Colleen Beaumier

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, justice policies often deal with issues which are the focus of great concern among Canadians. It is an area of public policy that comes under scrutiny daily in homes across the country as Canadians read their newspapers and watch the news. Unfortunately, it is also a source of a great deal of frustration.

The failure of successive governments to effectively combat high risk offenders has left Canadians feeling wary and cynical. Canadians are well aware of the types of crimes that occur and reoccur in their communities. They are well aware of the challenges we as parliamentarians face. That is why it is difficult for me as a member of Parliament and a democrat to act on the conventional wisdom prevalent among so-called experts. They claim the concern among Canadians over crime issues is overstated. They would have us spend our energies telling our constituents that they have no reason to worry about crime in this country.

I speak to my constituents every day and every day they tell me they are frustrated and afraid because of the level of violent crime in Canada. I am pleased to speak to this proposed legislation which addresses many of the concerns expressed by my constituents.

This legislation addresses very legitimate fears among Canadians over the ability of the justice system to deal with repeat sex offenders and specifically high risk offenders. It introduces tough

but effective controls to tip the balance in the fight against crime in our favour.

A case in point is the new long term offender designation. This designation was created to respond to the threat posed by sex offenders who do not quite qualify as dangerous offenders but still pose a risk to society. Bill C-55 proposes to add a period of supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison. This designation applies to a wide range of serious sexual offences from sexual touching to aggravated sexual assault.

The long term offender designation could also be applied to a person who committed another offence that had a sexual component, for example, somebody who committed a break and enter with a clear intention of sexually assaulting the occupants.

Canadians have consistently expressed frustration with the release from prison of sex offenders who are likely to reoffend. The dangerous offender designation responds to this concern in only the most extreme cases, leaving a significant gap in the high risk offender sentencing regime. The creation of the long term offender designation fills this gap.

A long term offender finding can be made only where the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of eventually controlling the risk imposed by the individual to the community. This allows a more structured kind of sentence for this type of offender, allowing the courts to pass tailor made effective sentences within a broad framework. This approach to justice policy is characteristic of the manner in which this government and this minister have responded to the challenges of this very important portfolio.

Efforts to streamline the sentencing process are evident in the proposed amendments to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code. Currently judges have the discretion to establish fixed sentences for individuals who are designated dangerous offenders. This is problematic.

The federal-provincial-territorial task force on high risk violent offenders correctly reported last year that it makes no sense to go through the dangerous offender procedure only to obtain a fixed sentence comparable to what might have been obtained without this lengthy exercise.

Under Bill C-55 when a dangerous offender application is successful the offender will automatically be sentenced to a period of indefinite incarceration. This measure is a recognition that dangerous offenders are just that and that the onus rests with them to demonstrate that they should be released from prison.

Other measures in the proposed legislation underline this message. The initial parole review of a dangerous offender would be moved to the seventh year from the third of incarceration and the number of psychiatrists required to testify has been reduced from two to one.

The introduction of a mechanism to allow a dangerous offender application up to six months after conviction rather than at the time of sentencing will allow the crown to act on information which may be brought to its attention following the conviction of an offender.

A third aspect of this legislation is the new judicial restraint provision which permits controls, including electronic monitoring of high risk offenders. This provision is much needed and has great potential for monitoring and controlling the movement of individuals who pose a risk of committing a serious personal injury offence. It should be noted that the exercise of this option does not depend on the individual's having committed a criminal offence. It is a preventive measure which will equip police with the means to monitor the conduct of offenders who pose a risk to society.

I might suggest that one feature of this legislation be singled out for intense study in committee, the long term offender designation. This is a very innovative and desirable aspect of the proposed legislation which deserves special attention. The committee should ensure that judges have a great deal of flexibility in the substance of its application. I have a specific use in mind.

Judges should have the ability to prescribe the application of new technologies for use in the monitoring of high risk offenders. Electronic monitoring has a multiplicity of uses in the fight against crime.

Judges should be vested with the ability to put this technology to use in monitoring high risk offenders. The committee should make every effort to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to allow the application of new and emerging technologies to monitor long term offenders.

This legislation represents a well thought out, effective approach to dealing with justice issues which are paramount in the minds of Canadians. Some politicians have made a career of demanding monolithic, inflexible blanket legislation which imposes hefty minimum sentences. They will no doubt argue, as they always do, that this legislation does not go far enough in the war against crime. To them and their supporters, I offer the following observations.

It is true that we can draft any bill conceivable as long as it is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, if it will not work in the real world, the world that exists beyond these four walls, we are just wasting our time and betraying the trust of the people who put us here.

