Anne McLellan

[Young Offenders Act, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in fact that which we are proposing, as opposed to being in contradiction to that which Quebec does, our strategy builds on much of that which the province of Quebec has pursued. Indeed, let me say the hallmark of the young offenders strategy is flexibility, because in this federation we as a federal government believe it is important to provide the provinces with the opportunity to pursue their own individual agendas in key areas.

[Justice, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue. On behalf of the government I want to congratulate the YWCA for declaring this a week without violence.

We on this side of the House not only condemn violence, we work to prevent violence. Let me say in particular as it relates to violence against youth and violence against women that we have put in place a crime prevention strategy that targets violence against both young people and women in the home. Rather than sitting here—

[Government Of Ontario, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue. It is an issue that has been of concern to the people of Ontario.

I want to clarify for all members in this House and the people of Ontario that in fact the law surrounding hunting, who hunts and the age at which one can apply for a permit to hunt, is in fact within exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I want to reassure this House and the people of Ontario that this government had no part in the decision made by the Government of Ontario to permit 12 year olds to apply for hunting licences.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that as the federal negotiator for the social union framework, my provincial and territorial colleagues and myself have had a number of very promising meetings. We had another meeting last Friday.

Let me assure the hon. member that those discussions are going very well. Flexibility is being displayed by all levels of government and by all ministers around the table. I was heartened by the discussion on Friday.

Indeed, let me reassure this House that provincial, territorial and federal ministers around the social union framework table are working with one common objective. Everybody needs to remember what that objective is. It is to develop, to maintain, to enhance and to build upon our social programs in this country for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was actually a question contained in that statement.

As everyone in the House knows, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development have begun a discussion with Canadians and have held consultations with Canadians in relation to employment insurance.

Let me remind the hon. member that employment insurance is one part of the social union framework in this country that makes our nation the envy of the world.

Having said that, let me remind the hon. member that he and other members of the House, as well as all Canadians, will have an opportunity to participate, and I urge them to participate, in the debate on employment insurance in this country. It is an important debate. None of us would deny that. It is a debate on which many Canadians, many of my constituents, have views which they want to express.

I would ask the hon. member not to forget that employment insurance is part of the social framework in this country that provides all of us and our families with a needed sense of security.

Therefore, I simply conclude by encouraging the hon. member to partake in this debate.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oak Ridges.

I am thankful for the opportunity to address the motion of my colleague on the subject of the social union. The truth of matter is that Canada is the envy of the world. We have consistently been rated among the top countries in the world for our standard of living and quality of life. Canada stands number one among the nations of the world in this year's United Nations human development index. We are respected worldwide for the country we have built by working together.

What are the reasons for this envy and respect? There are several, but I would like to take this opportunity to point out two in particular.

The first is the exceptional quality of our social programs. We need only look around us to realize how fortunate we are to have the social system that we do.

Health care is one of the main subjects of the motion before us today. Let us take a minute just to get back to basics. Through the combined efforts of federal and provincial governments all Canadians have access to health care insurance that enables them to seek timely and high quality medical care anywhere in the country without worrying that each minute of a doctor's time or each step of a particular procedure is costing them their savings. It sounds so simple.

We can compare that brief description with the situation faced by our close neighbours to the south. The United States is a wealthy and powerful country and still many people, particularly low income families, live without access to medical care even for routine check-ups and much less serious interventions because they cannot afford medical insurance.

This is not to say that there is not always room for improvement even in a system as good as Canada's health care system. Nor is it to deny that there have been some challenging times over the last few years while all governments, the provincial governments as well as the federal government, have fought to bring our deficits under control. That fight was necessary to ensure a solid future for Canada and for Canadians. It was necessary to ensure the future stability of our social programs including health care.

Canadians are not interested in seeing their governments finger pointing or hurling recriminations or fighting over their roles and responsibilities. Canadians want their governments to work together co-operatively to make improvements in health care as well as in all other areas that form the fabric of Canada's social union.

