Eleni Bakopanos

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I said that was a lie. I did not call the member a liar. I said his facts were a lie.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my comments and my calling the member a liar if that member returns to what actually happened in the committee.

[Young Offenders Act, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Surrey North for his contribution to youth justice through private member's Bill C-260. We should all be applauding his efforts and acknowledging the work he has done on this issue.

It bears repeating that this amendment to the Young Offenders Act would not create a general liability for parents based on the crimes of their children. The proposed amendment would make the existing offence of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking given to a court, made in connection with a young offender's release from pretrial detention, a hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence.

The proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act contained in Bill C-260 applies where a youth has been found to be ineligible for judicial interim release under the Criminal Code test. The current provisions of the Young Offenders Act allow such a youth to be placed in the care of a responsible adult instead of being detained in custody. The responsible adult must undertake in writing to take care of the young person and to comply with conditions set by the court. Currently, if the responsible adult wilfully fails to comply with the undertaking, he or she could be found guilty of a summary conviction offence.

The hon. member for Surrey North is proposing that the potential criminal liability for wilfully failing to comply is not serious enough. On March 11 the government introduced Bill C-68, the new youth criminal justice legislation, which would repeal and replace the Young Offenders Act. It should be noted that the new legislation makes the offence of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking given to a court to act as a responsible adult a hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence.

An undertaking to act as a responsible adult is a serious responsibility and we have acknowledged that in the changes we have made. It applies only to youth who would otherwise be detained in custody pending their trials. We acknowledge that some may well be dangerous and difficult to control. The wilful failure of a responsible adult to comply with undertakings could have tragic consequences for members of the public, as the hon. member who introduced this legislation can attest to.

Equipping those in the system with the tools to make decisions based on the facts of the case in front of them is a key direction of the new legislation. Flexibility in the options available and empowering those in the system with a full range of tools that can be applied depending on the seriousness and circumstances of individual cases are hallmarks of the youth justice legislation.

While some favour automatic provisions and set tariffs, we believe that the discretion and judgment of those in the judicial system counts and leads to fairer and more constructive outcomes.

The bill stipulates that, in each and every case, teenagers should face sanctions that promote responsibility toward victims and the community, teach them good values and help them measure the consequences of their action.

During the debate on Bill C-260 some members have commented on elements of Bill C-68 and those comments must be addressed. The hon. member for Crowfoot claimed that the government had abandoned 10 and 11 year olds who, by their criminal acts, have signalled to society that they are in need of help and assistance.

This government does not believe that criminalizing the behaviour of 10 year olds is helpful. Child welfare and mental health systems are more appropriate ways of providing safe and effective help to disturbed children. These systems have access to a wider array of services and are more age appropriate, family oriented and therapeutic than those available to the criminal justice system. I believe there is much consensus on that in the public and here in the House.

We are not abandoning these children but are working with key partners to ensure they do not fall through the cracks but get the supervision and treatment they need.

The hon. member for Crowfoot also criticized restrictions placed on the publication of names. The proposed legislation, Bill C-68, strikes an appropriate balance we believe between two legitimate and competing values, the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of publicity on the youth versus the need for greater openness and transparency in the justice system.

Allowing for the publication of the names of youth who commit the most serious crimes while protecting the privacy of those who commit less serious crimes is an appropriate balance.

We look forward to further debate next week on Bill C-68 and the opportunity to refute suggestion made by members to criminalize 10 year olds and scrap important privacy protections for youth.

The bill before us today, however, proposes a change in the penalty structure for those who wilfully fail to respect undertakings made to the court. I agree there is considerable merit in this being a hybrid offence so that the decision to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment could be made based on the seriousness of the crime.

If we are to impress on youth that the justice system should be respected, should foster values such as accountability and responsibility and that criminal behaviour will lead to meaningful consequences, then we must apply those values to responsible adults in the youth justice system.

I thank the hon. member for Surrey North for bringing this important proposal forward and I assure him that it is included in Bill C-68.

Like a good number of Canadians, the hon. member for Surrey North has put forward proposals to reinforce the Canadian youth justice system.

Now that new comprehensive and balanced youth criminal justice legislation has been introduced by the government and that a new youth justice system will soon be implemented, we are looking forward to work hand in hand with all Canadians who, like us, want to solve the complex issue of youth crime.

We want to prevent youth crime by establishing sanctions for the broad range of criminal acts committed by young people and by helping to rehabilitate young Canadians and turn them into law-abiding adults.

Once again I want to insist on the fact that, as the member before me said, this provision existed in the Young Offenders Act. We are increasing the sentence provision in the new criminal justice act, Bill C-68. I again thank the member who brought this forward and I commend his efforts to see it become part of our new youth criminal justice system.

[Justice, March 19th, 1999]

They do not care about due process.

The Supreme Court of Canada will be rendering a decision very soon. If the supreme court and the justice committee recommend it, the minister will make the changes. She has said so in the House.

[Justice, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to speak on this question often in the House. Obviously the opposition does not get it. The minister has written to the justice committee asking the committee to study this issue.

[Elimination Of Racial Discrimination, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Sunday will mark the 10th Canadian campaign for the elimination of racial discrimination.

Although acts of ignorance, intolerance and racism are the sins of a few, their destructive nature plagues society as a whole. For this reason we must all play a part and take personal responsibility to fight the evils of racism.

All members of society, whatever their age and ethnic background, must be allowed to take their rightful place. This sends a clear message: Canadians reject discrimination in favour of respect, equality and diversity.

