Debates of Jan. 31st, 2002

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I need not take anyone's time. I do not waste time in the House of Commons. However if we talk about a waste of time we can look over there at the separatists and ask about wasting time. The hon. member should not bother me about wasting time in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I resume debate, and not because of these last few moments, I want to verify my speaker's list briefly. Unless I am instructed otherwise and there are some other negotiations that of course the Chair would not expect to be involved in, if I follow correctly the speaker's list I would turn now and look for a speaker from the New Democratic Party. Is that the case?

The hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that would be the case. However I have discussed this with my friend from South Shore, and because of a scheduling problem for him he and I will reverse the order since I believe he would follow my address.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the clarification made by the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair. He would in fact be followed without interruption unless a member from the government side were to rise. That is always a possibility.

I will now give the floor to the hon. member for South Shore.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for accommodating a hectic schedule.

I would like to comment on Bill C-7 and specifically, as the Bloc members have drawn attention to, the amendments that were made in the Senate. I will preface those comments with a comment to the member for Langley--Abbotsford.

I am always surprised when I hear members say categorically that they will not accept anything that comes from the Senate. I make no bones about the fact that I have always believed we should have an elected Senate, one which is elected by the people of Canada. There could be regional representation. The country could be broken into five regions. Everyone could be represented equally and we could have a Senate that was effective and equal.

I have certainly heard the member for Langley--Abbotsford spout the same thing, that he believes in an elected Senate as well. However, one cannot believe in an elected Senate and in empowering it and at the same time say the Senate should have no power. It does not work. It does not fit. It is not logical.

Regardless of whether members sit on the government side or on the opposition side, under our Constitution and the system that we have, we are in no position to say that our amendments to legislation are more important or better than amendments made by the Senate. We have to accept them. If we do not like that, then change the basic flaw in the way parliaments are set up.

Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, has returned from the Senate with amendments. The bill would repeal the former Young Offenders Act at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer. It would have real and philosophical ramifications as well as financial consequences, not to mention the effect it would have on the next generation of young Canadians across this vast nation.

As legislators, we must first realize that no bill can satisfy all. I think most people would agree.

My colleague, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, who is the PC/DR coalition justice critic, will attest to the many faults of the Young Offenders Act. However, abandoning the whole system is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. While there may be a number of improvements in the bill, the serious problems that will face police, lawyers, judges and those who will deal with this new legislation daily far outweigh any positives.

As seriously flawed as the bill is, the amendments proposed by the Senate manage to shed light on a serious problem found not only in the bill but also within the Canadian justice system. Noting differences for difference's sake is unacceptable to most Canadians. However, when these inherent differences lead to inequality for whatever reason, the knowledge that they exist can lead to a better understanding of the problem. With this knowledge, we can focus change where change is needed most.

If one positive can come from this debate, it may be that the amendments proposed by the Senate demonstrate at least in some cases the societal differences between aboriginal and non-aboriginal youth. Justice should be absolutely blind to race, ethnicity and gender. In a perfect world perhaps that would be true. In this case, with the evidence that has been collected and compounded and put before us, I do not think we can ignore the obvious.

Specifically, while this amendment is a good first step at recognizing the inequalities in the system, it does not go far enough in terms of explanation or direction.

Upon examining original Bill C-7, it became evident that clarity was not essential in the minds of the government. Many seasoned professionals have examined this piece of legislation and today they are no further ahead than when they started. It is convoluted and complicated. More important to many of us, it will also be costly.

The bill in essence has been seven years in the making, from Bill C-68 to Bill C-3 to Bill C-7. Expert after expert has said it is unmanageable, too long, too complicated and too expensive. It is interesting to see the legislation come back to the House with these minor, albeit significant, changes.

It has been said before that the justice committee could have heard the complaints of numerous individuals from every region of the country concerning the bill. Before the committee could even begin to consider the witness list from members of the committee, the parliamentary secretary cut off all further debate and moved to clause by clause consideration.

Surely this is not the so-called Liberal democracy that most Canadians voted for. Surely Canadians did not vote for a government to simply put an issue aside and go directly to clause by clause without hearing all the witnesses and without finishing debate. Surely there is something wrong.