It is for that reason the Prime Minister agreed with his provincial and territorial colleagues that the moment was now for discussions on how all governments might collaborate to make the social union work better for Canadians. I stress that I have been speaking about all governments and about collaboration and co-operation.

This brings me to the second source of the envy and respect that Canada garners throughout the world, our success in co-operative federalism.

Canada is a federation. And it is true that the purpose of federalism is to protect and encourage the development of the diversity of Canada's regions and provinces. In particular, federalism makes it possible for Quebeckers to enjoy greater protection for their language, their culture and their civil law system than would be possible in a unitary state.

However, it must not be forgotten that Confederation was not about creating a customs union or a free trade zone among provinces. Confederation was about creating a new country, Canada, for a group of people with a shared identity as Canadians. The creation of a Government of Canada that would be elected to represent all Canadians was a critical part of the design of the new country. The federal government continues to play a pivotal role in the federation and part of that role is to ensure in co-operation with the provinces that there is a strong social union that works in the interests of all Canadians.

As the government elected to represent Canadians everywhere in the country, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to represent the national interest of Canadians in the negotiations on the social union. This means working together with all the provinces to come up with a proposal that is in the best interest of all Canadians.

It is for this reason that as Minister of Justice I have been given the responsibility of negotiating for the federal government on the social union and I continue to negotiate with all my provincial colleagues. It is also for this reason that the federal government is trying, one step at a time, to ensure that Canadian federalism works as well as it possibly can by taking care that each level of government undertakes its constitutional responsibilities in the most efficient fashion.

For example, this government has entered into agreements with the provinces concerning labour market developments to ensure the best service possible to Canadians who require assistance during transitions in their working lives.

At a more general level the federal government has made a commitment that it will not undertake any new national shared cost programs in the areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. That same commitment includes a right to reasonable compensation to provinces that choose not to participate in the national program.

The importance of co-operative federalism cannot be overstated. This government has always said that constitutional reform is not necessary in order to achieve the common goals of all Canadians. The federal and provincial governments may together take an approach to the exercise of their constitutional powers that respects what the Supreme Court of Canada recently described in the reference on Quebec secession as the federalism principle.

A good example of the success that has already been achieved through co-operative federalism in recent years is the national child benefit system. This system was the result of negotiations between the provincial and federal governments and has two main elements: increased federal benefits for families with low incomes through the Canada child tax benefit, and provincial and territorial reinvestments in services and benefits for children in low income families.

Between the two levels of government, each working in a collaborative fashion in their areas of jurisdiction, we have devised a program that will help to combat child poverty in Canada.

In conclusion, I can do no better than to quote the words of the governor general in the Speech from the Throne in September of last year:

As we look forward to the beginning of a new millennium with new challenges and new opportunities, we can look back at the last century of Canadian history and state with certainty that Canada is rightly regarded, the world over, as an extraordinary success. Canada represents a triumph of the human spirit, bringing together the best of what people can do.

The future is ours if only we continue to exemplify the spirit of co-operation that has already brought us so far.

I look forward to seeing the results of the meaningful negotiations between the federal and provincial governments on Canada's social union because I am sure that together those governments will arrive at a plan for strengthening the social union that puts Canadians first, both at home and in the world.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its legislative agenda this government is committed to the ongoing review and adjustment of the criminal law. My officials and I routinely meet with the provinces and territories, the police and interest groups on a range of criminal justice and sentencing issues to consider the state of the law and what could be done to improve it. We also receive and review numerous proposals from ordinary Canadians about criminal law, criminal justice and public safety issues.

As a direct result of this review process I have developed and placed before this House Bill C-51, a series of omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code and related statutes. These are intended to address a range of specific policy concerns and to make changes to correct drafting errors, cross references and other legislative oversights which have been identified in recent years.

