Eleni Bakopanos

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are really interested in hearing me but I will continue in any case.

As far as the young offenders proposals put forward two weeks ago, the government put forward a balanced approach focusing on front end initiatives in dealing with Canadian youth unlike the opposition who try to prevent crime by simply changing the Criminal Code or the back end of crime prevention.

I will give a brief overview of the most important changes to the legislation that the minister has announced. She proposes to replace the current procedure for transfer to adult court with the procedure of assessing adult sentences in certain serious circumstances so that justice can be provided quickly so that the decision to transfer is made at the most appropriate moment after finding of guilt. By speeding up the process we will ensure that the offender, the victim or the victim's family and the community see a clear connection between the offence and its consequences.

This change would allow that youth 14 years and older who are repeat violent offenders or who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise. The Minister of Justice would allow the publication of names upon conviction of youths who qualify for adult sentences.

At the same time the new legislation will strengthen the commitment to use community based sentences and effective alternatives to the justice system for non-violent young offenders. This new legislation will enhance the requirement that community based approaches be—

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying what else is new on the part of the Reform.

Reform chooses an opposition day to do a smorgasbord of what is the most heinous violent criminals. It is highlighting those people in our society that the justice system is trying to work out. It is exaggerating the extent of the crime in this country. Crime has gone down in Canada. It is exaggerating and fearmongering which is typical of the Reform opposition. It highlights the exceptions to the justice system rather than the rule.

Reform's simplistic attitude toward justice, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth philosophy belongs in the jungle, not in this House and not in this country. That is exactly the Reform philosophy as far as justice goes.

I do not think victims in this country believe in an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth philosophy. They believe that the government has a balanced approach, both to youth crime and to victims rights. We are on the record—

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Thanks to you.

[Criminal Records Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children).

This bill deals with a very important topic, the need to protect our children against sexual abuse.

The government has already taken the necessary actions to allow organizations and individuals occupying positions of trust and authority with respect to children to work with community police forces to investigate known sexual offenders.

How have we done this? During the summer of 1994 officials from the ministries of the solicitor general, justice and health conducted national consultations on the issue of whether Canada should establish a registry of child sex offenders. Officials consulted with provincial and territorial officials, police agencies, volunteer agencies and non-governmental organizations.

While participants in these consultations did not support the establishment of such a registry, they did support the enhancement of the existing Canadian Police Information Centre database to provide more and better information to police and organizations working with their local police agencies to help screen out sex offenders from positions of trust or authority over children.

Participants supported other federal measures that would directly assist child service organizations in developing policies to screen out sex offenders. Accordingly in November 1994 the Solicitor General of Canada announced enhancements to the CPIC. These databanks now include data on all convicted sex offenders, prohibition orders and peace bonds relating to sex offenders, the age and the sex of the child victims of sexual abuse and fingerprint information on persons charged with high grade offences. There is a system in place at the moment.

Joint funding by the ministries of the solicitor general, justice and health was announced for a national education campaign to screen out sexual abusers. An integral part of the campaign was the development of the screening manual by the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres, now known as Volunteer Canada. This manual includes a comprehensive national and provincial-territorial analysis of the social, legislative and policy context for the screening.

The education campaign has resulted in the development of a series of fact sheets and a video entitled “Duty of Care”, which were used to inform and educate the public, and made available in over 200 Canadian communities. I am proud of this campaign's huge success, and we recently learned that it would be extended for another two years.

Employers and community organizations should have a formal screening policy covering interviews, reference checks, individual risk evaluations, training and supervision.

The purpose of Bill C-284 is commendable. However, the bill adds to the confusion in providing for the screening of sexual offenders by checking criminal records even after a pardon has been granted. There is also the issue of records being destroyed. In fact, they are sealed and kept separate at the Canadian Police Information Centre. If a pardoned offender is subsequently convicted of a summary offence, pardon is automatically revoked.

In addition, for investigation purposes, identifying information on pardoned criminals is made available as soon as fingerprints are submitted, and this without reopening the entire criminal record.

The government has taken significant and important measures to better protect children from sexual offenders. Being a mother, I certainly want to make sure that is the case for my children and all Canadian children.

Senior criminal justice officials are currently reviewing these measures to determine if more can be done. It is very clear, however, that Bill C-284 does not do more to protect children. It sends the wrong message to parents and volunteer organizations that a criminal record check alone, including a check of pardoned records, will protect their children. That is not the case.