In my mind, the fact that these changes were necessary at all speaks to the fundamental problems in this legislation. In its haste to cater to Liberal pollsters, the government overlooked section 718.2( e ) of the criminal code when addressing sentencing issues, leaving this legislation open to constitutional challenge. It is hard to imagine a bill so poorly crafted. While amendments from the upper chamber should alleviate a constitutional challenge on the grounds of discrimination in this regard, the bill will most certainly be challenged on other grounds. The amendment states:

All available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons.

I think that excludes race and ethnicity without ignoring it. That is an important part of the amendment.

Some have argued that this in and of itself is discriminatory. Yet through the application of section 718.2( e ), using the framework of analysis as set out by the court in Regina v Gladue, we can improve the situation of aboriginals in the legal system. Surely that is something we all wish to do.

As Senator Pierre Claude Nolin pointed out, the framework of the analysis outlined must include systematic and background factors which explain why aboriginal offenders often appear before the courts: poverty, level of education, drug or alcohol abuse, moving off a reserve, unemployment, domestic violence and direct or indirect discrimination. Surely this does not preclude that same type of analysis being given to all young people who will be charged under the act.

The framework of analysis set out by the court includes the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection. I find it surprising that this framework of analysis is not applied to all as it could be applied to all.

Setting that aside, the inclusion of this section of the code was necessary and is necessary to deal with the over-representation of aboriginal people in prison and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing.

I reiterate, the importance of this amendment is paramount to the fundamentals laid out within this document.

I concur with hon. Senator Andreychuk who rose in support of this amendment put forth by the Liberal side of the Senate. Quoting her, “Too often in this place we do have to be prodded to raise issues concerning aboriginal youth”.

The issue has been raised. Aboriginal leaders, the administrators of our judicial system and experts alike have agreed that our adversarial model of justice oftentimes does not fit the needs not only of first nations, but of other groups within our society as well.

I would also argue it is past due that we at least tried to grapple with this issue. I am not saying this issue is over or this somehow will alleviate all of the injustices in the world, but certainly it is a start.

After first reading it is evident those considerations of rehabilitation or reintegration into society are secondary in overall terms of the provisions as laid out in this bill. They are secondary in terms of thought and in terms of financial compensation to the provinces.

There are a number of extrajudicial measures sketched into the bill, but practicality seems absent. For example, the bill says it wishes to encourage families of young persons, including extended families and the community, to become involved in the design and implementation of these measures. This looks good on paper, but are these measures practical?

How do we as legislators or for that matter, the people on the front line such as police officers, social workers, parole officers and teachers convince the community to become involved? I would think that would be an arduous job. It would be very difficult to convince people to become involved without having some type of compensation package provided by the federal government.

We could ask the front line police officers if things are getting easier or if youth crime is down. They would answer quite truthfully that so-called minor youth crimes are not being reported due to overworked police forces which are stretched too thin to deal with such crime. They have more important matters to deal with or in the vernacular, they have bigger fish to fry. If they are stretched too thin now, things for our provincial counterparts will become even more difficult.

Saskatchewan's minister of justice, Chris Axworthy, pointed out that his province will need time and resources. The minister told the Senate that at least a year would be necessary in terms of the implementation of such an act. He said:

We need to develop extensive training plans across various sectors, including police, legal workers, court staff, community based organizations delivering youth services, aboriginal court workers, educators and health providers.

He noted that in all cases new training would be necessary. The justice partners will need to unlearn the processes they have become familiar with under the old Young Offenders Act. They will need to replace this old knowledge with new knowledge of a more complex nature.

In his estimation, Saskatchewan alone will spend around $10 million just to upgrade its information services; I repeat, just to upgrade their information services. We could easily multiply that by 10. Probably in some provinces we could multiply that by a great deal more. If it costs $10 million to implement this in Saskatchewan, in provinces with larger populations it may cost twice as much.

In terms of prevention, various social programs funded by the provincial governments are used to keep young offenders out of the courts. These provincially administered programs are supposed to receive 50% of their funding from the federal government, yet under the Liberal government the provinces have seen the federal share drop to as little as 30%.

