Debates of Jan. 30th, 2003

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 5. Earlier I stood on behalf of my constituents and addressed my comments with respect to the other groupings. Bill C-13 is an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. We oppose the bill unless it is amended.

There are various amendments in Group No. 5. I will go over them one by one. It is just coincidence that all the amendments happen to be from a Liberal member, who has worked very hard on this whole issue. Likewise, the members of this caucus have worked very hard, particularly the former leader of our party, Mr. Preston Manning. Our chief senior health critic, as well as the deputy health critic, has also worked very hard on this issue as have many members from other parties.

The bill proposes prohibitions through the Criminal Code on certain assisted human reproduction practices and would authorize the regulation of other issues under licence. It would create an agency to operate a licensing regime, monitor activity and keep records.

I would like to reiterate the recommendation of the Canadian Alliance in the minority report:

That the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the Statutory Declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”.

Human embryos are early human lives that deserve respect and protection. I would request that a three year moratorium be imposed on experiments on human embryos until the potential of adult stem cells can be fully developed.

I strongly support health sciences research and development and research on adult stem cells. We must narrow the conditions of research. AHR should be more tightly regulated. I support an agency to regulate the sector. AHR clinics would have to be licensed and regulated by an agency created by the bill.

This is an international race of scientists on biotechnology, embryonic research, stem cell research and other fields of human research or biotech research, to accomplish what? To accomplish certain things, to find better cures for various diseases, cancers, MS and many other diseases. Why not do it in a way that is more efficient and without any sacrifice? That can be done by stem cell research rather than embryonic research.

The same results could be accomplished by stem cell research, or at least at the embryonic stage of scientific research we have in this field at this moment. We would like to explore the possibilities of accomplishing as much as we can through stem cell research. We are requesting a moratorium on embryonic research so that stem cell research can be fully explored. We need to completely fund the research and encourage scientists to go that route.

There are various motions that need to be specified. I would like to particularly comment on a few of the motions. Motion No. 80 specifies that research using human embryos should not only be approved by the agency, but by a research ethics board and a peer review. Also, because of the gravity of embryonic research, any extra level of oversight or review should be supported. We strongly support that motion.

We also support Motion No. 82, which places the onus on researchers to explain to the agency, “ the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources”.

Similar to the original recommendation of the health committee, the research on human embryos can only be permitted if no other biological material is available. Since adult stem cell research is much more promising and there are no ethical problems, why not fund, develop and enhance the scientific activities in that field of scientific research? Adult stem cells are being used today to treat Parkinson's disease, leukemia, MS and other diseases. Therefore researchers should focus their efforts on adult stem cell research.

On Motion No. 89, a clause already exists in the bill which states that the agency may suspend the licence of a licensee who violates the act in accordance with those regulations. Motion No. 89 states that the agency should suspend such a licensee in accordance with the regulations. Given the gravity of assisted human reproduction, it seems appropriate that licensees found guilty of contravening the act should have their privileges suspended. That is the regulatory control we want the agency to have so that it can be effective in implementing its mandate.

Motion No. 90, which we support, adds a right of appeal to licensees who have had licences suspended for alleged violations of the act. That seems to be appropriate. In other words, we need to have effective control keeping in mind the ethical issues involved. By promoting stem cell research, I am sure we are not only exploring that field of science which could be effective without any sacrifice or damage to human life, but at the same time exploring the possibilities where stem cell research can find better cures and more diversified usage.

I support a ban on therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, the buying or selling of embryos and paid surrogacy. All these issues are very important. There is a huge area of ethical issues involved. I am sure that many of my colleagues who have already spoken on this issue have highlighted those issues.

Another concern is that children conceived by AHR will not have the right to know the identity of their parents without the written consent by the parents to reveal it. I think it is very important for future children, who will be born through this process, to have the right to know their parents.

Our party, which is more concerned about family issues than other parties in the House, want to strengthen the institution of families by taking those things into consideration. I am sure stronger families make stronger communities and stronger communities make a stronger nation. We have to look at this type of issue to strengthen the institution of families.

With regard to surrogacy, repaying surrogate mothers could result in effective commercial surrogacy. Becoming a surrogate is a very serious matter, to the extent that the health committee saw fit to amend the bill to prohibit surrogacy for women under the age of 21. The research highlights the importance given by the health committee, and I am sure that the government must look to that recommendation.

Surrogacy can also have profound effects on relationships between husbands and wives, within families, between the surrogate and the adoptive parents, not to mention the surrogate children themselves. All these things will affect the institution of family and the relationships of different members in the family. As I have already highlighted, it is one of the most important issues to strengthen a nation.

I will conclude by saying that we should encourage stem cell research and put a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research. All these ethical issues must be taken into consideration. Therefore I support all the motions in Group No. 5.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair would like to take a moment before resuming debate. As we have proceeded through the debate on Bill C-13 and upon closer scrutiny of the publication of the Order Paper and Notice Paper, some clerical and typographical errors have come to light. I want to keep the House up to speed as we go through this, as they come to light and corrections are made.

For instance, in Motion No. 90, article 42(1) reads “The Agency may, in accordance with”. The line should read “The Agency shall”. The word “may” is removed and is replaced by the word “shall”.

I would like to repeat this for the French. Motion No. 90, which is a motion to amend clause 42(1), reads as follows:

“42.(1) L'Agence peut, conformément aux”

The word “peut” should be struck and replaced with the word “doit”. Line 36 would then read as follows:

“42.(1) L'Agence doit, conformément aux”

We have one other matter to deal with. I want to bring to your attention a correction to Motion No. 93 in Group No. 6 standing in the name of the member for Mississauga South.

Motion No. 93 should read:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 66, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 12 on page 33.

In French, the motion should read as follows:

Que le projet de loi C-13, à l'article 66, soit modifié par suppression des lignes 10 à 12, page 33.

Consequently, the voting table will be adjusted accordingly.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak again to Bill C-13. Yesterday I spoke to the motions in Group No. 4. Today we are dealing with motions in Group No. 5 proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South and my colleague who spoke just before me and who went through each and every motion giving his support. In general, I do not want to go back and say the same things that he has said.

