Paul Forseth

[B.C. Disaster Victims, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a sea of blue in B.C.'s lower mainland and it has nothing to do with the Pacific Ocean.

Hundreds of large blue tarps are hanging from condominiums in a last ditch attempt to protect properties from extensive water damage during repairs due to second-rate building practices. The Condominium Owners Association of British Columbia estimates the repair costs to be in the neighbourhood of $1 billion—similar to Canada's other recent natural disasters.

These disaster victims are looking for help now. It is a serious crisis and not even the Minister of National Revenue, whose own constituents are many of the troubled condo owners, has spoken a word about it in this House.

The minister has the power to lend a hand: allow owners to use RRSP funds, make interest payments on loans deductible, or even permit emergency repairs to be GST exempt.

Let us have a B.C. minister finally do something for B.C.

[Division No. 118, March 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding the answer I received to my question of December 3, 1997.

At that time I asked the justice minister how the next supreme court justice could be put through a more appropriate public examination for the appointment process. The minister simply replied that she was willing to consult with Canadians who were interested. But this statement clearly indicates that the minister was not willing to bring forward a defined process of choosing a supreme court judge.

The minister stating that she is willing to consult simply means that the minister is not bound by any public input. The minister's reply to my question was out of touch with Canadians.

I ask, in appointing the supreme court justice, what specific consultations did the minister do? Did the minister travel from coast to coast asking Canadians what kind of judge they wanted? Exactly what kind of sociological advice did the minister receive in making the appointment? If the minister consulted with the provincial attorneys general, the chief justice, law societies and the Canadian Bar Association, does the minister believe this was adequate?

If the system has supposedly worked fine for 130 years, then why would former supreme court Justice Gerard La Forest comment that the Canadian process needs reform and that his replacement should be appointed only after a public review process has taken place? Did the minister not consult with former Justice La Forest?

In the United States the president nominates candidates to their supreme court. However before any person is able to take a seat on the bench they must appear before a Senate committee where their experience is tested, anything from their personal life to political views. In the United States they understand that these things are relevant for future quality decisions. To date, 12 nominations have been rejected and 17 have been withdrawn.

The public process has merit. Should we not want the absolute best judges to make rulings in our highest court? Do we not want to raise the public esteem of the court?

It is evident that who does the deciding is just as important as what is being decided at the court. The time is now for this government to open up the process to allow the public to have a say in who is to be chosen.

The appropriate public examination needed includes a forum for all Canadians to participate. I am suggesting that the process look similar to that of the United States. For example, our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the capability to review appointments of chairmen to the National Parole Board, the RCMP and CSIS just to name a few. Why would it be so difficult to set up a process for supreme court judges? On the other hand the Senate could hold ratification hearings.

In conclusion, I want to make it clear that Reformers are not implying that newly appointed supreme court judges are incapable or incompetent in any way. What we are saying is that the process to find replacements must change and must be modernized.

Canadians want change. Provincial justice ministers want change. Former supreme court justices want change. Why is the minister ignoring these pleas? The government even says that it wants change and then nothing happens. It is like the Young Offenders Act issue since 1993.

It is widely expected that before the end of this year two more justices will step down. A responsible minister would work on changing the process right now. Will the next appointments be made the same old way, or will the minister give way to the public's wishes and do the right thing?

Among the varied screening processes there needs to be a vigorous public accountability threshold to maintain the integrity and public regard for our highest court.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak today to the bill sponsored by the member for Oxford dealing with penalties for sexual offences involving children.

I commend the member for Bill C-245. I support the amendment he is making to the Criminal Code. I wish that more members from his side of the House would also recognize that creating stiffer penalties would go a long way to curbing crime in Canada, especially of this heinous type.

Reform members came to Ottawa in 1993 with a commitment to the Canadian people to reform Parliament. Included in those reforms was the promise to be supportive whenever possible of the people's agenda over party manoeuvres. We promised not to oppose government legislation or private members' bills simply for the sake of opposition. If a bill enhances public safety we will support it. We therefore support the member for Oxford.

Bill C-245 if passed by this House will change the definition of publication in the case of child pornography to cover transmission by electronic mail or posting the material on the Internet or any other electronic net. This amendment to the Criminal Code is simply in keeping with the advances of the technology and the prevalence of child pornography on the Internet today. I applaud the hon. member's effort in this regard. However, this amendment should and could have been enacted by the government. However, there is a pattern. The government is weak. When action is needed there is a pattern of Liberal government weakness.