Decreased funding equals children not receiving the service they need and oftentimes rehabilitation does not occur. The provinces barely have enough money now to deal with the justice issues. This bill is certain to bankrupt the system.

I urge the new Minister of Justice to reconsider at the very least the immediate implementation of this act. Certainly the government would be much better off to send this flawed piece of legislation back to committee, allow witnesses to appear and work on this important piece of legislation in a co-operative and concentrated way.

A delay for at least one year and the justification for such a delay are compelling. As the Speaker is aware a number of witnesses who appeared before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs called on the government to provide an adequate amount of time for the various stakeholders to reach a consensus on the administration of this most complex and extensive new legislation.

Among those testimonies certainly it should be noted was the testimony of the Canadian Police Association which outlined precisely the obstacles not only the police but other agencies that work within this system will face in terms of new responsibilities.

It should be noted that the Progressive Conservative Party submitted numerous amendments to the youth criminal justice act in its various forms over the years and the government did not listen. As a result we are left with the piecemeal mishmash of legislation that nobody is certain of how it will affect young offenders.

Perhaps we will not be able to change this piece of legislation in the House. Perhaps the amendment from the Senate will achieve its desired goal. We should just give that a moment to sink in.

We are dealing today with what at the very least is a seriously flawed, bureaucratic and impractical mess. At the very best it may cause irreparable harm to the justice system, albeit the amendment from the Senate may have improve it slightly.

However as legislators and representatives of people from coast to coast to coast in Canada we should take a very serious look at this piece of legislation. I think we will have a great deal of difficulty sending it back in any form, let alone its amended form.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the speech made by my hon. colleague. I have, of course, understood that he is opposed to this bill which, in his opinion, will create difficulties in application as well as additional costs for the provinces, for the province he represents.

Unlike some other members here, he seems to have read the bill properly, to have grasped its complexity. He has heard a number of witnesses, probably the ones from Quebec. If I have understood the end of his speech correctly, he was opposed to the intent to have total harmonization, regardless of where the young people are, and what their needs are.

Would he personally be in favour, perhaps based on the distinct society motion the government tried to get adopted in the past, for Quebec or his province to be able to continue applying the present law, which works well in Quebec? It is a system that has been in place for 16 years already.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a straightforward one and I will try to give a straightforward answer. The problems here are multiple. We have a bill now that most professionals in the country say is unenforceable.

Everyone knows the provinces are completely underfunded and will remain underfunded under this new bill. At the same time some of the provinces have been doing a better job than others at enforcing the old act. It is fair to say, and I do not think there would be much of an argument, that Quebec probably has done as good a job or perhaps the best job of implementing the old act.

Certainly I do not think the government would be willing to allow the legislation to be applied piecemeal across the country. It would be optimistic on the part of the provinces to think it would. At the same time I would agree the provinces that wish to stay under the old system should be allowed to stay under it, including Quebec, Nova Scotia or any other province.

Everyone who is associated with this piece of justice legislation, except for a few members on the government side, is saying that it is unenforceable.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of clarification and I want my question to be straightforward too. In dealing with this act in a court situation is there some sort of scientific, medical or whatever test, for example, in a gang situation, the judge can use to determine who precisely is aboriginal and who is not?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the way I heard the question is the thrust of the question. The hon. member is implying that it is difficult for judges to judge who in a group of people may be aboriginal or who may not be.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Earlier today we had a similar interruption. I do not think there should be any doubt in anyone's mind that it is quite clear, not only as I stated earlier as a practice but as a rule of the House, that cellphones are not to be in our Chamber.

There are other ways of being made aware that someone wants to reach members by way of vibration or otherwise. We have gone so far as to allow within our rules the use of laptops, but I think it is totally unacceptable to have cellphones ringing when one of our colleagues has the floor.

As far as I am concerned, bluntly speaking they can either be turned off when members enter or at the very least put on vibration or something else. They should not ring and disrupt a colleague on the floor of the House.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this place appreciate the intervention. In answer to my hon. colleague's question, I am not a legal expert but as I understand the legislation the judge may take into account the fact that a young offender has an aboriginal background. He or she is not forced to take that into account. It is a judgment call on behalf of the judge hearing any particular case, as I understand it.