As I said yesterday, the issue of reproductive technology has created much concern among Canadians and, as such, we need to look at it. As my colleague mentioned, the former leader of the Reform Party took a keen interest in this issue while he was a member and came up with a lot of recommendations. At the same time a committee was set up to study the whole issue of reproductive technology and it came up with recommendations.

We have all been concerned about this issue for a long time but our concerns became bigger when, as I mentioned yesterday, we were advised that the first human cloning had been done by Clonaid. We are concerned that unless and until we have rules and regulations in place, we will not know in what direction this new research will go. Therefore, by introducing this bill, the government is attempting to address some of the concerns surrounding this issue.

However, as I stated yesterday, the concern we have with the bill is that it has left a lot of loopholes. These loopholes can allow the concerns people are expressing to fall through the cracks and we would not know what direction it will end up going.

Yesterday I stated my concerns about the transparency of the agency and about allowing the minister to appoint people to it who may or may not have a conflict. Even though he or she may or may not appoint people who have a conflict of interest, I fail to understand why the legislation could not include clearcut guidelines as to who can serve on those agencies because that agency, at the end of the day, will be the one that will set guidelines, rules and ethics on this subject.

There are two points on this subject that many of my colleagues have talked about. One has to do with the availability of the adult stem cell as well as research using human embryos. Unanimously on both sides of the House, no one seems to have any difficulty with adult stem cell research because of its availability and a lot of other things. However the bill also talks about using human embryos to a certain degree. I would like to read this so that those who are listening and watching television will know what the bill is proposing in reference to using human embryos.

The bill would allow for experiments on human embryos under four conditions: first, only in vitro embryos left over from IVF process can be used for research; second, embryos cannot be created for research with one exception, that they can be created for the purpose of improving or providing instructions in AHR procedures; and third, written permission must be given by the donor, although the donor in this case could be singular. As we know there are two donors, a male and a female, but all the bill mentions is a single donor. Fourth, all human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days if they are not frozen.

When we talk about human embryos, we were all human embryos. It is a matter of concern as to how far we can use human embryos. Because of this concern, there needs to be further and more thorough debate on the issue. As such, the Canadian Alliance has asked for a three year moratorium so that when the first review of the bill comes up, we can look at this and see in what direction we want go. We should go down the path of adult stem cell research first and put a moratorium on human embryo research. Then we can see where that one leads us before we venture into human embryos.

There are a lot of pros and cons to this. I am sure that there perhaps is better use of human embryos for medical purposes but I am extremely uncomfortably even with the thought of using human embryos at this given time.

The bill lays the foundation for the use of human embryos. We need to stop that at this stage, vote for the adult stem cell and wait three years, as has been recommended in committee. Then we can see where we have gone before we venture out and under what conditions and stronger guidelines we do that. I do not want the situation that has happened this year, as was stated yesterday, that somebody could announce the cloning of a human being.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again speaking about the genesis of life or the beginning of life.

Some time ago I read an interesting article in which the issue of when life begins was debated. There are some who believe it begins right at the moment of conception. There are others who say that it is somewhere around the end of the first trimester or during the second trimester. Then Canada has an absurd law that states that human life does not begin until the totally formed child is exuded from the mother's body. That is a very inadequate definition, especially in view of the fact that even those who argue the viability argument, which I also reject, know that a pre-born child is viable any time between eight or nine months after fertilization. We are in a real bog when we ask when does life begins.

A very interesting statement about in vitro fertilization was made in this article by a researcher from France, whose name I unfortunately do not remember. He was speaking about in vitro fertilization and inadvertently used a phrase which settled the issue. He said that the moment that the sperm was injected into the egg, in the little Petri dish, lo and behold, cell division began and life began. He was not a pro-lifer or anything like that. He was involved in research and gave very little regard to the moral value of human life. He came to the conclusion that there was life even in that cell.

Bill C-13 deals with the whole issue of human reproduction and assisted reproduction for couples who have difficulty having children. We are dealing with the issue of cells springing to life. Once there is life, there is a special and sacred quality to that chemical mix. Suddenly there is an actual life there. It is an intriguing idea.

Inanimate objects do not have life. We stand in here surrounded by tables, desks and other inanimate things. Beautiful as the stone work is, it is inanimate. It is not living. If it someday crumbles and falls, as we believe it will sometime in the next two or three thousand years, it will be sad. If it is a nice building we will regret it, but it is not the end of the world.

I remember not long ago one of my friends was in a car accident. I did not ask how the car fared. Instead asked him if he was okay or if he was injured. I asked if anyone else had been seriously hurt or if anyone had been killed. We immediately think of the humans involved in these kinds of things. Vehicles, whether they are nice or not, are replaceable or repairable.

We recognize the presence of life in other entities. For example, for many years we have been talking about endangered species. Even when I was a youngster, I remember the talk about the expiration of the whooping crane. They were an endangered species back then and I believe they still are today, although measures have been taken to preserve them.

Many strong penalties were brought in to preserve their lives even in the embryonic stage. The penalty was very high for anyone caught interfering with a nest of whooping crane eggs. The penalty was in the thousands of dollars and even subject to jail time. It was recognized there that unhatched egg represented, even though not fully developed, another whooping crane.

When we deal with the human genome, as it is called, it is another human being. I believe that very strongly and that is the basic definition we must come to grips with and grapple with when we make decisions that are so important to us.

Using these entities then for research is part of the subject of the bill. The bill deals not only with assisted reproduction but also with research and helping to find cures for diseases and other things. An embryo is not as clearly defined as a full grown adult or at least a fully developed child at birth. It is less developed than that, along various stages, along that long continuum of cell division and development. We must recognize that it is human and we must treat it with great dignity.

All the motions in Group No. 5 were proposed by the member for Mississauga South and deal with the dignity of human life. As such, I have absolutely no hesitation but to declare that I am ready to support every one of these amendments. They are very worthy.

