John Maloney

[Canadian Wildlife Service, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the celebration of 50 years of wildlife preservation in Canada.

Since its creation in November 1947 by the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, the Canadian Wildlife Service has instituted many extraordinary programs that protect the Canadian wilderness and enhance environmental awareness of Canadians.

Such initiatives include research into the effects of toxic chemicals on the Great Lakes, which has led to the banning of DDT chemicals in Canada; conservation policies such as the Canadian Wildlife Act and legislation to protect endangered species; and a network of national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries that protect over 11 million hectares of land for wildlife. The list goes on.

I would like all members of the House to congratulate the Canadian Wildlife Service for its distinguished service to the people of Canada. Without such agencies our children and grandchildren may not have the opportunity to enjoy the varied beauty of the Canadian wilderness.

May the Canadian Wildlife Service continue to serve the people of Canada and the world for generations.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of my constituents of Erie—Lincoln.

The petitioners are concerned that the moral structure of society is being threatened and that community standards are being eroded.

They request that the Criminal Code of Canada be reviewed and amended to correct and clarify the sections pertaining to public nudity to abolish exposure of female breasts in public.

[Impaired Driving, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, drinking and driving is a national tragedy; 4.5 innocent Canadians killed by impaired drivers every 24 hours, every day of the week. Just think of it. Incredible.

Over 300 people a day are injured in Canada as a result of an alcohol related crash. Just think of it. Incredible.

Impaired drivers caused over half of Canada's 3,300 road fatalities in 1995. Just think of it. Truly incredible.

Too many Canadians have been cut down in the prime of their lives. Too many families, friends and communities have grieved unnecessarily over the loss of a loved one at the hands of an impaired driver. This carnage must stop and the time is now.

Laws to combat the problem have not changed in over 10 years. I urge this House and our justice minister to consider necessary changes to the Criminal Code. Our laws must reflect the stark realities of the epidemic of impaired driving and the seriousness of this crime.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

I thank the hon. member for her comments.

Customs officials in my riding approached me on the issue since day one when I was first elected. They have worked very well with me, with their national executive and with departmental officials.

We have come up with legislation that is certainly to be desired. It is a concern we have had to date but we are there now and we are happy to have it.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a very good one.

If we give these powers there have to be resources available to allow them to utilize them. The hon. member lives in an area where border crossings are very light. I live in an area where there are four border crossings, all of which are very high volume border crossings. The situation of one person being on the border would never happen. There are many people on all shifts.

We have to address those concerns too. Obviously it is a light border crossing and criminal incidents would probably not be as significant as what I have elaborated in my speech about my area. They definitely need the resources to do the job. I have some concerns with one person being on a border in the evening.

The hon. member asked if they would have the proper training or the proper education. I have indicated that is a necessity. As far as anticipation of more physical altercations at the border is concerned, I do not anticipate it will happen any more than it happens right now. They should be properly trained for that. Notwithstanding, certainly more training is required and more training will be given. Resources will be committed.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak on this legislation.

I think it is important at the outset to look at some of the figures involving the background of this legislation. In the last two and a half years Revenue Canada customs officers have encountered the following criminal situations at ports of entry into Canada: over 8,500 suspected impaired drivers, almost 200 incidents of child abduction, approximately 68 Criminal Code offences in my riding of Fort Erie at the Peace Bridge in 1996, over 2,000 individuals subject to arrest warrants and more than 500 individuals in possession of suspected stolen property. These are usually vehicles.

These statistics are very disturbing. Although customs officers reported these incidents to local authorities, the police were only able to apprehend a few suspects. This fact is most disturbing.

These incidents occur at most land, air and marine ports of entry, with about 80% located on highways, 10% at airports that handle international traffic and 10% at seaports.

I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, a bill that will make these statistics a thing of the past. This is a piece of legislation that is truly very near and dear to my heart and to the many customs officials that work the front line at the Peace Bridge border crossing in Fort Erie in my riding of Erie—Lincoln.

After my election in 1993, I was approached by the local customs union representatives about the difficulty in apprehending impaired drivers at the Fort Erie-Buffalo crossing. In fact, I attended at the border and observed their observations and even stood out at the primary inspection line and observed the cars coming across.

There have been several incidents in my riding and the customs officers were rightfully frustrated that they did not have the power to detain suspected drunk drivers until the local police could intervene. The standard operating procedure at that time was to let the driver through and notify the local police, hoping and sometimes praying that they would catch up with any impaired individuals. This was unsatisfactory.

