Eleni Bakopanos

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of residents of Edmonton and Calgary on pay equity.

[Mr. Justice Robert Flahiff, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said in the House, the minister has put a complaint before the Canadian Judicial Council. The complaint is still before it. The case of the judge is in appeal.

[Justice, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the due process of law not being respected by the official opposition. The justice system in this country is one of the best in the world. We are awaiting the appeal of this case which is coming in April.

[Justice, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated by the minister in the House, the case is under appeal. The Court of Appeal of British Columbia will be hearing the case in early April. We, unlike the official opposition, respect the due process of law and will continue to monitor the decisions of the courts in British Columbia.

I also want to say that the Minister of Justice has been talking to her colleague, the attorney general, and the law still is the law of the land.

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

You wanted to incarcerate 11-year olds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

A committee is doing consultation.

[Heritage Day, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is Heritage Day.

Heritage is everything that links together people, places and things, everything that ensures continuity between past, present and future.

Let us take advantage of this special occasion to celebrate our heritage, to discover and explore it, to learn more about it, to steep ourselves in all the richness of our culture.

Our writers, artists, dancers and creators tell us and the world about the wonders of being Canadian. We work diligently at preserving our stories for the benefit of current and future generations.

In our heritage institutions we have collections that represent the broad and diverse history of the people who made and make up a country.

Our system of national parks, national historic sites and monuments enables Canadians to enjoy firsthand our natural environment and learn about the people and places which shape the country.

Let us today thank our ancestors for the truly rich Canadian heritage we all enjoy.

[Justice, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the debate was not about perverts. I think that is a misuse of what took place in the courts. The law is the law of the land still in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. I repeat that there is an appeal. It will take place April 26 and 27, and we are intervening. We respect the law. Unlike the opposition we do respect the due process of law.

[Justice, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we had this debate in the House. Obviously the Reform Party was not listening. This is before the appeal court. We have intervened. The appeal will be heard on April 26 and 27 of this year and we will be upholding the law.

To repeat what I said in the House, the law is still the law of the land. It is only one court in the land that has ruled someone can possess child pornography for personal use but we are going to be appealing. We are awaiting the decision of the court of appeal where we have intervened.