These amendments would normally have been included in a regular omnibus bill. I felt that several were too important to wait until the next major criminal law amendment package. The government is particularly concerned about making changes to the Criminal Code year and a day rule and conditional sentence provisions, and the provinces are seeking other important changes so we have decided to proceed with them at this time.

Parliament has the responsibility, and the constitutional power, to pass legislation on criminal law, but the provinces are the ones responsible for their application. We must therefore take into consideration what the people who administer these administrations tell us works and what does not.

We meet with the provinces regularly, and take their expectations into consideration in drawing up action plans relating to criminal law. Many of the proposed changes to the legislation are the result of that process. When these changes are being deliberated, we need to keep in mind that they are the outcome of provincial demands and proposals, and that the provinces play a significant role in the application of criminal law in Canada.

I draw the attention of my colleagues to some of the more important changes were are proposing. Concerns have recently been expressed about the Criminal Code rule which limits prosecutions for homicide and other offences which involve the death of the victim. These offences can be prosecuted only if the victim dies within one year and a day of the last act of the accused on which the offence is based. Needless to say, this is a very old rule. It predates Confederation and the first Criminal Code of 1892. Authors have traced it in English criminal law back to the middle ages.

In the modern era the rule can only serve to block prosecutions which could now be placed before the courts on their merits. It has been criticized by lawyers and academics. After due consideration this government agrees that it should be repealed. Modern forensic science has increasingly made it possible for us to prove that the accused caused or contributed to the death of the victim even where the victim survives for an extended period. At the same time advances in medical science can result in victims who would have died quickly in earlier eras surviving for extended periods on life support systems before they eventually succumb to injuries.

Such cases are best placed before the courts for a determination of whether the accused committed a crime which caused death. The year and a day rule prevents this.

The legislation proposes to simply repeal the time limit. This would leave the existing Criminal Code and case law rules for establishing the causation of death intact. Essentially the rules say that where the accused is proven to have done anything which contributed to the victim's death in any way, the accused can be convicted of having caused that death if the contribution was more than minimal or negligible. This was always the case where victims died soon after the offence. We now propose to apply the same principle regardless of when the victim dies.

We cannot reopen cases where the year and a day period has already expired when the repeal takes effect. The charter prevents parliament from creating retroactive criminal offences or expanding existing offences to capture actions which would not have been caught by the legislation when they occurred. As a matter of policy, however, we are anxious to have the changes apply as soon as possible. There is a good argument that cases in which the time period is still running when the law changes may be be affected by the repeal without infringing the charter. The legislation provides for this. There is also no reason to delay proclamation of this change. The bill provides that the repeal will take effect on the day of royal assent.

As part of Bill C-51, the government also proposes series of changes to sentencing provisions. These address policy concerns and correct oversights which have been identified since the 1995 overhaul of sentencing law. It took effect in September 1996.

The most important of these are changes to the provisions dealing with conditional sentences. These sentences are an important means of dealing effectively with offenders while ensuring that custodial resources are focused on those who require custody under established sentencing principles. But concerns have arisen which must be addressed.

Since September 1996 it has become apparent that in some cases where offenders breach sentence conditions they cannot effectively be brought before the courts and dealt with before the sentence runs out and the courts lose jurisdiction.

To deal with this problem the amendments I am proposing would stop the running of time on the sentence when the offender is in breach. The time period, starting when a warrant to arrest the offender was issued or the offender was arrested without one and ending with the conclusion of court hearings into the alleged breach, would not count as time served on the sentence.

Where an offender is found not to have committed a breach, to have had a reasonable excuse or there is some other compelling reason, the lost time could later be recredited by the court. Other than this, offenders will not get any credit for the time lost. Stopping the running of the sentence will also ensure that the courts retain jurisdiction over offenders serving conditional sentences until they have served all their time without breaches.

If an offender absconds, his sentence remains in effect indefinitely until he can be arrested and brought back before the courts. The amendments would also clarify arrest powers to ensure that those in breach of conditional sentences can be arrested on the same basis as if they had committed an indictable offence.