In fact, it was shocking. Most people in my riding just could not comprehend this. Some said “Well, an individual has powers of arrest, citizen's arrest”, but the customs officers were very reluctant to take these powers because of concerns if they were injured in doing so, the question of false arrest, liability implications, et cetera. It was not recommended by either management or the union. This was unsatisfactory.

The course of action that was followed was far too dangerous for our border communities and too many times resulted in an accident before the driver could be apprehended. My customs officers told me that this had to change and I agreed with them.

In 1995, an in-depth study of officers' powers confirmed this and concluded that the existing situation was unacceptable. The study proposed an extension of customs officers' powers to include Criminal Code offences. Support for this idea came from groups such as Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, which we have come to know as CAVEAT, police forces, Revenue Canada, employees, the customs excise union and the general public in my riding of Erie—Lincoln.

In 1995, I began to prepare a private members' bill on this issue. I met with some of the stakeholders, including the customs excise union president at that time, discussed how this issue should be addressed and what the best course of action would be. Around this time I was informed by my colleague, the former minister of revenue, that the department was also looking to resolve this problem by amending the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. This government listened.

The result was Bill C-89 that was tabled this past March. This legislation, as many of you know, unfortunately died in the Order Paper in April. Over the course of the summer I was pleased to learn from our new minister of revenue that reintroducing this legislation was a priority. On October 30 he fulfilled that commitment. I congratulate him for the expeditious manner in which this important bill was reintroduced.

Under the proposed legislation, customs officers will be provided a first response capability at the border with the power to detain or arrest individuals suspected of having committed offences which fall under the Criminal Code, such as impaired driving or child abduction.

The intent of the legislation is to bridge the gap between the time customs officers detect a Criminal Code offence and the time when the police can arrive to intervene. Provincial authorities will continue to be responsible for prosecuting individuals for Criminal Code offences at the border.

Customs officers encounter criminal behaviour at the border that is outside the parameters of the Customs Act and the fact that they cannot take appropriate action places all Canadians at risk. This legislation will correct an enforcement gap which is not acceptable to the public, local police agencies, victims' rights groups or customs officers.

I believe that these changes will result in safer communities, but above all they will help to contribute to long term public protection.

I understand that once the bill receives royal assent it could take six to nine months to implement this initiative and that customs officers will be trained to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out their new duties.

Current training programs will require changes and no customs officer will be permitted to carry out the first response function until he or she has received and passed the appropriate training.

This is not an entirely new function because customs officers are already designated as peace officers for the purposes of the Customs Act. They already undergo extensive training on search, seizure and arrest. Customs officer training also includes instruction on the charter and its implications in exercising the powers of search and arrest. I understand that plans are under way to introduce training on the use of force for personal protection and to compel compliance with the law.

No customs officer should be put in the position of having to carry out this or any other function without appropriate training. I urge the government to carefully plan this training as it is crucial for the customs officers to have adequate education and training. They want nothing less and our border communities demand nothing less.

It is said that the additional responsibilities will only be given to officers who deal directly with individuals seeking entry into Canada. This will involve about 2,500 members of the current customs officer workforce of 3,200. I am pleased to note that it will not include any student customs officers.

Many young people in my riding have part time or summer jobs at customs and, realistically, do not have the experience or the time to be properly trained for this function. We certainly do not want to put them at risk. I was very happy to see that this concern was taken into consideration.

I wish to discuss the functions that extend beyond the drinking and driving issue that were brought to my attention two years ago. Customs officers currently have the power to detain and arrest individuals for Customs Act offences such as smuggling. They also have the authority to search for and seize goods, such as illegal drugs, firearms, contraband tobacco and liquor, and prohibited materials such as child pornography.

The scope of the customs officers' existing powers of arrest and detention will be broadened to bridge the gap between the time customers officers detect a Criminal Code offence and the time it takes for the police to arrive and intervene. The changes will also authorize customers officers to arrest individuals who are subject to arrest warrants issued under the Criminal Code. In the case of impaired driving, designated customs officers will administer the preliminary roadside screening test. Individuals who do not pass the screening test will be turned over to the police for a breathalyser test.

Provincial authorities will be responsible for any further investigations and prosecutions of individuals for Criminal Code offences at the border.

Those of us who received a package from the customs excise union last month will have undoubtedly read the letter written by Mr. Stan Johnson, a customs inspector at the Windygates, Manitoba border crossing. As recently as October 3, 1997, Mr. Johnson was unable to detain an impaired motorcycle driver returning to Canada from an evening of drinking in the United States. Minutes after crossing the border one of the two motorcycle drivers lay dead from a deadly combination of speed and alcohol.