Again I want to preface my comments by saying that I am not a legal expert but certainly that is the way I understand the legislation. It is not meant to say that simply because a young offender is aboriginal he or she goes scot-free. It is meant to say that we have certain individuals who may have a background which makes it more difficult for them to have a fair hearing under the court system, or who may be more challenged before the court system.

It does not preclude sentencing and it does not automatically consider that simply because of someone's background he or she is not guilty of the crime.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should think about the astronomical amounts that will have to be spent on a bill like Bill C-7. We are talking several hundreds of millions, perhaps even a billion dollars, just to implement Bill C-7.

What could we have done with all that money to help our young people?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the government has set aside $207 million to implement the bill. Certainly that would have allowed for a lot of innovation and intervention programs on behalf of the government had it cared to cost share those programs with the provinces.

Certainly if we look at the comment I made earlier on the Saskatchewan justice minister saying that at least $10 million will be required by the province of Saskatchewan, which has a fairly low population in comparison to the rest of the country, then an horrific and astronomical amount of money will have to be coughed up.

It will not be completely cost shared by the federal government so the province of Quebec will face huge costs. The province of Ontario and all other provinces will face huge legal bills.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you feel the same way about electronic voting as you do about cellphones and that this Chamber does not see that type of intrusion either. That is another thing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member is not trying to draw the Chair into a debate on another subject matter. Some people might feel one way or another. I will resist the temptation, certainly.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do forgive me. I should keep on the topic. The topic of my remarks will be the amendment and the subamendment before the House.

I would like to begin by commenting on some of the remarks made by the member for South Shore. Hansard will show that the member for South Shore got himself into a contradiction in his argument where he supported the original amendment and its call for particular attention to be paid by the judges to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons.

The member, as Hansard will show, made the argument that aboriginal did not really mean race. What it really meant was something to do with societal, as he said. If that is the case, I think the member for South Shore was correctly brought up short by the member for the Bloc. If he feels that that amendment and aboriginal refers to something that is exclusively societal, then he should be supporting the Bloc's subamendment that calls on the bill to be rejected because it does not reflect the distinct character of Quebec.

The distinct character of Quebec, I would suggest, is societal, just as the distinct character of P.E.I., of Vancouver, of Saskatchewan, of Hamilton or of Linden. Wherever we are in the country, there are societal differences that have nothing to do with race. In fact we will find aboriginals in every part of Canadian society. The suggestion that the word aboriginal does not refer to race is a specious suggestion.

Let us pursue this whole idea of aboriginal and society for just a moment as well. A member of the reform party asked whether or not judges would be expected to determine the aboriginalness of the defendants before them by blood test. In fact, it can be determined by an Indian status card which is determined in turn not by the societal context in which aboriginals find themselves. It is not a matter of whether aboriginals are on reserve or not on reserve. The Indian status card is determined solely by the ancestry of the individual concerned. In other words, his genetic makeup, his race, his blood. I would agree, by any standard, this is not where this society and our laws ought to be going. I have always felt very opposed to the suggestion that anyone in our society should get any special attention or any special privilege based solely on race.

I will give an example of the type of dilemma that the original amendment presents for us. In Oakville, which is one of the richest communities in Canada per capita, one can easily find people who are aboriginals who come from families who are very rich, who have jobs in the high tech industry, whose kids go to private schools and on and on it goes. Yet these young people who come from these families who have all the wealth of the nation can have and do have Indian status cards.

What do we have here by this original amendment? We have the suggestion to the courts that when youth appear before them, when a crime is committed in an affluent area of urban Canada, the judge is called upon to take into account special circumstances among the youth before him if one happens to be an aboriginal. This is unacceptable and I do not and cannot support the amendment. It just flies in the face of everything I believe Canada ought to be about. We are different in our language. We are different in our ethnicity. We are different in our countries that our parents came from, but we are all one as human beings and I absolutely refuse to distinguish people solely by race.