As a first generation Canadian, I have lived the enriching experience that is Canadian pluralism. While some individuals in this nation are quick to emphasize what divides us, I prefer to view diversity as Canada's greatest strength.

Only when we are able to live harmoniously in our own country will we be able to serve as a model internationally.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North Centre raises a very important issue. We agree that there has to be a comprehensive global strategy.

That is why we have put in place a comprehensive four pronged strategy that includes the legislative and regulatory aspect, enforcement, research and public awareness, to protect our children's health.

We have adopted some of the toughest tobacco control measures in the world, particularly with regard to restricting access to tobacco products for young people. Canada is a world leader in the regulation of tobacco products, with new proposals dealing with labelling, prevention and reporting.

We are working with provincial governments to increase compliance with the law eliminating cigarette sales to Canadians under 18 years of age. We are increasing our research efforts including monitoring and surveillance activities.

Most important, we have allocated $100 million to tobacco control over the next five years. This will enable us to encourage and support Canadians, particularly young people, in their efforts not to smoke. This will include a media campaign using ideas that will work in the Canadian context to counterbalance the steady flow of images that make smoking seem natural and desirable when it is anything but.

We are looking at all the tools available to us to discourage people from starting to smoke and to encourage those who do smoke to quit.

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 265 by the hon. member for Yukon would establish a legislative committee to prepare a bill abolishing the defence of provocation as contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code.

The hon. member presented quite a case and I commend her for paying homage to the reason she brought forth the motion in the House. The Minister of Justice knows the case very well.

While the minister has indicated that reforming the law of provocation is one of her priorities, she cannot support this motion at this time.

Last June, the minister initiated public consultation on the subject by publishing a consultation document. In our opinion, it would be premature to strike a legislative committee while the Department of Justice is still studying public responses on means of defence based on provocation.

The law respecting provocation is complex and admittedly controversial. I think the hon. member referred to that in her own remarks. The defence of provocation is a partial and limited defence and I want to stress that. It applies only to a charge of murder.

Section 232 of the Criminal Code provides that a charge of murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the offence was committed by a person in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. Furthermore, the provocation must be caused by a wrongful act or insult that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control and it must also be shown that the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.

If the defence is successful, it does not result in acquittal. Instead it results in the accused being convicted of the crime of manslaughter which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Historically, the defence of provocation has been of very limited application; it was used by men defending their honour during an unpremeditated confrontation, or when their wife had committed adultery.

Nowadays, the defence of provocation is justified by the fact that the law must be tolerant toward human frailty, when a person is subject to a provocation that exceeds his ability to control himself.

Some recent cases which received significant media attention have given rise to concerns over the application of the defence of provocation. Some have suggested that the criminal law in this area condones violent behaviour by men against women and excuses extreme violence provoked by insults or injury relating to a person's sexuality or masculinity.

The Minister of Justice is well aware of these cases and of the growing public criticism of the legal rules that govern provocation, and she is taking a very serious look at these issues.

A number of groups and individuals, including the former Law Reform Commission of Canada, have drawn our attention to related issues and have asked that we restrict the use of that legal defence.

The criticism primarily has to do with the fact that the historical origins of this defence still form the basis for its use before the courts, and that current rules may not reflect modern values and ideals.

At the same time it must be stated that support for the abolition of provocation is not universal at this time. Other groups have recommended expansion of the defence, such as the Canadian Bar Association, on the basis that human frailty should be recognized by criminal law.

It is clear that there is a great deal of disagreement over the proper scope of the defence of provocation in modern Canadian society. Any move toward limiting this defence must be done carefully and with due consideration of all the options and the potential consequences of each of these actions.

As I mentioned, the Department of Justice is following up on the requests for a reform and on the change in the public's perception of the law on provocation, and it has conducted a careful review of the issues and various options for reform.

The Minister of Justice also met with provincial and territorial justice ministers to discuss this specific issue, and the federal and provincial justice officials are working together to determine the feasibility of the various options for reform.

In an effort to better understand how Canadians feel about this issue, the Department of Justice released a discussion paper in the summer of 1998 which formed the basis of public consultations. I am glad to hear that the hon. member also did a consultation in her own riding. The department is currently reviewing responses submitted by individuals and interested groups.

The minister is committed to ensuring that the law reflects modern values and works fairly for all Canadians. The law on provocation is very complex, as I said earlier, and is also tied to other areas of criminal law, in particular to the law of self-defence, adding further complexity to the task of reforming Criminal Code defences and again highlighting the need for an in-depth study before making changes.

In my opinion, the hon. member's motion to abolish the legal defence of provocation is premature.

Reforming the law on provocation is important, as I said earlier, to the Minister of Justice. She has taken the steps necessary at this time to ensure that any amendments will reflect and respond to the views and values of Canadians. Consultations have been done. We have finished the consultations and we are reviewing what options we will take.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do believe using the word shrill is unparliamentary.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have never dealt with anything except the facts. Unfortunately that is not the case on the other side of the House. Yes, we know there are inadequacies and, yes, we are addressing them on this side of the House.

As far as victims are concerned, I remind the hon. member that we have dealt with victims as a priority in the justice system, including in the new legislation that we tabled last week.

As far as making any comments on consultation, I do not think there has been any piece of legislation which has had as much consultation as this piece of legislation that we have introduced in the House.

A justice committee did a consultation. The ministers of justice across the country have been consulted. A number of organizations and a number of Canadians have been consulted. There has been extensive consultation as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. There will be further consultation according to the process we have established as a parliament.