I presume that I will have still about three minutes left when the debate on this bill resumes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair does not doubt that when it does come back to the floor of the House that the member for Elk Island will be present and he will certainly have that time remaining in his intervention.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canada Pension Plan

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by reading out Motion No. 197 so that everyone is aware of exactly what it is:

That, in the opinion of this House the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

For a lot of people it was quite a surprising thing to know that workers' compensation payments were not considered pensionable employment. There is no question that if a person is receiving workers' compensation payments, if they have had a workplace injury and if they have been in the workplace working, they would have been paying into the Canada pension plan, unless of course their income was so very low that they did not meet the yearly qualifying amount. I would not doubt that there are some industries out there that would still be proud of the fact that they have workers who might be working a good number of hours and still do not have to make CPP payments.

The bottom line is that it was recognized that when a person works a certain number of hours and makes a certain income, they pay Canada pension plan premiums and as a result they receive the benefits of the Canada pension plan.

I want to thank the members of the subcommittee on private members' business for choosing to make this motion votable. This will allow all hon. members of the House to stand and be counted on this extremely important issue.

The issue we are dealing with here is very important to me as a member of Parliament for the Churchill riding. I am proposing that the Government of Canada seek to extend the Canada pension plan to injured workers receiving workers' compensation payments. My motion would do this by including workers' compensation payments in the definition of pensionable employment found in the Canada Pension Plan.

The economy of my constituency is heavily dependent on resource industries like mining and forestry which suffer from higher rates of workplace injury than most others. Over the course of my life in working in the health care sector, I saw far too many people who had been injured in the course of doing their jobs.

I know how workplace injuries can take a terrible toll on the victims, their families and their communities. When a person who wants nothing more than to work hard and make a living suffers an injury on the job, the physical injury is bad enough, but oftentimes the financial injury is just as devastating to the individual and the family.

Provincial workers' compensation programs are one of the ways we as a society try to help the victims of workplace accidents with their physical and financial injuries. Most people recognize that if they were injured and unable to work, they too would want a little help and support workers' compensation programs on the principle that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated ourselves.

In the initiating years of the workers' compensation program, it came into being not to provide some kind of insurance for workers. It came into being to protect employers from being sued for work related accidents that resulted in an employee being injured.

In the United States we often see advertisements offering help to get claims against employers. In Canada we chose to do things differently. There was a sort of no fault system put in place called workers' compensation. Over the years that has changed and workers have received less and less benefits from workers' compensation programs throughout the country. I think most provinces have found ways to slice away at what workers are receiving.

The purpose of this motion is not to get the federal government involved with provincial workers' compensation programs. As we all know, workers' compensation falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The New Democratic Party is committed to a decentralized asymmetrical federation and it is not our policy to support federal intrusion into a provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague from the Bloc was extremely pleased that was to be the case, but I am sure that is not the only reason she will be speaking this evening. Rather, this motion is geared toward correcting what I see as an oversight in the Canada pension plan that unduly penalizes injured workers.

Before I go on to explain exactly how it penalizes injured workers and how my motion would fix it, I should say that although the Canada pension plan is a federal program, I recognize that it does not apply to the citizens of Quebec.

The Quebec government has exercised its right to opt out of the Canada pension plan and has instead put in place its own program known as the QPP. My proposed change to the CPP will have absolutely no effect on injured workers in Quebec or the Quebec pension plan. Nevertheless I hope that I will be able to count on all my hon. colleagues from Quebec to vote in favour of this motion when the time comes so that injured workers in the rest of the country can benefit.

Regarding how the Canada pension plan penalizes injured workers, the key point to keep in mind is that a retiree's Canada pension plan eligibility is calculated based upon the number of months of pensionable employment. Since the Canada pension plan does not currently include workers' compensation under the definition of pensionable employment, each month a person spends on workers' compensation counts against them when they retire and their CPP eligibility is calculated. Each month on workers' compensation is treated like the person was not working and had no income. This is hardly fair since a person on workers' compensation is by definition unable to work, and not unwilling to work or without a job.

How does this penalize an injured worker? When a person retires and claims the Canada pension plan benefit, the amount of the pension depends upon the average pensionable income during one's contributory period. The contributory period begins at age 18 or 1996, whichever is later, and goes until retirement. Basically it covers a person's entire adult working life, so each month one does not have any pensionable income, the average income is lower and the pension is lower. This is not a fair way to treat a person who is unable to work because of an injury.

Currently the Canada pension plan allows what is called a 15% dropout period. This allows a person to exclude 15% of one's working months from the CPP calculation. By excluding one's lowest earning months, it raises the average earnings and the final pension amount.

While the 15% dropout can partially mitigate the impact of an injury on someone's pension, it alone is not enough to offset the penalties injured workers face from the Canada pension plan. This is because most of us earn our lowest incomes in our youth and higher incomes later in our working lives. It does not take much of our working life to amass the small percentage of months that we are allowed to exclude from our CPP contributory period. Many of us have used up this time by our mid-twenties.

The problem for someone who suffers an injury and has to go on workers' compensation is that suddenly they find the month they are injured eating up the small percentage of months they are allowed to exclude from their Canada pension plan calculation.

Now consider what happens to a person who suffers a severe injury requiring a lengthy period of rehabilitation such as an amputation, a severe burn or an electrocution. The lost months of CPP eligibility dramatically reduce that person's retirement income. Think about it. The more seriously a person is injured, the more they are penalized in the pension calculation. Is this how a just and caring society should be treating its injured and disabled? This is morally wrong and my motion is about changing that.

At the heart of the matter, this really is a moral issue. I hope I have not been boring hon. members this evening with this history lesson on the Canada pension plan. Let me boil this down to its core moral argument. The Canada pension plan was created to provide Canadian workers with a secure retirement income and we should stop excluding injured workers from its full benefit.

This is not some abstract problem that I am trying to solve with this motion. Real people with real injuries are seeing their retirement incomes and their ability to live with dignity in their old age eroded because workers' compensation is excluded from the CPP.

The very existence of this problem came to my attention because it was happening to some of my constituents who then came to see me about it. These were hardworking people who had suffered the misfortune of serious injuries that forced them onto workers' compensation during their prime earning years. Those lost years have had a serious impact on their pension incomes, making it more difficult for them to live with the dignity they deserve in retirement.

The same thing could happen to anyone who gets injured on the job. One mishap on the job site and a person could be facing retirement in poverty. This is not a threat Canadians should have to live with.

I know there is a stigma surrounding injured workers in some people's eyes. Some people look at injured workers and think they are just milking their injuries. I think anyone who has had any experience with workers' compensation would know how mistaken this impression really is.

