Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that there is no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal Minister of Justice regarding the use of these funds.

The planned reform is repressive in nature and smacks of something the Reform Party would dream up. It will cost the provinces more, with the bill for Quebec alone forecast at $23 million.

It is important to note that, since 1984, the federal government has owed Quebec in the neighbourhood of $77 million for enforcing the Young Offenders Act. I will come back to these points a bit later.

As regards the Young Offenders Act, I must first point out, as our friends opposite acknowledged, that Quebec is an example for the rest of Canada. The present legislation effectively meets its objectives in Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest rate of juvenile crime in Canada.

I am pleased to report here the remarks made in 1995 by the Minister of Justice in the previous parliament. In his opinion, Quebec is an exception to the terms of application of the Young Offenders Act in that it focuses on the rehabilitation of young people outside the judicial system, an example the rest of Canada might follow.

At the time, the federal minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness in this regard. Despite this recognition, legislative amendments aimed at increasing judicial interventions with young people are, unfortunately, still in fashion.

While youth crime is decreasing more sharply in Quebec, I must also add that, although it continues to be a source of considerable concern, crime among young people is also on the decrease in the rest of Canada. In 1997, the rate of youth crime decreased by 7%, confirming the trend we have seen since 1991.

So, rather than rush into a reform that will mean a more repressive approach to crime among the youth, the minister should review the entire question of financial compensation to the provinces for the application of the existing law.

When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984, 15 years ago already, the federal government was assuming 50% of the costs associated with implementing judicial and alternative measures. The federal government gradually withdrew, something which is becoming a habit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding was down to 36%.

In addition to the federal government's withdrawal, its funding formula does not take into account the proportion of young Canadians who live in Quebec. While nearly 25% of Canada's young people between the ages of 12 and 17 live in Quebec, only 18.28% of the federal contribution in this respect goes to Quebec.

This has resulted in a $77.4 million shortfall for Quebec since 1989. The former justice minister and current health minister had promised to restore the balance.

Neither the former minister nor the current one ever delivered on this promise. The last federal budget can certainly raise doubts about this government's commitment to paying off its debts.

Quebec is still waiting for a concrete proposal from the minister for making up this shortfall, and chances are that we are going to wait a very long time.

As we know, Quebec is the province where the rehabilitation of young offenders is the most successful by far, and I might remind you that this success is achieved through less expensive and less cumbersome measures. What works in Quebec should work elsewhere.

Today's Motion M-508 provides us with an opportunity to criticize the new approach of the federal government, which clearly seems to have forgotten that the youth justice system must reflect the fact that youth are still in the process of developing and maturing.

Efforts must focus on what led up to the offence. The federal government's approach emphasizes the offence per se when, in our opinion, account must be taken of the youth's overall situation in terms of family, school and peers. In my opinion, Quebec's approach will pay off.

Not surprisingly, Quebec is unable to support the federal government's present approach. First of all, it does not put youth crime and adjustment problems in proper perspective. Another reason we are unable to support it is because it writes off the worst troublemakers, instead of trying to reintegrate them into society. We also reject it because it says that young people 14 and older—I heard my colleague mentioning her 13-year old son, who is only one year away from being 14—should receive adult sentences when they are involved in offences that, while they may be very serious, are not necessarily indicative of a high level of criminalization.

Another point is the unnecessary complexity of the legal procedure, which leaves the door wide open to preliminary sentencing by trial and jury. For all these reasons, it is an approach unlikely to help our youth prepare for a productive life that will benefit our society, and Quebec is unable to support it.

In closing, I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for having moved this motion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 508:

That—the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis—

On the face of it, this motion has a great deal to commend itself. After all, what is wrong with more money for the Young Offenders Act? What is wrong with more money for the youth justice system, or indeed the justice system itself? What is wrong with more money for the police, for the courts, or for the prisons? Indeed, what is wrong with more money for everything?

Let us just keep going back to the old ways of tax and spend. Surely justice is as high a priority as any other priority. In fact it has to be very high on anybody's priority list.

When this government took over, we inherited a $42 billion deficit and we have since turned it around to a surplus. At the time we took over, all governments were spending in excess of 100% of the gross domestic product. Thankfully under the leadership of this Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, that situation has been reined in and we are now all living within our budgets.

Provincial governments have been brought to heel by fiscal realities and to varying degrees of success have recognized that. The most notable exception, I would say, is the fact that the Government of Ontario—which I would note in passing is a Progressive Conservative government, and how progressive is somewhat dubious at times—continues to finance its ways by increasing the debt. These tax cuts that are priorities in excess of all other priorities are financed by debt. At this point it has ratcheted up by a full $30 billion.