While this government is introducing legislation which deals with technology and privacy it has neglected to make the necessary Criminal Code amendments to protect our children from the perverts who surf the net. It is not surprising given the low priority this government places on the protection of society and in particular our children. We have discovered sex slavery in Canada and sadly we have juvenile prostitution in every major city. The government has done little while at the same time shuts down private members' bills that deal with these things. The government is weak.

Despite claiming in June, 1997 that revamping the Young Offenders Act was a priority, the justice minister has failed to bring one single amendment. The minister's failure in this regard has put our children who are most often the victims of crime at needless risk.

We also support the increase in the maximum penalty for forcible confinement from 10 to 14 years in the case of a parent or a ward who confines a child and thereby harms the child's physical or mental health.

The Reform Party fully supports the penalty of imprisonment for life with no parole eligibility for 25 years for anyone found guilty of sexually assaulting a child under 8 or a child under 14 who is under the offender's trust or authority or who is dependent on the offender.

I do, however, question the age of eight years. In 1994 the Liberal government refused to amend the Young Offenders Act to include 10 and 11 year olds, claiming they were much too young to be held accountable for their criminal behaviour. I therefore have to wonder why the hon. member for Oxford has not at least included 10 and 11 year olds. I would recommend including children up to the age of at least 13, in recognition of the vulnerability of children within this tender age group.

I also find it questionable that the member for Oxford has proposed what can only be considered a heavy penalty, one which would not be supported by a majority of his own 1700 colleagues.

In 1995 a majority of Liberal members voted against eliminating the faint hope clause for murderers. I question why this member and his Liberal colleagues would ever agree to put a child molester behind bars for a minimum of 25 years when they have repeatedly failed to keep murderers locked away for at least the 25 years.

Let us not forget that it was the Liberal Party which gave us the faint hope clause, claiming some hope must be given to first degree murderers.

Clifford Olson raped and killed 11 innocent children and after serving only 15 years of his life sentence this sadistic killer took full advantage of the Liberal made faint hope clause and applied for early release.

I might add that the former justice minister is directly responsible for Olson's full press court. The former justice minister failed to bring in Bill C-45 in time to prevent Olson from once again terrorizing these victims' families. There was plenty of warning. There was no excuse.

I and many of my colleagues were there the day Olson, to the horror of the nation, was once again terrorizing his victims' families. I and many of my colleagues were there, at court, the very day Olson, to the horror of the nation, was once again granted the absurd privilege of making a mockery of our justice system.

Last week when representatives of the Canadian Police Association were in Ottawa they left a message for the Liberal government. Topping their list was the elimination of the faint hope clause. Perhaps finally the justice minister will see to it to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code and keep murderers behind bars where they belong.

There are a number of other areas which require attention. To date the justice minister has done little or nothing with regard to enhancing public safety.

Conditional sentences for violent offenders must be eliminated. How many more rapists must walk free before the justice minister amends specifically her predecessor's flawed section of the Criminal Code?

I point to one significant omission in Bill C-245. It does not amend the Young Offenders Act. Therefore, anyone under the age of 18 who sexually assaults a child will not be sentenced to life imprisonment. The maximum sentence they will receive under the YOA is three years, plus a possible two years of additional control.

Adolescent males commit approximately 20% of sexual assaults against teens and adults, and between 30% to 50% of such assaults against children. According to the forum on correctional research, January 1995, sexual assaults committed by youth are as serious as those committed by adults.

Without changes to the YOA the maximum penalty a youth can receive for raping or molesting a child will remain three years, with an additional optional two years. If the young offender is released into the community no one will know because of the privacy provisions of the YOA which do not allow for the publishing of young offenders' names, including young rapists. I mentioned that today in my question to the justice minister and received a very unsatisfactory answer.

Jason Gamache was a sex offender, but this fact was not made known to his neighbours. An unsuspecting mother allowed Mr. Gamache to babysit her young daughter. Her daughter was raped and killed by Gamache. The mistakes in the provincial administration of this case were all started by the secrecy provisions of the Young Offenders Act.

On September 26 my colleague from Crowfoot introduced a private member's bill to amend the YOA. Unlike the Liberal justice minister, the member for Crowfoot worked all summer on Bill C-210 and at the first opportunity introduced his bill.

We in the Reform Party have introduced many private members' bills on the Young Offenders Act. Where are the minister's? Amending the YOA is a priority for the Reform Party, as it is for many Canadians.

In June, 1997 the justice minister said that the YOA was a priority, and yet we have seen nothing.

Last year the justice committee travelled throughout the country, spending close to half a million dollars reviewing the act.