It is evident from Mr. Johnson's letter that he is struggling with the frustration that his role as a customs officer did not allow him to stop this tragedy. It is wrong to subject our customs officials to this frustration when these tragedies are clearly preventable.

I urge this House to deal expeditiously with this legislation. It has been demanded by customs officers, border communities, elected representatives and the families and friends of those who became victims of impaired drivers.

The customs and excise union has been calling for this type of corrective measure for more than a decade. The customs and excise union and those on the front line at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie support this measure. In a recent letter the union said there was a tremendous need to bridge a very obvious gap in legislation that had existed far too long.

I will comment on a couple of questions asked in the House today. Why has it taken so long to get to this position? The situation is not a simple one. We have to do it right. It was necessary to assess thoroughly the nature and severity of the situation across Canada. It was also necessary to properly evaluate the various options and to discuss them with both federal and provincial officials. I am confident the proposed legislation is both reasonable and workable.

The question of arming customs officers has often been raised. Again it was raised in debate today. The health and safety of customs officers have been and will continue to be priorities. Customs officers do not carry firearms. The proposal to extend the scope of their arrest powers would not change that. Some customs officers believe they should carry a weapon for their personal protection. However it is the government's position that introducing firearms at the border is unnecessary and could be a serious mistake.

We have to bear in mind that this is not entirely new ground for customs officers. As I said, they are already designated as peace officers for purposes of the Customs Act. To date they have not needed a firearm to fulfil their responsibilities safely and efficiently. Arming them could invite more violent behaviour on the part of travellers.

If not handled properly, an officer's firearm could provide an otherwise unarmed traveller with a weapon that could actually be used to injure or kill the officer or other people in the vicinity.

We also have to bear in mind that the role of customs officers will be very limited. They will provide a first response only. They will not be expected to participate in Criminal Code investigations or to transport prisoners, as the police will intervene at a very early stage. For these reasons the government has chosen not to arm our officers.

Some concern was expressed about the impact on police and the judicial case load. It would probably be very minimal. Furthermore we expect that implementing this initiative will have a deterrent effect. We expect the number of incidents will drop significantly when the travelling public realizes and becomes aware that the customs officers are empowered to deal with criminal offences.

As I have indicated, this is good legislation. It should hopefully be passed unanimously by the House. The concerns being expressed today are very minimal. The country would be well suited to defend its borders and citizens from criminal activities, from individuals crossing its borders with criminal intent and undertaking criminal activities.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the short time we have left I would like to make a few remarks on this bill.

This private member's bill proposes to introduce an income tax deduction for interest payments for first time home buyers on the first $100,000 of a mortgage loan where the residence was purchased in 1995 or later.

The intent behind this proposal is certainly laudable. The intent is to make it easier for young Canadians to finance the purchase of their first home. However, we should not allow our sympathy in this regard to interfere with what I consider a sound judgment.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my friends opposite that it is possible to laud the intent of an idea without supporting the idea itself. This proposal, despite its worthy aims, has flaws.

Let me begin by noting that the Income Tax Act already provides generous incentives for the prospective home buyer. The capital gains from the sale of a principal residence are not taxable to the home owner. In addition, the home buyers plan allows first time home buyers to withdraw up to $20,000 from registered retirement savings plans to use toward the purchase of a principal residence. These withdrawals are not subject to tax as long as the money is returned to the plan within a period of 15 years.

Another consideration crucial to sound tax policy is that taxpayers be treated fairly. This proposal would confer significant tax benefits upon Canadians purchasing a first home in 1995 or later. This proposal, however, would confer nothing upon Canadians who are renting or who purchased a first home in an earlier year. This proposal would also confer nothing upon young Canadians moving into another residence because their family is growing or because a change of employment requires them to move to another location.

I would find it difficult explaining to these taxpayers why they are not as deserving of tax relief as others.

The taxpayer's choice of accommodation is really a personal decision and the costs associated with it are personal expenses. The Canadian income tax system in general does not allow deductions or credits for personal expenses, and properly so. Personal expenses reflect to a great extent the pace and income levels of individuals. It is not fair for taxpayers at large to subsidize the personal expenditures of others.

Should this proposal be adopted, non-homeowners would find themselves subsidizing the home purchasing decisions of others.

The change proposed by the member of Parliament for Portage—Lisgar would primarily benefit higher income Canadians. Approximately 50% of families with over $80,000 of income have mortgages in Canada today. Compare this with only 10% of families with incomes under $30,000.