Let us not take the easy way out. Let us take the time to draft effective legislation that works. I would like to remind all hon. members that drafting justice policy is always a very difficult task.

We must balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victims and the entitlement of society to an effective, fair justice system.

We must not fall into the trap of introducing laws that are inflexible and therefore incompatible with the task of achieving individual acts of justice within a broad public policy framework.

In the end, the true measure of an effective justice policy is the sum of the individual acts of the justice it achieves. We must strive to have effective laws. Bill C-55 achieves the balance required of good justice policy. I would encourage hon. members to give it their support.

[Violence Against Women, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, several months ago the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters distributed a videotape to some members of the House called "Reel Hatred". This video contains clips from so-called slasher films which depict horrible acts of violence against women and girls.

The distributors and retailers of these videos hide behind the principle of free speech which is the foundation of a free and democratic society. However, all good democrats know that the freedom to commit an act ends when that act causes another individual harm.

This is the case with slasher films. Just as movies can inspire us to do great things, they can also inspire individuals to commit horrible acts of violence, a fact which is demonstrated by so-called copycat crimes.

In our zeal to protect free speech, we should not protect the right to produce and distribute such rubbish.

[Environment, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The government has just announced that it will allow Canadian companies to export PCBs to the United States. Last fall an interim order was issued preventing Canadian companies from exporting this substance.

Can the minister tell the House what measures were taken before a decision was made to lift the interim order banning the export of PCBs to the U.S.?

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

We are united on this issue. I suppose it is not really the time to be fighting each other but I know who is who in the Liberal Party and I know who we owe in the Liberal Party when we get here: We owe the people who put us here.

With respect to the motion by the sponsoring member, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, I would urge all of my colleagues to support Bill C-216. It is an amendment that seeks to clarify the intent of the legislation.

I congratulate the member for Sarnia-Lambton for introducing this much needed legislation.

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-216 and specifically to address the motions put to this House by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe and the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton who is the sponsoring member.

The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe has introduced a motion which would defeat Bill C-216. I cannot in good conscience support this motion.

I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-216 in the House on April 26 of this year. Those of us who have supported this legislation from the beginning are very pleased with the progress it has made. It is a testament to the quality of this legislation that it has made it this far.

My comments during that first debate focused on consumer rights. I argued that this legislation is in the best interest of Canadian consumers.

As members of Parliament, I believe it is our duty to protect those interests. Often when our constituents call us they forget that before we were elected and again after we are finished we were consumers, we are consumers, we are taxpayers and we will continue to be. It is not an issue that we are devoid and separated from. We do know what their concerns are.

Since the bill was originally introduced a great deal of activity has apparently occurred behind the scenes. If we are to believe newspaper reports, lobbyists have been very active turning this matter into a linguistic issue. Rather than focus on the only issue at hand, the issue of consumer rights, lobbyists have focused the attention of members on a divisive national unity question.

I wonder why they did not raise the same concern when cable operators publicly stated that they will no longer employ negative option billing practices. I wonder why they did not raise their voices when the government rejected the idea of a cable tax to support the CBC, the CBC which was created to be the main instrument to unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast and to keep Canadian culture distinct in North America.

The argument that the demise of negative option billing will have a negative impact on French language programming simply does not make sense. The best way to ensure demand for television services in both official languages is to ensure audiences in both official languages.

Burgeoning second language immersion programs across Canada are a testament to the growing number of bilingual Canadians. These Canadians will be able to enjoy and therefore demand quality entertainment in both official languages. That is the best way to safeguard demand for programming in both official languages.

There is only one issue at the heart of this legislation: consumer rights. Do Canadian consumers have the right to be asked whether they want a product before being charged for it? Do they have the right to choose how they spend their entertainment dollars? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Canadian consumers have the right to choose whether they want a product before paying for it. This is just common sense. If we were dealing with any other industry other than the cable industry, it would not even be an issue. I do not understand why we choose to treat powerful cable operators with kid gloves. Canadians are telling us we have to stop.

I received many calls from my constituents this weekend urging me to support this legislation. In fact my voice mail kept filling up. I returned every call that I received and there was not one call in support of stopping this bill. There is no doubt that my constituents support this legislation. Let there be no doubt in their minds that I am listening and will vote in their best interests. I would urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

It has been said, for those who argue in favour of government, that without government we are merely consumers. In this era of deregulation and government downsizing, it is important that we establish a regulatory framework which is consumer oriented. The passage of this bill would represent a giant leap in this direction.

Certainly, cable operators have taken measures to encourage cable subscription from Canadians, as they should because they are in the business of making money. The various subscription packages available to consumers and the advent of direct payment schemes have proven successful for these operators. Direct payment in particular is a very powerful tool when combined with negative option billing because it gives cable operators direct access to automatic payment from Canadians.