For that reason this government does not support this bill.

[Extradition, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government tabled in this House, and we announced officially, a new extradition act.

The bill overhauls extradition laws in Canada and brings us in line with the 21st century. Most importantly the proposed legislation will prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for fugitives who want to avoid facing the judicial system in countries where they commit crimes. Also, cross-border crimes will be more easily covered by this bill, crimes such as telemarketing fraud, computer crimes and transnational organized crime.

[Youth Week, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to point out that this is Youth Week.

Young people are the future of our country and yet many are finding themselves in a precarious situation.

Unemployment among young Canadians with less than a high school diploma is at 15%, while for those with at least a degree it is only 5%. That is why the federal government has taken steps in the most recent budget through the Canadian opportunities strategy and the millennium scholarship fund to increase the opportunities for our young people to participate fully in the economic and social development of Canada.

Initiatives like the summer career placements program will this year again give many young people from my riding of Ahuntsic and from throughout Canada the opportunity to gather work experience.

These measures are proof of the Canadian government's commitment to the future of our young people in Canada.

[Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the motion to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Once again I would like to say the hon. member from the Reform side uses exceptional cases to make his point and not what is the general rule in Canada.

Section 7 of the charter says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of the fundamental justice”. It sets out a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the state.

In looking for protection under section 7, one first asks if there has been an infringement of one of the three protected interests, deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person, and then asks if such deprivation was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. These principles are found in the basic tenets of our legal system and are vital to our societal notion of justice.

The purpose of the member's motion is to add to section 7 the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state, as well as the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

On first examination, there is nothing reprehensible about this motion. One might indeed be tempted to support it, for who among us does not think that Canadians are entitled to a rich and rewarding family life free from undue interference by the state, and who would not encourage the right and, of course, the responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children?

Canada takes seriously its responsibilities toward its children. For example, in December 1991 Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a broad ranging treaty which delineates the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children.

As a leader in drafting the convention, Canada has been noted for its action on behalf of children. As a mother of two daughters, I am reassured that the government has done everything to acknowledge that children also have rights in our society and takes action to protect those rights here in Canada and throughout the world.

The family has been recognized and entrenched in the Canadian legal system in a myriad of ways. It has been supported and treated as a fundamental building block of our nation. One can look to laws concerning the validity of marriage, dissolution of marriage with its attendant need to provide for the financial interest of the parties and the continued well-being of children, and recent developments such as the government's child support guidelines initiative.

We provide support to families through a vast array of programs and policies. The Criminal Code of Canada protects children from abuse and neglect, as do child welfare agencies throughout the provinces and territories. Our tax system treats family relationships in a way that differs from individuals.

Canada in no way fails to respect families. It supports parents who look after their children's upbringing. No one is worried that Canada will introduce measures of oppression, interference or repression with respect to the family.

I therefore do not understand what the risks are to which families and children are exposed and which the motion before us seeks to eliminate.

Can the state interfere in family life in Canada today? There is no doubt that it can and, in some cases, it even has an obligation to do so. Ideally, every parent should be a loving parent, every child happy, healthy and safe from danger, and every family a refuge from the hustle and bustle of daily life, a place of warmth, security and affection.

We have only to read the newspapers, listen to the news and turn on the television, however, to realize that this is not the case, and the member has given examples to prove it.

Families in Canada today do not need more protection from state interference. Every day in this country there is enacted a delicate balancing act wherein the state uses its powers carefully, some may say too carefully, to protect vulnerable family members, women, children and the elderly, from harm. The rights of individuals are weighed and where the balance tips the state steps in to take care of its citizens.

I do not think Canadians wish to see those capabilities eroded. Our society is outraged when we read of children returned to or left in abusive families. Every day we read of that in the local newspapers. Do we really wish to further hamper the efforts of our child welfare authorities? Do we really want long charter based challenges clogging up our court systems while the vulnerable continue to be harmed?

The courts have examined section 7 of the charter and its impact on family rights. It is not my intention today to give a list of all the relevant case law. There simply would not be the time.

Our courts have concluded that the right to raise a child is part of a parent's right to liberty. They have ruled that the state should interfere only when necessary, thus confirming that the rights of parents are vital in our society. It is not a question of recognizing parents' right of ownership over children, but of recognizing parents' rights to make decisions in the interest of the child.