The cost of this motion is estimated to be something in the order of $100 million to $125 million. It is open ended. We can draw on it any time and once we start funding it, we cannot withdraw from the funding. It is like the Eveready bunny; it keeps on going and going.

As soon as this funding starts, the government makes a statement that this is a priority in excess of all other priorities. For instance, it speaks of a desire on the part of the provincial and federal governments to create community based institutions rather than custodial based institutions. That priority frankly would be defeated if this motion were to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you, I and all the rest of us have had pretty well as much as we can take on CHST debates. We get into cash, we get into tax points, we get into equalization and we are all numb. The numbers seem to go on and on.

It is a uniquely Canadian experience whereby those who receive money say absolutely nothing and those who do not receive money continue to bitch and whine into the next budget.

If there is a certainty in any of these debates, it is that all governments want certainty in their financing. With certainty they can plan and budget accordingly. Both levels of government do not want open-ended commitments to financing.

The Young Offenders Act speaks to charge, conviction and sentencing. In my view, that is the wrong priority. In my view, this is not the priority this government needs to signal at this time.

The changes to the young offenders legislation are in accordance with the recommendations of the justice committee on which the hon. member sits. I would recommend that the hon. member speak to those recommendations rather than to this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish-Guysborough will now have five minutes for his right of reply. I should advise the House that when the member speaks, he will close the debate.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak in response to my learned friends. I thank in particular the parliamentary secretary and the members for Scarborough East, Laval Centre, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, and Surrey North.

The last statement made by my hon. friend opposite spoke of open endedness. What is truly open ended is the justice minister's promise to table legislation. It has been open ended and we have not seen it yet.

This is not an open-ended motion. This is a motion that would suggest a 50:50 share. That is equitable. That is split down the middle. There is nothing open ended about it.

My learned friend from Laval Centre spoke of Quebec's success in dealing with youth crime and youth crime initiatives. I do commend her province for that. The member indicated that it is an example that other places, mainly Canada, can learn from. I agree with that. I think we can learn a lot from the different provinces and the approaches they have taken.

The point is that the funding and commitment made by the federal government in its initial commitment to youth justice are not being held up. The government is not holding up its end of the bargain.

In particular, there was a comment made by the parliamentary secretary with respect to the current funding and commitment from this government.

I was left with the impression that she was indicating that if the provincial government received more money from the federal government, somehow this would result in higher incarceration rates. That is absurd.

What is so absurd about it is that at the same time the parliamentary secretary speaks of youth justice initiatives such things as restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution need to be funded. More funding does not simply mean more incarceration. The provinces have to exercise that discretion, but that was the impression left.

We are talking about the federal government simply holding up its end of the bargain. One would expect that the government would at least feel a twinge of moral obligation to increase its share of the young offender programs. Morality and the Liberal government seem to be mutually exclusive on this point.

The underlying issue in Motion No. 508 as with any policy area affecting federal-provincial relations is the Liberal view of government. Federal Liberals profess to have an unparalleled understanding of what is best for the country as a whole. They have a very sanctimonious and arrogant view of what is best for the country and how best to spend the country's money.

When it comes to taxpayers money no one can tell anybody the Liberal government has a great track record. As we witnessed in the social union negotiations, the federal Liberals painted the provinces as somehow the enemy of health care and social spending. We have seen successive budgets. We have seen the education budget. We have seen the health care budget. One would hope that someday we might see a justice budget coming from the government.

Conditional sentences, child pornography inaction, gutting the organized crime budget of the RCMP and the doomed false hope Firearms Act are all questionable Liberal priority performances on justice issues. Such sweeping generalizations from the government toward the provinces, characterizing them as such, is very irresponsible. Provincial and territorial governments are not the inherent enemies of co-ordinated national policy efforts. They want all levels of government to work their best and in this case work their best to address the problems in our youth justice system.

In our federation the federal, provincial and territorial governments must work together as partners, not competitors. The provinces want to be included in the decisions. They want the federal government to simply hold up and pay in its amount. They want the federal government to honour its commitments. Above all, they would like just a little respect from the federal government.

Motion No. 508 allows the Liberals to reverse the reputation they have earned over the years in federal-provincial relations. It allows them to tangibly demonstrate they are committed not just to changing youth crime legislation but to ensuring the law will be adequate.

As I mentioned at the outset, laws are only as effective as the ability to enforce them. The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government can acquire much needed credibility in renewing their efforts and their commitment to the youth justice system by increasing the federal share of the young offenders program.

As this is my final word on the matter in a final desperate attempt to bring the matter forward, I would ask that there be unanimous consent given to make this matter a votable item.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the motion be votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1.43 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 1, 1999, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2).

(The House adjourned at 1.43 p.m.)