The reality is that less than 1% of workers' compensation claims are fraudulent. However, as with so many services and benefits, until people are in need, they really do not understand.

I urge all hon. members not to let the unfortunate stigma that surrounds injured workers impair their judgment on this motion. Instead members should ask themselves how they would want the system to work if they, their spouse or their child were injured.

I know that through the Canada Pension Plan Act there must be agreement of the provinces for changes to the legislation. What I have before the House today is the start of that process to get the provinces on side to make the changes so that we do not see those workers who have had to go on workers' compensation unjustly treated.

I recognize there may be different ways of doing that. We should be open to that. I am quite understanding of that process.

Throughout the country there is no one set workers' compensation plan. In some provinces more than others workers receive even less payments on workers' compensation. Even after being on workers' compensation, a good number of workers may not be able to go back to work.

There is no rule out there that says a person will have a job forever. A person may have lost not just their valuable earning years; a person may have lost their opportunity to earn.

A number of years ago I was shocked when a colleague's 16-year-old son while working at his summer employment quite badly damaged his arm by getting it caught in a conveyor belt. I was shocked that if he were to receive some kind of compensatory assistance or help, everything would be based on the wage he was making at that time. He was a student being paid minimum wage and that would have been how things would have been geared even if it had been a more serious injury.

During my first year as a member of Parliament, a 19-year-old man went into a workplace with no proper training ahead of time and ended up blind. Again, a life which possibly would end up on welfare forever after something like this happened because workers' compensation plans are different throughout the country.

What we as the federal Parliament under the federal acts must do is ensure that the plans we have in place benefit those workers in spite of what happens in each and every province. During those periods of time when workers are on workers' compensation they should be able to at least claim those benefit times.

Again, because it varies from province to province it is hard to get the exact figures as to how each province would put this in place and what the costs would be. Without question they automatically say it is going to be huge costs for workers' compensation.

I say to each and every one of us that may very well be. However, there are alternate ways of dealing with this and I already know of a few suggestions that have come up. As we proceed with the debate, we will come up with more of those figures. It is difficult to obtain specific figures from the provinces because they automatically like to say it will cost them too much.

I would say to them that those workers should have been working, but they were injured in the course of their employment. They should not have a double jeopardy against them and be denied the full benefit of the Canada pension plan because of that injury. They were injured in the workplace. We need to come up with a system where they are not losing out.

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Churchill. As we discuss the motion to amend the Canada pension plan, we should keep in mind that last year was the 75th anniversary of the first public pension plan in Canada.

In 1927, the government of the day, led by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, implemented the first Old Age Pensions Act. Those first pensions were based on a study of income and were very modest by today's standards. They were $240 a year. Eligibility was very restrictive. Only British subjects aged 70 or older, who had been living in Canada for 20 years or more, were eligible.

At the time, this was a radical change in social policies. It became the basis for an overall system of public pensions and income security programs that make Canada today one of the best and most progressive countries in the world.

The old age security program, the Canada pension plan, and the Quebec pension plan, in Quebec, are the foundation of the retirement income system in Canada.

A key element of the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan is the disability benefits that provide income to Canadians who cannot earn a living because of a serious disability.

To have a sense of the importance of these benefits for Canadians, note that during the 2000 fiscal year, the Canada Pension Plan paid out $2.6 billion to some 280,000 disability claimants who had contributed to the plan, and an additional $245 million to the children of these contributors.

This is the main long term disability benefits program in Canada. Each year, some 65,000 new claims are received and processed.

When we take a close look, it is fair to say that Canada's public pension system has truly been a successful experiment.

From its modest beginnings in 1927, we have developed an income support system that is the envy of the entire world.

Yet, we rarely hear public debate about the system. Millions of Canadians use it and benefit from it every month, but they rarely give it any thought.

I would say that we do not hear public debate about the Canada pension plan for the very reason that it does work well.

We all know the saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Today, however, we are being asked to fix something that is supposedly broken, and how? By amending the way pensionable earnings are defined by the Canada Pension Plan.

I am sure that the hon. member on the other side has good reasons for wanting to make this amendment, but I do not believe the system is defective, as she is attempting to suggest today.

In reality, if we change the definition of pensionable employment as suggested by this motion, we are going to create a precedent which might end up creating new and more serious problems for this and a number of other pieces of legislation.

For example, if we accept the inclusion of workers' compensation payments as pensionable income for CPP, why would we not accept other forms of social transfer, such as employment insurance benefits or provincial or municipal social benefits?

If we act unilaterally to amend the definition in the federal act, how will the provinces view it?

We need to keep in mind that the federal government is jointly responsible for the Canada pension plan, along with the provinces.

For example, in the case of disability benefits, the Canada pension plan and the various provincial workers' compensation plans can be taken into account for personal disability benefit claims.

Over the years, the two levels of government have worked hard to ensure that benefits to the disabled are integrated on both the federal and the provincial levels.

It would certainly be impertinent of the federal government to decide to unilaterally amend the definition of eligibility without prior consultation with its provincial partners.

The technical reasons that I mentioned show why the House should not support this motion. This does not mean that we should not ensure that all disabled workers in Canada receive all the benefits they are entitled to.

Since we must do so, I want to reassure the member for Churchill that this government, and I would say that this is true for all governments in Canada, wants to ensure that workers who become disabled are fully informed of the disability benefits to which they are entitled and can receive them.

That is why the Income Security Programs Branch of Human Resources Development Canada is working in close collaboration with each of the provincial workers compensation plans to improve and simplify disability benefit claims and the eligibility process.

It is also why the department has established an active public relations communications program that provides useful information on Canada pension plan disability benefits and how this program works.

There is always a delicate balance when it comes to managing a program as large and as complex as Canada pension plan disability benefits. Sometimes, certain cases give rise to discontent. The hon. member opposite is perhaps seeking to resolve a specific case with this general amendment, but agreeing to this motion would mean changing the definition of pensionable employment for everyone.

There could be unintended repercussions that could undermine a system that has worked well for many Canadians and which is talked about in other countries.