I find myself in the awkward circumstance of actually being on the same side on this question as the Canadian Alliance. This has happened extremely rarely in the eight years that I have been in the House. However this is a House of Commons. This is a place where we have open debate and where it is very important for all of us to express our true feelings no matter where we sit in the House.

However another issue has come forward here that I think is so interesting. That is the question of whether or not a member of the government side should feel the same obligation to support a bill or a measure before the House that emanates from the Senate.

If amendments emanating from the Senate were treated as free votes that would empower the Senate. It would not diminish the Senate as was suggested by the member for South Shore. What it would mean is the Senate could then feel that if it had before it a piece of legislation, which it was really concerned about that had passed through the House of Commons, it could hope that if it did put an amendment forward, the amendment would go before the entire House of Commons and the government members would treat it not as a vote to be whipped by the government side, but treat as an expression of conscience, an expression of genuine concern from the Senate and that it should receive the individual consideration of every member in the House.

I think there is the potential there for a parliamentary reform, and we are always saying here that we should try to reform this House, that would be most welcomed. I do not want to see an elected Senate because I do not think it advances the progress of democracy. The model we see in the United States where there is an elected senate and elected house of representatives is not an efficient model as far as democracy or the advancement of legislation, we have a good model here.

It is true that the Senate as an unelected body has not been functioning as effectively as it might. If the Senate truly acted as the conscience of this parliament, then the way to give it that conscience and give it that empowerment is to treat Senate amendments when they do come back to this House, as free votes.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear a Liberal member from time to time see the light and agree with what the Canadian Alliance says because clearly the reason he has come to that conclusion is that our arguments are persuasive because they are correct in this case.

It is a false motivation to build legislation based on race and I am very happy that the member had the courage to stand up and say that it is a correct evaluation of the legislation. I encourage the member to put feet to his convictions and vote against the amendment when it is brought forward.

He talked about free votes. I agree with that, especially when it comes from an unelected Senate. There should be a balance. Let us face it, the Prime Minister appointed every member and the Senate is beholden to him.

If the members on this side simply obey the party law, then there is no democracy. My question to the member is very straightforward. Will he have the courage to vote according to his convictions?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on this side just answered for me. I will repeat his answer. I have always voted according to my convictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question as well to the member opposite. I know that he has taken a long interest in disclosure and access to information. I also know that he has a deep-seated concern for the welfare of children and those who find themselves before the justice system. It is certainly something with which we all have to very much concern ourselves.

The problem that the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative caucus has with the legislation is the amount of delay that will result as part of our objection to passing the bill. Similar to that, is the introduction of numerous new procedures that will be used to the advantage of the accused by their lawyers to invoke delay and bring about appeals for these new procedures, new procedures that I would suggest do not add anything to our current justice system. What they will be simply used for is tools of delay.

One of the concerns I know the member opposite has is that justice be done and be done swiftly, just as the need for information and disclosure is necessary for accountability. In the justice system the need for access to justice occurring quickly is what should be very much at the primary root or goal of drafting new bills.

Does the hon. member opposite feel that bringing about a bill that is so cumbersome, so convoluted and so ripe with new procedures that it will very much rob the justice system of its ability to respond quickly, is the direction in which we should be headed? Should we not be, if nothing else, streamlining and making a system of justice, particularly as it pertains to youth, more accessible, effective and efficient?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my problem is with the subamendment and the amendment that is before the House. I supported the original bill when it went through the House. No individual MP here can be cognizant of everything that goes on in every piece of legislation.

I trust my colleagues on the justice committee and I trust the opposition members on the justice committee to have worked out as best they can the problems that were in the original legislation. I trust the process that took the bill out of committee into report stage and beyond report stage into third reading.

My problem is something has now been introduced into the bill I originally supported with my vote which I do not support. It was introduced at a stage beyond the House and is returning to the House.

I can assure the House that, when my turn comes to rise on this particular amendment, I will consider very careful how can I best represent the people who have sent me to this Chamber. I will be treating this amendment in my conscience as a free vote.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by the comment of the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas--Flamborough—Aldershot when he says that Quebec is not a distinct society. They adopted a resolution in the House. They recognized Quebec's distinct character. When I say distinct society, this is a minimum. We are more than that, we are a nation. It goes much further than that.