The great majority of benefits under the proposal would naturally accrue to higher income earners who are more likely to have larger mortgages. The result would be an increased taxation of all Canadians to pay for the accommodation of the more fortunate. I do not find this prospect a pleasing one.

I also feel this proposal would be sending out the wrong message by providing an incentive to enter into debt and maintain indebtedness. A rational homeowner benefiting from a tax deduction for mortgage interest would see little need to pay down the outstanding principal. By encouraging Canadians to carry larger mortgages for longer periods of time, we would be discouraging saving and financial independence. Surely, this is not the lesson we wish to pass on to young members of our society.

Finally, we come to the issue of cost. The Department of Finance estimates that the federal revenue loss associated with this proposal could reach $150 million in the year of introduction. Moreover, the cost would escalate in future years as more and more home buyers enter the market. Under a mature system the cost to the federal government could exceed $3 billion annually. If deductibility were extended to all homeowners, the cost would reach $6 billion annually. The provinces would also experience a substantial reduction in revenues. This is a very hefty price tag by any standard.

I also wish to emphasize that the lower interest rates resulting from the government's deficit reduction strategy have significantly reduced the cost of home ownership. One year mortgage rates today have declined by more than 400 basis points since January 1995, providing savings greater than $3,000 in terms of lower annual mortgage payments for a $100,000 mortgage.

In conclusion, I am sure that those present here today would join me in improving the spirit of this proposal. I would urge, however, that this spirit not sweep them along into supporting a measure that is not affordable, necessary or fair.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley has presented several amendments to section 335 of the Criminal Code which he claims will create a tougher and more effective law, one that will have a real deterrent effect on joyriding by young people. I would like to commend him for his work in this field.

However, these changes will result in a more draconian law. I would like to outline a few of the changes: a minimum penalty of six months imprisonment; a minimum fine of $1,000, with a maximum of $5,000; a provision for damages to be paid by the offender directly to the victim; a clause which would make the parents of a joyrider, if he or she is a young offender, liable for any fines or damages in certain circumstances.

As responsible parliamentarians we have an obligation to examine any change in the criminal law very carefully to determine whether tougher penalties will be effective and fair. We have a special responsibility to scrutinize any law that would impose additional imprisonment and fines on young people who come into conflict with the law. As we know, joyriding is predominantly a young persons' offence.

The question I ask is this. Is there objective evidence to show that the existing law in section 335 has failed to do the job? In order to answer that question we should examine how the courts have actually used the joyriding section.

In case I am accused of diminishing the importance of this offence, let me state for the record that I do regard joyriding as a very serious offence. In fact, I was a victim of such an offence. I know firsthand.

The involvement of a young person in the appropriation of an automobile is always a significant matter. It is all the more serious because joyriding so often results in personal injury or costly damage to property.

The problem with Bill C-209 is that its drafters have not paid sufficient attention to the way section 335 is used by prosecutors and the courts in relation to other criminal charges, in particular the offences of theft, criminal negligence and the possession of stolen property.

The hon. member suggests that there are a huge number of joyriding incidents but relatively few convictions. I will not debate the numbers but I do recommend that he look at the number of convictions for theft and possession of stolen property at the same time as he analyses the joyriding statistics. He will likely find that joyriding incidents frequently result in more serious charges or charges in addition to joyriding.

Several decades ago Parliament wisely decided that joyriding should be a distinct offence separate from the theft of a motor vehicle. The difference lies in the intention of the person who takes the vehicle. In a theft situation, the thief intends to steal a car for purposes of reselling it. Joyriding, as the name implies, is more often an impulsive act and the offender may take the vehicle for thrills rather than profit.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the distinction between theft and joyriding in a 1972 decision, stating that the joyriding offence was created in order to provide a penalty where it may be difficult or impossible to establish the offence of theft. The difference lies in the intent of the taker. The courts have said that if the intent is to merely drive a car and then return it the owner, then that is not theft but rather a separate offence.

These decisions provide the key to understanding how joyriding should be dealt with under the criminal law. If joyriding charges are not laid as often as the hon. member would like, it is because serious joyriding incidents, which result in injury to other persons or damage to the car or to other property, are often prosecuted with a charge of theft or possession of stolen property, perhaps criminal negligence, careless driving or dangerous driving.

An obvious concern arises here. Can someone who steals a car claim that he really intended to return it to the owner and therefore avoid a theft charge? The courts have provided us with the answer. Each case must stand on its own facts. For example, how long did the offenders keep the car? How far did he drive it? Did he make an effort to return it? Did he drive the car recklessly? All the circumstances must be considered.