This government is willing to make changes to the Canada pension plan whenever all stakeholders clearly identify a need.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Churchill for bringing this to our attention today. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada pension plan to include worker's compensation payments.

I want to bring to the House's attention a few problems and questions that this would raise. A major problem would be the precedent that it would set if the motion were to be enshrined in legislation, that is, accepting that insurance payments constitute income. By accepting the premise that insurance payments are income it would cause a number questions to be raised.

First, where do we draw the line? There are many people who are on monthly disability insurances, both provincial and federal as well as private insurance payments. Would people receiving CPP disability have it considered as income as well? That seems to be a problem.

The motivation for this motion comes from the fact that CPP does not collect premiums from people receiving provincial workers' compensation benefits. The result is that individuals injured on the job and receiving WCP for an extended period of time would see their CPP pension decrease at retirement since they are unable to contribute while injured.

The federal and provincial governments have been reluctant to implement this change as it would increase the CPP liability without a revenue generating mechanism to cover the increased cost. This raises a couple of other questions at that point.

There is the question of who would mandate that employees pay 4.95% of their disability cheque. It would be a political nightmare. Presumably, the CPP would be expected not to do this, but simply to take this on as an additional cost with no premium revenue to help bear it. It would make the CPP even less sustainable.

To keep the CPP sustainable both the employer and the employee need to pay 4.95% of that employee's income, or nearly 10%. Who would pay the employer's half of that income? That is also a question that has to be asked.

This measure could leave CPP recipients who were injured on the job with more money at retirement. This would lessen of course the need for dependence on family members or reliance on other social programs. There are, however, some other problems that would favour those close to retirement at the expense of current and future contributors or younger relatives who might be left paying more of the bill.

There are also some provisions already given in the CPP that allow for the deduction of the lowest earning years. Individuals can take 15% of the lowest years of their contributory period off their record and thus keep their average up.

The Canada pension plan calculations include both how much and how long people have contributed. However, to protect a person some parts of the contributory period can be dropped and these periods include if a person stops working or earnings become lower while raising children under the age of seven, or if there are low earning months after the age of 65, or any month a person would be eligible for a Canada pension plan disability pension. So, there are provisions already in the plan to average out the low years.

The Canadian Alliance highly values retirement security and that is a vital element of later independence. We believe the government would always have to honour obligations and fund the current programs to retired Canadians and those close to retirement. We do not want to see that dropped, but we also believe that we must maintain support for low income seniors.

However, we believe in providing future retirees with greater choice. There could be choices made between simply the mandatory government plan or a mandatory personal plan. We also believe in eliminating the foreign investment restriction for retirement investments in order to allow individuals a greater opportunity to save for their own retirement and make some of the decisions on their own. We believe, then, in giving Canadians greater control over their own affairs.

A number of questions have been raised. Of course there is one that I guess a lot of people would raise as far as giving people freedom of choice is concerned in order to be able to prepare for their own retirement. We might raise this question. If the candidate for coronation can register ships in foreign domains, then why should ordinary Canadians not be allowed to have greater foreign investments or greater private investments for their own retirement? There are a number of questions.

The CPP benefits are modest in the first place and it would seem harsh to deny a few extra dollars to someone who had the misfortune of getting injured at work and was prohibited from contributing to the plan. However, there is another question. Would that be harsh and detrimental or would it in fact be more important to leave that worker's compensation payments fully in the worker's hands to help meet immediate and pressing needs?

I remember my first job in Canada. In the first week, I was inadvertently injured on the job. As the weeks went on compensation payments came to me and they were very much appreciated, but I did not get rich on them and I was glad to keep it all without losing some of it.

At first glance, it would appear that disallowing workers' compensation benefits as income for CPP contributions would constitute a penalty to future recipients. However, to consider these benefits as income would incur a large liability on the already unsustainable CPP program and it would create, as I have already mentioned, a number of other complex issues.

I bring these things to the attention of the House. We need to weigh all sides as we make up our minds on how to vote on the member's motion.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall read the motion of my colleague from Churchill for the benefit of Quebecers. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include workers' compensation payments.

I would like to congratulate my colleague for her initiative on behalf of those receiving workers' compensation. We are very well aware that they have not chosen to join the minority of those who cannot work. They are not necessarily going to be off work long; it could be weeks or months. Sometimes, it may be a year or two, and all that time they will not have the possibility a worker has to contribute to the Canada pension plan.

I agree with my colleague's motion and find it innovative. I see this as doing justice to workers who have had an accident on the job.

I would like to see some statistics, and I am sure that my colleague could probably provide the committee with them when her motion comes before the committee, but there are certainly figures that show that very few workers who suffer workplace injuries are affected by them for five or ten years. Only a minority of workers' compensation claimants suffer for five or ten years. So, why punish them and prevent them from receiving a pension equal to what they would have received when it comes time to collect it? I fully support with this motion.

I heard the members who spoke to this motion. The government is quite nervous about this issue; it has a very mixed feeling about this. It boasted about the CPP, which is celebrating its 75th year.

Every time an innovative bill or motion is proposed in the House, something that would help the average person, people who pay taxes their whole lives long, something to help them through a rough patch, the government looks away. It says it is afraid that it could be dangerous and cost too much.

I am not prepared to forgive this attitude. I believe that when someone suffers a workplace injury, it is often the result of the negligence of employers. I do not see why workers should be penalized for this.

I would like to talk about what happens in Quebec. We solved this problem several years ago. When people suffer a workplace injury and cannot work for a certain amount of time, they are referred to the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, known as the CSST in Quebec. The CSST then takes over. Workers are not penalized. They receive the financial assistance they need through the commission. They also continue to contribute to the Quebec pension plan. As a result, they do not lose any weeks, months or years. When it comes time to retire, they can lead a normal life.

If we do not offer this to people, when it comes time to collect their pension, they wind up on social assistance. What does the federal government do? Once again, it passes the problem on to the provinces.

Why not be fair? Quebec looks after people under Quebec's jurisdiction, who fall under the Quebec labour code. We are pulling our weight. Why is it that the federal government cannot do the same for those who come under the federal system? I can already hear the Liberals saying, “Yes, but not all the provinces do that”.

Let us teach by example, once again. Let us try to be innovative. We tried this so many times here in the House.

