Debates of Feb. 4th, 2002

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before putting my question, I want to make sure the minister is aware that an amendment to an amendment with a special provision for Quebec has been tabled and will be voted on.

I have a very simple question and I will let people judge the answer for themselves. The minister alluded to the number of witnesses. How many witnesses appeared before the parliamentary committees to support his bill? How many witnesses from Quebec supported his bill?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it should be noted that it is not the bill that is before the House but rather the amendment.

On the opposition benches they say that the government is being inflexible. I think it is important for people to understand that after testimony was heard—we know that the House committee travelled across the country—the bill was amended. There were more than 160 amendments.

Some people say that the government is not listening. Has any other bill received over 160 amendments? The government's position on this demonstrates, at the very least, a great deal of flexibility. With those 160 amendments to Bill C-7, we were able to put in place reforms that will benefit all the population.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question about the basic Canadian principle of equality before the law. I would specifically ask the minister the following question. Is the principle of equality before the law for all Canadians officially being declared dead today by the government?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, if we look at the bill as a cornerstone, even though it is not in the House, it seems clear to me that it focuses first and foremost on the rehabilitation of young offenders. We believe that principle is important. We believe as well that in proceeding with rehabilitation there is a chance for young offenders. Let us look at the way provinces have applied the legislation in past years. Some have been very successful with that principle. We are very proud of that. We are also proud to be moving forward with a bill that would put in place rehabilitation as a principle which can be found in Bill C-7.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question the minister was asked earlier was a simple one. How many groups from Quebec appeared before the committee and how many supported his bill? One, five, ten, twenty-five? How many?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that what the members opposite do not like is quite simple: after the hearings, the government decided to listen and make amendments.

The members opposite do not like reality. The fact is that the government has shown itself to be flexible. The government made over 160 amendments. Clearly they would like to continue debating the bill ad nauseam but there are people working in the field who want us to move forward, and that is what we will be doing.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House whether one of the reasons for this particular section in the bill is that first nations peoples are overrepresented in our jails? Is it a question of us trying to use some of the alternative sentencing measures available to the first nations?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the question of native young offenders is very important. It is so important that in looking at the declaration of principles, we will see that aboriginal people are taken into consideration in many principles.

[The Speaker]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On Wednesday, January 30, I raised a question about the Senate amendment regarding the English and French versions. I know that the Deputy Speaker handed down a ruling on Thursday, but I do not think that it enlightened the House as to whether the French or the English text—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member knows that this is not the question before the House right now. We are debating an issue of time allocation on the bill. Perhaps the member could raise his point of order after the House's decision on this matter.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the debate on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that you recognized me because with the time allocation motion just passed, had you not I would have been precluded from speaking on this since I have committee duties immediately following question period today.

I would like to begin by saying that what we are observing in the House is absolutely and totally despicable. Time allocation is only necessary when the opposition so strenuously opposes a bill that it goes on and on.

What the government is failing to recognize is that there is a very solid reason why the opposition is against the bill and the amendment . If this place worked correctly with free votes, as it should, then the government members, the backbenchers, would recognize that the amendment is simply and totally a racist amendment, and therefore is totally and absolutely wrong.

In Canada we do not divide people based on their race or ethnic background. We believe in the equality of Canadians. Then the appointed Senate comes along and passes a motion to include a specifically racist determination for sentencing in the youth justice system. That is plainly and simply wrong.

How I wish this place would function properly so that instead of having the amendment and a government forcing the amendment through with whipped votes and entrenching into our law a law, which is very wrong, we could act as representatives of our people, evaluate such an amendment, decide that it should not be supported, vote against it and carry on.

It is shameful that every time we vote in this place, we are not voting on bills before us. Instead, we are voting on whether or not there should be an election. We are off the topic. When the Liberal members vote, they say they have to vote the way they are told because if the government loses the bill, it will be considered a vote of non-confidence and they will have to call an election. That is absurd. The ultimate of absurdity is to have the House of Commons run the country with rules that do not permit us to defeat or amend a bad bill or motion. That is really despicable.

I worked for some years on a school board. Sometimes when a motion was moved, the person moving it thought it was a good one and moved it in faith. However during our debate one member would say that we should think about it, then give us some suggestions and other members would pick up on it and a train of thought would develop. If we decided the motion should not pass because it would be detrimental to the well-being of our school, our students and our teachers, we would defeat it. We did not then say we had to see whether we could get re-elected. No, we had done our job. By defeating the motion, we did exactly what we were there for.

If the House of Commons would get it into its head that it has the ultimate power and if those members over there would start telling the Prime Minister and their whip to give them the option of using their own abilities and their own heads to analyze issues and come to their own conclusions, the result would be much better laws. If it was a good idea, they would support it. If it was a bad idea, they would seek to amend it or defeat it.

The amendment, which has come from the Senate, specifically says that judges must take into account the racial origin of the person being sentenced. I know this is probably well-intentioned. I think probably many members in the House, myself included, have knowledge of aboriginal people. We know some who have really been behind the eight ball a lot in their lives.

I taught a number of native students at the technical institute. I always felt they were somehow disadvantaged because of their previous education and it was difficult for them to catch up. I tried as much as I could to help them, in addition to the help I gave to my other students. That is the way to bring these people on board. To tell them that they are not equal or that we will not care if they commit a crime is wrong.