The proposed legislation also contains other changes to Criminal Code sentencing provisions. The 1995 amendments created general rules for the administration of fine penalties and several of the proposed amendments will clarify the application of these rules to more specific offence provisions of the Criminal Code and other statutes.

Where an offence carries a minimum prison term the amendments provide that a fine could be imposed in addition to the minimum but not instead of it. Where the offence provision requires a minimum fine, the amendments would make clear that the general rule which requires the courts to consider the offender's ability to pay in setting fines does not allow judges to go below the mandatory minimum levels.

As hon. members who represent northern constituencies will know, a new diamond mine industry is beginning to take shape in the Northwest Territories. This is expected to bring employment and economic benefits to the territories, but the high value of uncut diamonds has raised concerns about the potential for theft and the possible use of diamonds as a means of smuggling or money laundering by organized crime.

To protect the new industry and Canadians, the proposed amendments would modernize old provisions dealing with the theft and illegal possession of precious metals and ores. The term previous metal would be replaced with valuable mineral to include diamonds and other non-metallic minerals.

The legislation would also create a federal power to prosecute some offences where uncut diamonds are involved to respond effectively to organized crime and interprovincial smuggling activities. This would be concurrent with provincial jurisdiction so that either level of government could prosecute. This would allow for federal prosecutions where an offence which started in the territories involved one or more provinces as well or where a major domestic or international organized crime interests are involved.

The law does not affect any existing provincial powers and would leave it open to federal and provincial officials to co-ordinate who would prosecute on a case by case basis.

Fighting against organized crime effectively is a priority of this government, and we are proposing many other changes to fight various activities involving organized crime.

The bill, if passed, would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that persons found guilty of organized crime activities would not be entitled to any sort of accelerated parole review.

The legislation would permit electronic surveillance in the case of serious offences involving prostitution and investigation of prostitution telephone networks and indirect involvement in organized crime.

Organized crime in Canada has also been linked to telemarketing fraud and related offences. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, already has amendments before parliament to criminalize various forms of deceptive telemarketing activity and to allow wiretapping to investigate them.

In this legislation I am proposing an additional amendment which would allow the proceeds of deceptive telemarketing offences, which can be a major source of income for organized crime groups, to be targeted using the existing Criminal Code proceeds of crime provisions.

The government is concerned about telemarketing fraud and related practices, and we regard the confiscation of illegal profit as a major step to counteract it.

The government has also been asked by the provinces for changes to Criminal Code provisions dealing with gambling. Generally gambling is a criminal offence unless the activity involved falls within one of a series of exemptions created in the Criminal Code such as those for operations conducted or licensed by the provinces or parimutuel betting on horse races approved by the minister of agriculture.

The changes I am proposing would create two new exemptions. First, it would allow dice games in operations that are conducted and managed by the provinces. Second, it would allow gambling operations on international cruise ships.

I want to assure the House that changes are not intended to increase the level of gambling activity in Canada. Nor do we expect them to have this effect. What we are seeking to do is to ensure that gambling and tourism operations in Canada compete with those of other countries, especially the United States, on an equal basis.

Dice games are not a major part of casino gambling, but casinos which offer them may have a competitive advantage over those in adjacent jurisdictions. Ontario is particularly concerned that its operations offer a similar range of games to those in neighbouring U.S. states. Once this amendment takes effect it will be up to each province to decide whether it wishes to allow dice games in its casinos.

In the case of international cruise ships, the amendments would allow Canadian registered cruise ships which fall under Canadian law regardless of where they are and foreign registered cruise ships in Canadian waters to offer gambling to passengers. The changes also ensure that the operators of cruise ships which enter Canadian waters will not be charged with importing the gambling equipment in their casinos. This is expected to provide direct benefits to the cruise industry itself and indirect benefits to tourism and other business in the ports where cruise ships call.

Canadian registered cruise ships can compete effectively while abroad and foreign registered ships will not be deterred from calling on Canadian ports.