When the cable companies implemented negative option billing a year and a half ago in Ontario, had my constituents not been concerned about this and had my constituents not called me, I probably would not have even realized that I was being billed for a service which I really did not want. Many of us do not even really know how much our cable bill is because we have so many other things that we are dealing with now. That means the cable company had the right to take money from my account even without my knowledge. Depending on one's income bracket, maybe $3 a month is not a lot, but if we add it up across the country, that is $25 million a year taken from the pockets of Canadians without their consent.

Just as cable companies will make every effort to maximize their profits, we as members of Parliament must make every effort to balance the playing field so that consumer interests are protected.

The activities which have apparently occurred behind the scenes raise another issue: the relationship between elected officials and their constituents and that between elected officials and lobbyists. We made a red book commitment to consult with our constituents, not to consult with lobbyists. I say to all hon. members that we must honour this commitment.

The cable companies in my area have been very good to me. They have given me good programming. They have helped me to pass my message on to my constituents. However, if my message to my constituents is that in order to get this hour every two weeks to communicate with them that I have to give in to the wishes of lobbyists, I am not sure that is the message I want to communicate.

I would like to make a comment to the hon. member across the floor who spoke before me. We know who is who in the Liberal Party. Our constituents are who is who in the Liberal Party. We do not need lectures on backbenchers standing up and taking a stand. We do stand up and take a stand. We will continue to take a stand. I could perhaps suggest that the hon. members on the other side of the floor should have followed their own advice when it came to the gun legislation when they took polls in their own ridings.

[Employment, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The government keeps boasting that it has created 208,000 jobs to date in 1996 yet there are many Canadians who are still hurting. Is the government so complacent because of its high rating in the polls that it is prepared to ignore the plight of over a million Canadians who are unemployed?

Does the government have any new plans for job creation?

[Human Rights, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to the fact that last week Dr. Maxwell Yalden, Canada's chief human rights commissioner, was elected to the UN human rights committee.

This UN committee is a select body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the international convention on civil and political rights, one of the central pillars of the international human rights system.

Dr. Yalden's election in the face of strong competition reflects both his strong personal credentials as a candidate and international respect for Canada's leadership on human rights issues.

Dr. Yalden has extensive experience in the field of human rights both in Canada and abroad. I believe he will make an outstanding contribution to the work of the UN human rights committee. The presence of a Canadian expert in this important body represents another contribution by Canada to the promotion of international human rights, an issue which is at the heart of Canada's foreign policy agenda.

I hope that you will join me in offering Dr. Yalden congratulations.

[Optimists In Action, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1 Optimist International will celebrate Optimists in Action Day around the world.

With the motto "Friend of Youth", Optimists strive to set a positive example for youth. In addition to helping youth develop those characteristics which they will require for future success, Optimist clubs provide funding to the community for the purchase of special medical equipment for children with special needs and personal welfare for children in need.

In Brampton the Optimist Club has put over $1.6 million back into the community to service the needs of its young people. Among the programs run by the Optimist Club are respect for law, bicycle safety and oratorical contests. Some of its projects include Canada Day, the audiology room at Peel Memorial Hospital, students against drunk driving sponsorship and other worthy causes.

On behalf of all members I would like to congratulate the organizers and participants of Optimists in Action Day and wish them the best for their future success.

[Land Mines, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Today is International Red Cross Day.

On Parliament Hill and across Canada young Canadians are embarking on a worldwide campaign to ban the use of anti-personnel land mines. What will the government do to support this initiative by the Red Cross and young Canadians to ban land mines?

[Missing Children, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, May is Child Find Canada's annual Green Ribbon of Hope month. Canadians are asked to wear a green ribbon as a symbol of hope for the safe recovery of missing children.

The green ribbon of hope originated at Holy Cross Secondary School when Kristen French's friends and teachers wore the green ribbon to express their hope for Kristen's safe return. Sadly, Kristen did not return.

It is every parent's nightmare to learn that their child has been abducted. Yet for too many families this nightmare becomes a reality. In 1995, 55,749 children were reported missing in Canada. This includes children who were abducted by a stranger, by a parent and children who ran away.

I represent a community which has been forever scarred by the tragedy of a missing child. Christopher Stephenson was just 11 years old when he was taken and lost his life at the hands of his abductor. For the Stephenson family the horrors of child abduction have left a permanent mark. We must make every effort to ensure that another family does not experience the same trauma which the Stephenson family has had to endure.

I urge Canadians to wear a green ribbon.