As you are aware, I introduced a bill, among others, on scab labour that my colleagues supported. This bill will come back before the House and we will discuss it again. This is an innovative bill. There is one in Quebec, but not all the provinces have one. That is okay. Let us be innovative. It does not cost the government anything. We can also talk about precautionary cessation of work for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. All these initiatives aim to help workers in this country. What is being done? Nothing.

I think that this is a very good motion. I also think—we will see what the Conservatives have to say—that our colleague from Churchill is open-minded enough to make certain amendments aimed at reassuring certain parties. We could do it, we could amend it and specify certain things, and I think she would be open to that.

Really, I would have liked people to have kept an open mind, especially the government members. But I do not think they did. We were even told that this could infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Not at all. It is clear and specific; we are talking about the Canada pension plan.

Exactly which jobs are affected is set out; they include employment in Canada by a foreign government, employment of aboriginals, employment by Her Majesty in right of a province. These individuals are clearly identified.

I do not want to hear that this will affect the provinces because that is entirely untrue. This is a way, once again, of avoiding the issue and saying that it is no good and that it will cost money. Yes, it will cost money. How much? It is difficult to say.

There are not 1,000 injured workers a year receiving disability benefits specifically and exactly for three weeks each. It is impossible to give exacts. We can give an estimate, but we cannot give exact numbers; that is impossible.

Is it important to know? In any event, we will still have to pick up these people and provide benefits to them elsewhere. We will still have to support them. Why not give them the dignity of living off something they earned? They worked for that their whole life; they ran into a rough patch, they had an accident. It is true that some will remain unwell for the rest of their life and some will remain disabled, but they will not abuse the system. They simply need help.

Why not give them a decent pension plan, rather than abandoning them to social assistance when they are at an age when they should be enjoying life. Is there anything more demeaning for a person who has already had a difficult life than to be 65 and on social assistance because they are not entitled to a decent pension? This should not even happen any more, especially not with the government surplus.

Somewhere I think we are able, as I said, to reassure certain colleagues, to maybe make some amendments so that there are very clear guidelines to prevent abuse. I understand there were some concerns about insurance and so on. Perhaps there could be stricter guidelines.

The fact remains that we should be able to compensate these people. We are not giving them a gift. They are considered workers. Premiums should therefore be calculated for the time they are off work. When they go back to work, they will begin paying premiums again, but they will not be penalized.

In conclusion, the hon. member is very lucky because her motion is votable. I hope she will have the government's support. I did not get the sense that there was very strong support so we should try to convince the government to get on board and move the necessary amendments to satisfy this House.

I wish her great success and I hope this motion will pass.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on Motion No. 197. I congratulate the member for Churchill on bringing in a very good motion.

We always need to be concerned about the needs of workers, especially injured workers. We all know of many people in our own respective areas, in our ridings, who come to see us from time to time, who have many problems associated with being injured and with CPP and so on.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

On the surface it seems to be a very reasonable proposition in my view. If an employee is injured on the job, the employee leaves work hopefully for a temporary period of time to effect recovery and if need be, rehabilitation. During that period the worker receives workers' compensation benefits to offset wages lost which may be due to downtime, injury, illness, and so on.

The details of a given workers' compensation program varies as we are all very much aware. As the member pointed out in her speech it varies from province to province.

In Newfoundland and Labrador for example, an injured worker receives 80% of the net income before the injury. That is subject to a ceiling of about $45,500. The net income is the employee's gross income also, which is quite good. It is the gross income less the usual deductions, including the employee's CPP contributions.

I can see the logic of an employee wanting to maintain his or her CPP status. It makes sense. Hopefully after a period on workers' compensation, the worker returns to work and is then automatically faced with a gap in pensionable earnings for the time that the worker was off work.

The net effect of that is to lower the value of the Canada pension when the time comes for the person to draw Canada pension. Being able to submit CPP premiums while on workers' compensation would quite naturally help maintain the value of the Canada pension that the worker would eventually draw.

It is very important that an individual have a maximum Canada pension. A lot of workers in the workforce today, for example construction workers, do not have very good pension plans. They depend to a large extent after retirement upon savings and the maximum Canada pension. It makes sense to have a good Canada pension plan available for the worker when he or she eventually retires and draws it.

Employees of members of Parliament pay into the federal public service pension plan which may be appropriate to their status or rank. If a member's employee has a long term injury or illness, the employee can avail himself or herself of a long term disability plan which is wonderful. Upon returning to work the employee is allowed to make pension contributions retroactively. I did not know that until recently. It is to keep an unbroken record of pensionable service.

For example, an employee with 28 years of service and two years on long term disability would eventually be able to draw a Canada pension for 30 years of service. The employee would be able to pay for the two years that the employee was off work.

I cannot see why a similar arrangement could not be developed for people who have temporary absences from work and who have to go on workers' compensation.

Long term disability payments and workers' compensation payments are forms of wage loss compensation, income in lieu of wages, so why not make that kind of income pensionable? It makes sense. It would give the individual a maximum Canada pension when he or she eventually drew it.

There are a few little glitches that would have to be worked out. I mentioned one of them to the member for Churchill a moment ago. There are a few factors involved that could be worked out in committee, brought back to the House, voted upon and passed. We have to maintain a reasonable balance when we are talking about all this.

What I am talking here is that CPP premiums are paid by the employee and the employer. The employer's contributions are often referred to as payroll taxes and are regarded by many as a disincentive to the creation of employment.

Many employers pay the premiums grudgingly because it is the usual cost of having an employee. If an employer has 20 employees, naturally the employer pays quite a high bill in CPP contributions. I can only imagine that the employer, especially an individual who has a small business, would be less than eager to submit the employer's contribution for an employee who is not on the job.

The employee may not be on the job which is fine, but in the meantime, the employer has to hire a replacement worker. Of course it falls on the employer's shoulders to pay the CPP contributions for the replacement worker. It would also fall to the employer to pay the contributions, if this motion went through in its original form, for the individual who is off work as well. We have to maintain a balance because there are a lot of expenses that the employer has to look at as well.

These are little glitches that we can talk about here or in committee. I am sure we could arrive at some reasonable conclusion that would be okay as far as the member for Churchill is concerned and as far as an injured worker is concerned. We have to maintain a certain amount of balance for the employer and the employee.