In April, 1997 the committee tabled a report containing a number of recommendations for amending the YOA and the Reform Party produced a minority report which was rejected by the committee because it was too comprehensive. We ensured that our report was given to all the provincial attorneys general, many of whom have been requesting similar changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Since the former justice minister mandated the committee to review the Young Offenders Act upon the 10th anniversary of its enactment, the Reform Party has questioned the commitment of the justice minister and the Liberal dominated justice committee to effectively change this act which is now 14 years old.

This government failed during its first three and a half year mandate to improve public safety and it is failing again. This justice minister has done very little. It has been a very weak performance.

The member for Oxford can count on Reform's support but, interestingly, he cannot count on the support of his bleeding heart pals who refuse to keep murderers locked up for at least 25 years. By the process of this bill today, we can see that the justice agenda of average Canadians is reflected in the Reform Party position and not the bureaucratic, top down agenda of the Liberals.

The conclusion is obvious. If Canadians want a good justice system they need to elect a Reform Party government.

[Young Offenders, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is fear among Canadians that without their knowledge a violent young offender may be living next door. This cloak of anonymity is not solving crime in Canada. I have never heard of a case where hiding names helps but I know of individuals who are dead because of it.

Does the Minister of Justice agree that the names of young offenders should be public to protect communities? Will she include this in legislation and not just in her musings to reporters in the media?

[Young Offenders Act, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals gave Canadians a flawed Young Offenders Act in the 1980s and since then have only tinkered with and not fixed their mistake. Two successive governments have had endless consultations since 1992 as the YOA has gained little public support.

I ask the minister if she is open to real change: no hiding of names, no hiding of records, no day camps for murderers? Will she finally commit to doing it right this time and make these long sought after changes?

[The Economy, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents I represent I think have a correct sense that the country is not functioning anywhere near its economic potential. They know they are generally worse off this year than in past years and they know that the average person is not confident about their financial future. Neighbours talk about the weather but soon they break into groans of dismay or sad laughter of hopeless resignation that the federal government just does not care. They are saying that it knows little about their financial realities, the real truth about families and what they face.

My neighbours may not be experts in macroeconomic and the doublespeak of the annual budget speech. However, they did have some reasonable expectations this time around and they were sadly disappointed. It was not extreme but reasonable to desire that the federal government live within its means and not spend more each year than it takes in.

The federal Liberals were excruciatingly slow to get this country to the balanced budget situation, and in hindsight the numbers reveal that the most prudent course would have been a balance last year after the debacle of the Conservatives.

Their government was replaced in October 1993 and the Liberal's spending control really began with the 1994-95 budget. However, like in 1984 when there was a national mood and general public will to quickly get the national finances in order, the Liberal government dithered and we wound up with worse pain and unneeded deeper financial wounds to heal.

There was a big missed opportunity in 1984, and again in 1994 there was brief hope but it was soon dashed with another big disappointment when the Liberals set such an anemic response to a Canadian financial situation that was by then almost out of control. We plodded so slowly toward a balanced budget but we failed to reap the benefits of earned confidence from the international community and we dragged out the pain of internal disruption.

We also achieved a balanced budget through massive tax hikes rather than a more appropriate balance of spending restraint. We got to the right economic position in the wrong way, in a needlessly painful way, especially concerning health care. The Liberal's cut on that national trust was heartless. It reflected their lack of competence to cut elsewhere, to stop the giveaways to favourites. They failed to be realistic with program review concerning measuring the actual results of much of their program spending. Then from a balanced budget Canada is again disappointed.

Setting a right course for budgets is not all that difficult when a government listens and strives to be accountable to the community. The Liberals are weak in view of the national challenges because of that very fact. They are not committed to local community accountability. They have too many vested interests. They care too much about other agendas and they are too weak to control them. The needy average Canadian at the lower end of the economic order becomes only a Liberal afterthought or a mere slogan. The Liberals lack the accountability to what average Canadians want and need, and this is revealed in the numbers of every budget since the election in 1993.

My constituents have told me that they agreed with the opinion of the leader of the Reform Party when he said: “What a disappointment. For the first time in a generation a prime minister could have charted a new course for our country. He could have set us on the path to debt reduction and tax relief, but he blew it”.

This is what the Leader of the Opposition said at the first question period following the February 24 budget speech. What is resonating in British Columbia is exactly this, debt reduction and tax relief. It seems that those from the left are also attempting to adopt the notion of fiscal responsibility, albeit with a radical twist.

The NDP member for Qu'Appelle recently made some interesting comments in a newspaper article when he stated: “The party and the left in general now has realized that we have to have now a sound financial base”.

This goes back to the CCF and Tommy Douglas. The first thing he preached is that you can't do anything for people unless you have your financial house in order.

The radical twist is that the NDP now wants the government to allocate large amounts of money on new program spending while maintaining strong fiscal practices.