The hon. member should at least have recognized that his government adopted a resolution in this House explaining that Quebec is a distinct society.

Why not respect Quebecers, not just Bloc Québécois members, but also members of his own party who are Quebecers and who hear him say that he trusts the standing committee on justice? That committee heard evidence and Quebecers were unanimous in saying that they want to have the right to opt out of Bill C-7.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. I said that I agree. Quebec is a distinct society. But so are Ontario and New Brunswick. All the regions of the country are distinct societies.

There are also ethnic and other groups who speak other languages. It is impossible to have federal laws based on all kinds of distinct societies. We must have laws that apply to all young people.

I absolutely agree that Quebec is a distinct society and I am very proud to be associated to it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill and the amendments that are before us. I intend to address the subamendment first. However, in the context in which that subamendment was brought forward, I want to note that when the bill went through the House on its first round the NDP voted against it because of all the gross imperfections.

Our party will be supporting the amendment dealing with the clause regarding aboriginal youth, however, we are still considering our position with regard to the subamendment.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act was the bill that controlled this area from early in the 1900s. All the imperfections that were in that piece of legislation were supposed to be addressed by the Young Offenders Act. I remember when that bill came into effect, and lawyers across the country were trying to implement it, how difficult it was because governments were not funding the necessary services that were required under the bill.

It was interesting at that time to see that the province of Quebec began to implement the philosophy of that bill and deal with youth crime in a realistic fashion. It moved away from a punishment model to a treatment and care model. It did that with nowhere the financial support that it should have received from the federal government.

I was practising in Ontario at the time and I recall investigating the matter because I could not find these services for my clients, a number of whom had been convicted under that legislation. When I investigated it, I found out that only 20% of the services that were required were being funded. The interesting part was that the province of Quebec had began to fund it.

Then, we moved forward to the present bill and saw the amendments come through. The $200 million plus amount of money that would be allocated would not be sufficient. When we look across the country, the province of Quebec is the only one that has moved significantly to fund these services, and it has done it in the absence of the federal government.

Other provinces tried to emulate that pattern. My friend from South Shore mentioned that Saskatchewan began to move under the old legislation. However, the reality is that, in terms of our taxing power and ability to derive revenue, the federal government has that ability to a much greater degree than the provinces do. When Saskatchewan tried to move forward, in many respects modelling themselves after Quebec, it was thwarted simply by financial considerations. That would continue under the new bill.

There are strong reasons for our supporting the subamendment but we have not made that decision. I suppose our one reservation is that if we restrict it to the province of Quebec, the reality is that some of the other provinces have already begun to follow its pattern. I will not get into the discussion around the distinct society. My friend from Ancaster has already hung himself in that regard. I will not go down that route.

That is the one reservation I have with regard to the subamendment. The subamendment if passed would withdraw the bill and in effect say to the government to go back and do it right. That would very much have our support.

With regard to the amendment that came from the Senate, it was interesting to watch the exchange that occurred a few minutes ago and listen to the comments about the Senate being an undemocratic institution, which it clearly is. It is referring the bill back to us--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must interrupt the hon. member to proceed to statements by members, but I remind him that he will have approximately 14 and a half minutes remaining in his intervention.

Parthenon Marbles

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House and to all Canadians a very important movement which was initiated by the late Melina Mercouri in 1982: the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.

The marbles were removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin almost 200 years ago without the consent of the Greek people and are now housed in the British museum in London.

This is not an issue that concerns Britain and Greece. It is an issue of cultural heritage that transcends all borders. Despite the pressure from UNESCO and the European parliament the marbles still remain in London. As a member of the Commonwealth it is essential that Canada support the return of the parthenon marbles to Greece.

I will close with a quote from the late Melina Mercouri who said:

We are asking for the restitution of part of a unique monument, the particular symbol of a civilisation. And I believe that the time has come for these Marbles to come home to the blue skies of Attica, to their rightful place, where they form a structural and functional part of a unique entity.

Let us do the right thing and get those marbles back where they belong.