The cruise industry is an important and growing part of regional economies, particularly in the St. Lawrence valley of Quebec and the coastal waters of British Columbia.

I am happy to be able to propose amendments which will address the economic concerns and interests of these provinces and their populations.

Another area of the criminal law which is of concern to my provincial counterparts is that of prostitution. Concerns have been expressed to my predecessor and myself that the 1997 Criminal Code amendments making it an offence to obtain the prostitution services of a person under 18 would be difficult to prosecute. The provinces had asked us to bring forward an amendment changing the offence from obtaining the services of a young person to communicating with a young person for that purpose. I am happy to propose such an amendment in this legislation. Similar wording in other prostitution offences has been held not to offend the charter by the courts.

Several changes in the area of search and seizure are also proposed in this legislation. The Criminal Code already provides the courts with the power to authorize the use of electronic surveillance of telephones and specified locations. Where this permission is given, it also authorizes police to install the necessary listening devices, but the legislation says nothing about their subsequent removal. The proposed amendments would address this situation by clarifying that judicial permission to install and use these devices also includes permission to remove them.

In many cases, the initial authorization runs out before police can safely go back to retrieve the devices. In such cases, the proposed amendments would allow the courts to specifically authorize their removal. The wording governing a series of search warrant provisions would also be amended to standardize the provisions and ensure that only public officers who have law enforcement responsibilities and peace officers could execute search warrants.

In 1997 the Criminal Code was amended to allow a justice who denies an accused person bail to also order that the accused not communicate with any witnesses or victims while in custody. This was identified by the provinces as particularly important in domestic violence cases where victims are often subjected to immediate pressure not to provide evidence or co-operate with the police.

Provincial authorities have subsequently pointed out that these non-communication orders are effective only after the accused has been brought before a justice for a bail hearing. This could be several days after the initial arrest, during which time accused persons can and do contact victims or witnesses.

To respond to the province's concerns, the proposed legislation would create a parallel provision allowing the first justice who sees the accused after arrest to make an immediate non-communication order. Once imposed, the temporary order would bar communication while the accused is held pending the bail hearing. It would be reviewed by the justice who hears the bail application, who could replace it with a non-communication order pending trial whether the accused is held in custody or released on bail.

This government is committed to the ongoing review of the criminal law and to the maintenance of effective legislative measures to protect society. As part of this effort, this legislation contains a series of other measures to address concerns about the legislation, adjust offences and punishments, modernize the statute and correct oversights enacted in other recent legislative initiatives.

We will continue to monitor the legislation and bring forward further changes as the need for them becomes apparent.

I look forward to the support of all members of the House for this important Criminal Code omnibus legislation.

[Young Offenders Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, we are in the process of consulting on the working paper we released in May of this year. As the hon. member knows, we are responsible for the enactment of the law. The provinces are responsible for the administration of the law and it is our intention to consult closely with the provinces.

It is our intention to consult closely with all the provinces before introducing legislation in this House.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point and that is those who choose for whatever reason to propagate misinformation and misrepresentations surrounding the new federal gun licensing and registration program.

I can assure the hon. member that wherever possible I take the opportunity to rectify those errors. But I think all of us in this House who are people of good faith who are either legitimate gun owners such as the hon. member or those of us who are not gun owners support the right of legitimate gun owners to possess their weapons.

It is our obligation to engage those who would lie and misrepresent the truth. We must engage them. We must destroy the propaganda. We must work with all Canadians together to ensure we have a degree of public safety and security that all Canadians have told us over and over again they want and they deserve.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member actually asked me a question but let me say to the individual in question that I have no knowledge of the situation involving the person named. If he has a concern in terms of the way the police discharged their duties, if he has a concern with the way the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick conducted himself, or if he has a concern with the way I as Attorney General of Canada conducted myself in relation to the specifics of that situation I would appreciate that individual getting in touch with me. I would be very happy to sit down with him and talk to him about his experience.