Apart from the concern that I mentioned a moment ago, I have no problem with the concept of deeming workers' compensation payments pensionable income for the purposes of the Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan could be the only source of pension income a worker might have. The worker may have the kind of job that does not have a great pension plan other than the CPP which the worker will depend on eventually.

It is certainly a concept that warrants full and detailed consideration by an appropriate committee of the House. Hopefully the motion will pass.

I know members opposite have some concerns about it as well but I am sure they can be worked out to the satisfaction of all members. I think the average injured worker today deserves that kind of respect and consideration.

We all know of problems within our own ridings and our own districts. There are horror stories where people have these kind of problems and cannot get them worked out. I congratulate the member for bringing the matter before the House.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate. I would like to thank the member for Churchill for raising this particular issue.

The motion asks us to amend the definition of pensionable employment under the Canada pension plan. The effect of the motion would be to make payments received by injured workers through the various provincial workers' compensation plans pensionable earnings used to calculate both CPP contributions and benefit payments.

Although the motion deals primarily with the payment of disability benefits, it should be noted that CPP retirement pension payments would also be affected by the motion.

The subject matter of Motion No. 197 is reminiscent of a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. At that time a disability claimant, who was judged to be ineligible for CPP disability benefits, claimed that the disability program component of the Canada pension plan was discriminatory and therefore was contrary to section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The claimant in this case had received payments from the provincial workers' compensation program because of a workplace injury. He later applied for CPP disability benefits but was deemed ineligible because he did not meet the CPP's minimum contribution requirements.

He claimed that the workers' compensation payments he received from the province should be considered income for the purposes of CPP. “To do otherwise”, he said, “would be to discriminate against people like him with temporary or partial disabilities”.

However the Supreme Court did not agree. The ruling handed down in May 2000 stated clearly that the disability benefits program of the CPP did not discriminate against persons with temporary or partial disabilities.

The motion we are debating today takes us back to some of those issues that were debated in that case.

Today we are being asked to amend the definition of pensionable employment in the federal CPP legislation so that the payments by provincial workers' compensation plans would be included as employment earnings under the CPP.

The Supreme Court concluded that the CPP did not discriminate against persons with temporary or partial disabilities because the current definition of pensionable employment did not include workers' compensation benefits.

Therefore, as we consider today's motion, we should keep in mind that the Supreme Court has already turned down the argument that has been presented.

It might also be helpful for the House to understand some of the technical implications of the motion.

For example, if we agree with the motion, we could be agreeing to a potential increase in CPP contributions for both employers and employees. Asking employers to pay further employment related contributions on a workers' compensation benefit that the employer has already paid may be perceived as unfair. In fact, employees and employers have already seen an increase in contribution levels that was brought in as part of the CPP reform in 1998.

Adopting the motion would mean that the workers would be required to pay CPP contributions on their workers' compensation payments. If workers were required to pay CPP contributions, their net income would actually be lower.

It hardly seems logical to argue in favour of reducing the net income of workers who are most likely already in lower income circumstances precisely because they are disabled and cannot work to earn a fulltime income. Yet reducing the net income of disabled workers could be one of the outcomes of the motion if it were to become law.

Another concern is that the proposed motion is inconsistent with the earnings related philosophy of the CPP. We must remember that the basic purpose of the CPP is to replace lost earnings in the event of death, disability or retirement of a wage earner. That is why coverage under the plan is based on the earnings from employment. Workers' compensation benefits are not earnings from employment.

Amending the definition of pensionable employment, as the motion requests, would be contrary to the basic principle of earnings replacement, a principle that is the heart of the Canada pension plan.

Moreover, if we were to include workers' compensation payments as pensionable employment income for the CPP, we could open ourselves up to pressure to include other forms of income support such as employment insurance or social assistance payments that are not in fact earnings from employment. Based on the logic of this motion, even CPP payments themselves would be considered pensionable employment.

Taken to the extreme, we could even face pressure to include any kind of non-employment earnings in the base for the CPP such as lottery winnings, inheritance or stock market gains. Who knows what kind of precedent we would set, and that is a very important point, if we were to move away from the basic definition of pensionable employment that is serving us so well now.

In other words, from both a policy and a legislative standpoint, there are many reasons why this motion is not technically sound.

We understand and share some of the concerns of my colleague across the way. In fact, in addition to the disability program of the CPP, the government has brought in a number of new measures such as tax changes and community support programs to help meet the needs of persons with disabilities in Canada, and we will continue to do everything we can in this regard.

In my view this motion is not the best way to help Canadian workers who have become disabled.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the debate on this motion. I would like to thank the member opposite for raising the issue. I know her very well and she is well known for her concern for the less fortunate. I want to assure her that my colleagues and I on this side of the House share her concerns, especially as in this case, her concerns for people with disabilities.

I know many of the comments I will make may have been covered by other members. I want to talk about the approach that the government has taken to deal with people with disabilities and to support Canadians. As an example of our approach, I will use the opportunities fund which has created partnerships with other stakeholders so that together we can support Canadians with disabilities who want to earn their own living.

Since 1997 this initiative has provided $30 million a year to help persons with disabilities gain access to the workplace. Some of these funds are directed to the aboriginal community through aboriginal human resource development agreements and the rest of the funds are distributed through the provinces and territories. This approach is working. Since its inception, over 14,000 Canadians have been assisted by the opportunities fund and the work continues.

The federal Minister of Human Resources Development and her officials in the Office for Disability Issues continue to work actively with their provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as voluntary and private sectors in Canada, to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities, including the special concerns of workers who become disabled, are addressed and co-ordinated in a way that makes sense for all governments and for the workers and their employers. These partnerships are particularly important so that people with disabilities can participate fully in the workplace and have full and productive lives in society at large.

Another example of the government's co-operative approach is the DisabilityWebLinks site that was launched in 2001. This Internet resource is a joint federal-provincial-territorial project that provides a one stop point of access for information on government related programs and services for people with disabilities in every part of Canada. This project exemplifies and illustrates two key points.

First, the Government of Canada takes very seriously its responsibilities toward people with disabilities and we are already working on many fronts to meet those responsibilities.