I need to clarify this. There is this impression that because there are so many aboriginals in our jails we need to have sentencing laws which try to counteract what is a bias in the courts.

My colleague from Surrey previously mentioned this in the debate and it needs to be underlined. I do not believe that there is a single aboriginal in a Canadian jail who was put there because he was aboriginal. I have more faith in our justice system than the government does. If that is the case, if the system is biased against them at the court level, then we should fix that at the court level to ensure that everybody is treated equally.

If the Senate would have come with an amendment stating that aboriginal people would be sentenced 50% more than other people, then all of us would have been up in arms. If someone would have said that aboriginals were to be sentenced more harshly than non-aboriginals, I believe every Liberal would have risen in objection to such an amendment. I believe every member on this side would have screamed in protest at such an absurd bill.

However, the corollary of the amendment that is before us is very simple. It says that sentencing of non-aboriginals will be more severe. How can we simply put a different group into that same sentence and not recognize that it is just as bad? If it is bad to say that aboriginals will get an extra sentence, then it is equally bad to say that non-aboriginals will get an additional sentence or one which is harsher.

If we stop to think about it, it is totally clear how wrong and absurd the amendment. What frustrates the dickens out of me, if I dare use that kind of non-parliamentary language, is that we probably all recognize that this is a wrongheaded notion which needs to be corrected. We should have the ability in the House of Commons to reject that amendment without having to call an election. My goodness, this is totally absurd.

I want to say something about the purpose of the law, specifically regarding young offenders.

I do not need a law to tell me that I shall not murder. I have that law written in my heart. It was taught to me in my youth. It has been reinforced through my whole life. If I lived in a country in which there was no law against murder, I still would not murder anyone. I do not need a law which tells me not to rape a woman. I will not do it in any case.

Then one could ask this. If we in Canada are such wonderful people that we would not do these things, why should we have the law? The law has one purpose only. It is to restrain those who do not have a built in law. That is the purpose of the law. People who would not do it anyway do not need the law. However, for those who would, the law becomes a restraining power. It ensures that those people who would offend the lives others, their personal safety or their property shall be restrained. That is the purpose.

To my knowledge this is an aspect of the amendment which has not been mentioned yet, and I listened quite carefully throughout the day when we started to debate the amendment from the Senate. The act of the law to restrain the lawbreaker should apply as much to the aboriginal as to others because we do not want them to break the law.

If we have a law that says that because there are so many others of a particular race in our jails, we will not punish that race as harshly, it reduces the restraint aspect for the aboriginals and consequently does them a huge disservice because it removes the disincentive for them to commit crimes which are against society.

I do not believe murder is right whether it is in Canada, the United States or any other country. Nor do I believe murder is right if it is done in an aboriginal home or a non-aboriginal home. The principle is the same. The restraint to people of committing these crimes must be the same. We cannot give the message to the aboriginals that they care less, therefore we will restrain them less when they have in their minds to do wrong. It really is a wrongheaded notion and one that needs to be corrected. It is a notion that we cannot let slip by.

In my debate here, part of my purpose is to ensure that we prevent this racist law from being passed. Mention has been made that it is in some other laws. It ought not to be there either. We cannot justify a wrong because it exists in another location. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

I am appealing to Liberal members. It is in their power to put a brake on this type of thing which we do not want in our country. On Monday there is a caucus meeting. If it were not for the time allocation and the pushed vote, maybe there would be time for them to discuss this in caucus. Maybe they could say that they do not want to be the party in Canada that goes down in history as having entrenched into laws policies, principles and sentencing laws that are based on race. Maybe they could say that they do not want to be called the Liberal racist party of Canada. That is something they should want to avoid.

Therefore this amendment needs to be defeated. I say to my Liberal colleagues to simply do what is right, to stand in their places when the vote is called, and say “Notwithstanding that this is what is being decided and notwithstanding that we have these whipped votes, I am going to do what is right this time”.

Those members would find that if enough of them did what was right, they would not be punished by their party. I do not believe the Prime Minister would kick 40 of them out. He would not push himself into a position of a minority government simply because a number of his members exercised their own brains and did what was right.

I appeal to them to stand for what is right, to stand up and vote against this amendment, to stand and go down in history as doing what is right for the country and assure equality of Canadians, not differences based on their race.

Your body language, Mr. Speaker, tells me I should interrupt myself.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As usual the hon. member for Elk Island has read the body language right on, but he will still have approximately seven minutes remaining when we resume the debate. We will now proceed to statements by members.

Peter Gzowski

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the tributes to Peter Gzowski, a great person and Canadian. Mr. Gzowski touched all our lives in various ways, whether it be his radio shows, his writings or his personality.

Peter Gzowski exemplified the Canadian image and helped to define our modern culture. He gave all Canadians insight into the far off reaches of the country and had a way of intriguing minds and captivating hearts.

His great-grandfather, Sir Casimir Gzowski, played a significant entrepreneurial role in my riding of Erie--Lincoln, being the owner of an engineering company that built the International Railway Bridge across the Niagara River at Fort Erie, as well as the Grand Trunk Railway from Toronto to Sarnia. He also was the first chair of the Niagara Parks Commission.

The Gzowski family's contributions to Canadian society and Niagara will always be remembered. On behalf of Erie--Lincoln residents I extend our heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of Peter Gzowski.