This is what I am asking the hon. member to ponder. Rather than applying a mandatory minimum jail term in every case, why not give the courts some flexibility in structuring the penalties for the young joyrider in view of all the circumstances of the individual case?

What about the youth who has no previous record? There are so many ways to handle this problem short of sending every young joyrider to prison. A probation order for a first time offender combined with an order of restitution may be quite adequate.

I would also point out that it is unusual to see a custodial term imposed for a first offence of possession for stolen goods. I do not see why we would opt for mandatory minimum of six months jail time for a first offence here.

I also cannot understand why the hon. member wants to take sentencing out of the realm of the Young Offenders Act. The bill says, notwithstanding the Young Offenders Act, the offender is liable to a term of imprisonment. I would point out that he is also liable to imprisonment under the Young Offenders Act. Young offenders can also be forced to pay restitution. The Young Offenders Act provides all the remedies needed in conjunction with a penalty structure of the Criminal Code. Section 3 of the Young Offenders Act sets out 10 principles that apply to the sentencing of youth offenders. I quote the first principle:

Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviour in the future.

These principles should be applied so that all of the circumstances surrounding the offence, including parental involvement, can be considered.

I can see that Bill C-209 would continue to require that young offenders be tried in youth court but I cannot understand why he would want to add a notwithstanding clause that would suddenly take sentencing outside the structure of the Young Offenders Act. I have no objection to prosecutions under section 335. Joyriding is a problem in itself, aside from damage to property or personal injury that may result from it.

In the last session, the government introduced a series of amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-17, which is now chapter 18 in the Statutes of Canada, 1997. These amendments included section 335, a change that for some reason is not reflected in the hon. member's bill before us today. The amendment deals with the responsibility of occupants of the vehicle.

Young people who take cars often do so in the company of others and these passengers may be aware of their immunity from prosecution even when they clearly know that the car has been taken without the consent of the owner.

Furthermore, it is often difficult to determine who took the vehicle when several young people are involved. The new law solves this problem by making passengers liable to a charge of joyriding unless they make an effort to leave the vehicle. This amendment shows that the government does take the section of the code very seriously.

Let me give an example of how section 335 has been used. In 1991 in a Saskatchewan case, an offender took a vehicle and claimed that he was going to use it to pull another vehicle out of the mud. However, he made no attempt to restore the vehicle to its owner and the accused appeared to be responsible for the later destruction of the car in a fire. The offender received a conditional discharge combined with 18 months of probation but he was forced to pay restitution to the victim for the loss of the vehicle.

This is an example of how section 335 in combination with the restitution sections in the Criminal Code can be used to benefit the victim where property damage and loss have occurred. The amendment in Bill C-209 is not really necessary.

Let me give a quite different example. This is an Alberta case. The offender admitted to taking the vehicle for purposes of joyriding. He began driving too fast, misjudged a turn and slammed into a trailer parked on the other side of the road. Of what was he convicted? Not joyriding as the offender hoped, but rather dangerous driving, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and 10 years if there is personal injury.

Finally, I wish to comment briefly on the second part of the bill which tries to make parents responsible for fines and damages incurred by a young person who is convicted of joyriding.

This idea was examined recently by both the House of Commons committee and a federal-provincial task force on youth justice. Neither group recommended that parents be required, under the Criminal Code, to pay damages for neglecting to exercise due care. The task force did recommend that provinces develop legislation governing the civil recovery from grossly negligent parents for damages or losses arising from the criminal acts of their children.

I understand that Manitoba recently created legislation making parents civilly responsible to a limit of $5,000 where it is proven that the parents bore some responsibility for the offence. In terms of the parents actually participating in an offence, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act already contain offences of aiding and abetting.

For these reasons, I suggest that the amendments of Bill C-209 are not needed and will not improve the capacity of the criminal justice system to deter joyriding.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting two petitions on the same subject.

The petitioners are extremely concerned that the moral structure of society is being threatened and community standards eroded by the increasing incidents of topless women in public places.

They request Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to prohibit the exposure of female breasts in public.

[Volunteers, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to recognize the value of volunteers by including a volunteer tax credit in the forthcoming federal budget.

The purpose of this proposal is to offer a tangible thank you in the form of a tax credit for those unsung heroes who volunteer their time and services for community and non-profit organizations.

The government allows tax deductions for charitable donations, real estate and securities. Does a volunteer hour not have a similar quantifiable value?

The economic realities of funding cuts increase the demand for and importance of these Canadian champions. As the non-profit sector does more with less, volunteers fill the gaps.

Members of Parliament constantly extol the value of volunteers and volunteerism. For the greater good it is time to put money where our mouth is.