Second, our approach is to work in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders within the community, including non-government organizations, employers as well as workers themselves, to improve the lives of people who are living with disabilities. This approach is working and we plan to continue it.

Unfortunately, the motion before us today is not consistent with this partnership approach. By calling on the federal government to unilaterally change the way we define pensionable earnings under the Canada pension plan, the motion goes against the spirit of co-operation that exists between various levels of governments on matters pertaining to workplace disabilities.

These are all potential outcomes of this motion and we wonder if the practical consequences have been examined closely. While we share the concerns of the member opposite for workers with disabilities, we do not see the motion as an appropriate way to proceed at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last November in Maple Ridge, Mrs. Colleen Findlay, an active member of the community and mother of three children, was tragically murdered in her own home at the age of 39. Her car and other items were stolen and her house was set on fire. A 15 year old boy has been charged with first degree murder. This young offender reportedly has had many brushes with the law and is well known to local police.

The system under the Young Offenders Act failed Mrs. Findlay. It failed her family and it failed our community.

Those offenders who refuse to take responsibility for their actions must be held to account and communities must be protected from individuals who are a danger to our society.

The next hearing for this accused young offender will take place on February 10. Crown prosecutors and community members continue to call for the individual to be tried in adult court due to the seriousness of the crime, but there is no guarantee that this will happen in this case or in any other, despite community consensus.

Last February the Liberals passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which will come into force this April, but even if the new law were in place at the time of this tragedy, it would not guarantee an adult trial.

The law merely presumes that adult sentences would be given to young people 14 and older who are found guilty of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, or who are repeat, serious violent offenders, but it does not legislate it. Even in these cases a judge must first consider the least restrictive sentence and only impose adult sentencing as a last resort.

The government leaves these decisions up to the courts when it should be putting the safety and security of citizens first and enshrining such changes in law. Protection of the public should be the government's top priority, but victims and their families unfortunately know firsthand that it is not.

Mrs. Findlay's friends and family are collecting signatures for a petition which states:

That, society needs to be protected from all individuals, including young offenders, who commit first or second degree murder. Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact or amend legislation so that young offenders charged with first or second degree murder are automatically raised to adult court and receive adult sentences.

I will ask the parliamentary secretary this evening not just to remind us all about the government's review process, and not to admit once again that it leaves these decisions up to the court. We know that. We have heard it over and over again.

I want to challenge the parliamentary secretary to put down his prepared answer and give this question the consideration that the victim's family deserves. Will the justice minister change the law to ensure that all 15 year olds charged with murder are tried in adult court?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

The sad events to which my hon. colleague, the member for Dewdney—Alouette, has referred are indeed all the more tragic if they were caused, as alleged, by a 15 year old youth.

Canadians have made it quite clear that they expect all violent crime to be treated with a firm response, including in the youth justice system.

I am sure that the member for Dewdney—Alouette, given his keen interest in youth justice issues, is of course well aware that the law governing youth justice in Canada has recently been updated. In fact, as he mentioned, we are weeks away from implementing the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. Among other things, this new legislation lowers the age to 14 at which adult penalties are presumed appropriate for the most serious offences, such as murder, et cetera, and others that he mentioned. Provinces have the discretion to set the age at 15 or 16 for presumed adult penalties.

My colleague no doubt remembers the extensive consultation and deliberation leading up to the passage of the Youth Criminal Justice Act on May 29, 2001. I am equally sure that he remembers the vigorous debate in the House over lowering the maximum age for young offenders from 17 to 15 years of age.

It was apparent to the House at that time that the youth justice system was not being as effective as it could be and as it should be, first, in preventing youth crime, in promoting the right kinds of community based programs for non-violent youth, and in providing the most serious young offenders with meaningful consequences for their crimes.

It was equally apparent that those were the issues that Canadians wanted addressed in a renewed youth justice system. The restrictive approach to try youth in adult courts, as proposed in my colleague's question, was considered in the development of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and discarded, for his approach would allow for less discretion in the system based on the facts of the case, which would lead to a less fair and a less effective system of youth justice in the country.

In Canada, 18 is the age at which young people acquire full adult civil rights and responsibilities. It makes sense that this is when they should as a general rule be subject to adult penalties.

However, when the new Youth Criminal Justice Act takes effect on April 1, all those 14 years of age or older will be presumed to receive adult sentences for the most serious offences, like murder, unless the provinces exercise their discretion and set the age at 15 or 16. These changes assure that serious violent crime will be dealt with firmly even if the accused is a youth.

The government's balanced new approach to youth justice is the product of consultation, advice and thought. One of the basic premises of the new legislation is fairness and proportionality to the seriousness of the offence. Those are important principles.

Sentences are intended to be adequate to hold a youth accountable for the offence he or she has committed. Youth court judges can apply adult sentences for serious offences, if necessary, to hold youth fairly accountable. This makes sense to me. We ought to leave them that discretion based upon the facts of the case.

I see that my time is coming to a close. I am sure I will have a chance to respond to my colleague again.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's words are cold comfort to the family in this case and, I would suggest, to others in similar circumstances.

The member has said that this suggestion has been discarded. He has mentioned the changes that are coming in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but as he has stated, there is a large amount of discretion left in the judge's hands.

What I am saying is that we have the ability here in the House to make those changes and enshrine them in law to make sure that those who do commit serious crimes and commit an adult crime pay with adult time. That is what should happen. We should put that into law here so that there are no loopholes, so that there is no ability for individuals who commit crimes like this not to be raised to adult court. If they commit an adult crime they should receive adult time.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague's concern on this issue and obviously I respect the concern that he expresses in relation to the family of the victim in this case. It is a terrible, tragic circumstance. Let us remember that even if we were to change the law tomorrow in the way he would suggest, it would not apply in this case. Perhaps that would be cold comfort as well to a family that has lost a loved one.

Moreover, I think that the provisions of the new law that is coming into effect on April 1 will be very effective in providing the kind of system we want. I believe that we ought to give the new system and the new law a chance to work. I believe it will work effectively and well for our country and that it provides a proper balance of the concerns of various groups in relation to this issue and of the people with great expertise on this issue. I think we should look forward to its implementation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.)