Our common law rules have long recognized, however, the right and the power of the state to step in to protect children at risk. That is a fundamental principle of our law.

In my opinion and in the opinion of the government we do not need this amendment to section 7 of the charter. Canadian families are protected from undue interference by the state and parents have the right to raise their children within the limits of the law. The law is there to protect those who are the most vulnerable in our society and those who are our most precious resource, our children.

[National Textiles Week, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week, April 20 to 26 marked national textiles week in Canada which was organized by the Textiles Human Resources Council to focus on innovation and excellence within the Canadian textile industry.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Silver Textiles, a textile manufacturing firm in my riding of Ahuntsic. There I noted the technology and innovative processes that have propelled the rapid growth of the textile industry.

Since 1988, exports have tripled, capital investments have reached unprecedented levels and even jobs have increased in the past five years from 50,000 in 1993 to 56,000 in 1997.

Doubletex and Montreal Fast Print are textile manufacturers also located in my riding of Ahuntsic.

Another example of the way this government has helped Canadian entrepreneurs become competitive at home and on the international scene are programs such as le programme de développement des marchés d'exportation and le programme d'aide à la recherche industrielle.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, but in all deference to the hon. member I would like to ask what the subject of conditional sentencing has to do with Bill S-5 that we are now in the process of debating.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-5 deals with several issues of interest to persons with disabilities. This government fully recognizes that it has an important role to play in ensuring that Canadians with disabilities are treated as full and equal participants in the mainstream of our society.

In December 1995, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons recommended that the legislation be reviewed to reduce the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities.

In October 1997 after conducting extensive consultations from coast to coast, the federal task force on disability issues headed by the hon. solicitor general called upon the federal government to present amendments to the criminal law and to human rights legislation as soon as possible. Bill S-5 honours this request.

The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to recognize in legislation that communication assistance should be provided to any witness who has a communication related disability, and that any sensory method could be used for the purpose of identifying the accused.

The Criminal Code would be amended through Bill S-5 to allow witnesses with communication disabilities to use videotaped evidence. The Criminal Code would also be amended to include a series of changes designed to encourage persons with disabilities to serve on juries.

The Criminal Code would also be amended to create a new offence, section 152.1, prohibiting the sexual exploitation of vulnerable disabled persons so that persons with disabilities will not be sexually exploited. The committee has made recommendations to improve the section. The point is well taken and Bill S-5 as amended responds to the concerns raised.

The other important part of this bill is the package of amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which provides protection against discrimination at the federal level. This bill will enhance those protections for all Canadians.

The key element is the addition of an express duty to accommodate to the act. This amendment will require employers and service providers to accommodate the needs of persons protected by the act except where it would cause undue hardship.

The duty to accommodate is of vital importance to persons with disabilities as well as to groups such as religious minorities. The law will help to ensure equal access to the workplace and to goods and services.

There are other important changes to the act. This bill will extend the substantive protections of the law. For example it will prohibit compound discrimination involving discrimination on more than one ground. The law will also allow complaints where there is a discrimination in the provision of goods and services but an individual victim has not stepped forward. This amendment will ensure that there is no discrimination without redress.

There are also important changes to the prescribed remedial actions to make the act more effective. For example, the maximum penalty for pain and suffering would increase to $20,000 from $5,000.

Finally, some of the changes proposed by this bill concern the institutions responsible for enforcing the act. The Canadian human rights commission will report directly to parliament on an annual basis, which will symbolically attest the independence of the commission.

The human rights tribunal will be reconstructed as a smaller permanent tribunal with members with experience and expertise in human rights matters. A small permanent tribunal will adjudicate cases with greater expertise and efficiency. This new tribunal will operate in conformity with the principles of independence and impartiality.

These are some of the highlights of the proposed changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code. Together these amendments represent an important step forward in our efforts to ensure that every individual is an equal member of our society. That is the commitment of this government.

The amendments contained in this bill are aimed at breaking down the barriers so that persons with disabilities and other individuals and groups can participate as full citizens of our country.

Underlying this endeavour are values which are important to Canadians such as equality, fairness and justice. That is what we are committed to. These are important values and ones which I know all my colleagues support. I am therefore very pleased to commend this bill to members of the House.