I would like to suggest to the member for Qu'Appelle that a sound financial base includes debt reduction. We cannot ignore the debt. As of today, it is moving frighteningly close to $585 billion or more. Canada's fiscal house is not in order. It is not even close.

The Liberals in the last election promised that of the surplus, half would go to new spending and the other half would go to debt reduction and tax relief.

Canadians may have been impressed by this notion, however Reformers knew very well that, like so many broken promises before, this was just another to throw on the heap of promises.

The Liberals promised to make changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement and they did not. The Liberals promised to scrap the EH-101 helicopter deal. At first they did and then the pressure got to them and they were forced to renege on that promise. Then there was the infamous promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. They did not.

These were major policy decisions upon which governments are made or unmade, a series of broken promises. I cannot speak for all Canadians, but I can speak for my own constituents in New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby and I can assume that their feelings are similar to those from other cities and provinces and territories. They simply want promises kept. It is as simple as that.

Why is it so tough for this government to understand what is meant by integrity in politics? Government members sit in their seats, smirking, thinking about how wonderful it is to have gotten away with broken promises. They said things to get elected which they had no intention of keeping. These actions will come back to haunt.

I watched the newspapers quite closely following the budget. It was important to me to see how the others reacted, in many cases columnists and financial institutions in the private sector with their finger on the pulse of the nation.

I want to read a couple of the quotes that I pulled from the papers: “The government's approach in this budget falls far short of providing adequate emphasis on debt reduction”. That is Ernst & Young's analysis of the 1998 federal budget.

Another one: “Lower tax rates would generate more spending, jobs and income. They would increase Canada's attractiveness for new investment and improve the quantity and quality of job opportunities, particularly among our youth”. That was also from the Ernst & Young analysis.

Another quote: “For a situation in which balanced budgets are being forecast for the years ahead, there is not nearly enough relief for overburdened taxpayers who have taken the hits for deficit reduction”. That was Neville Nankivell of the Financial Post .

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce: “The federal budget sets its sights on the wrong target by focusing on spending rather than taking strong action to pay down the massive $583 billion national debt. The federal debt translates into $19,000 for every man, woman and child”.

Canadians are being squeezed to death and they are pleading for tax breaks, yet the finance minister feels that Canadians want more program spending. Did the minister not consult with the average citizen to see what they really needed most and wanted?

Did the average citizen really tell the minister that what was needed was a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund that would only affect 6% of all students in Canada and would discriminate against students who choose open public universities that do not take taxpayer money through direct support?

Did the minister believe that Canadians would accept a tax increase to pay for new program spending of paid day care while discriminating against parents who sacrifice income for one parent to stay at home to look after their own? Absolutely not.

The minister does not care what ordinary Canadians think because they have expanded their discriminatory ways. The only thing that the minister cares about is finding new methods to reclaim the old Liberal ways of spend, spend, spend.

The Reform's budget plan says there is a need to revise the Income Tax Act regulations to end discrimination against parents who provide child care at home and also ensure equitable treatment for one income child care at home.

Thankfully this year's budget is balanced but now is not the time to open up overall spending again. Canada cannot continue down that path. Our fiscal house is not in order. The finance minister cannot claim victory. There is still a tremendous amount of work to do.

Moody's Investor Service of New York has indicated that it is not ready to reinstate Canada's highly coveted triple A rating. It says that the success of this budget was due to extremely good luck due to the upturn in the economy and tax increases. This says to me that the government could have done so much more. Had the government attacked the debt Moody's may have been compelled to boost the national credit rating.

I want to close by saying that though things may not look very good, Reform is not going to give up. In 1993 we came to Ottawa with ideas that made sense and they make even more sense now. The vision we have for this country is sound and we have stood by our principles and our promises. We believe in Canada and we believe strongly that it can recover from this fiscal crisis.

I desire to serve to bring a better Canada to everyone regardless of economic situation, and with more economic compassion we can do better as we enter the next millennium.

[Canada Evidence Act, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing is entitled an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Interestingly the bill was tabled by the government in the Senate.

The bill was originally tabled in the House by the former minister of justice in April 1997 as Bill C-98 and died with the dissolution of parliament in 1997.

Bill S-5 contains a number of provisions to remove barriers and to ensure the equality rights of persons with disabilities. It also includes some substantive changes to the federal human rights act.

I will highlight some of the contents of the bill as the substance is most worthy. It generally fits with the people agenda of average Canadians that Reformers promote. Reformers always look to expand the bounds of democracy, to help those who need a hand up and may not be able to fully help themselves. The bill largely says how the federal government will behave. It is a statement that extends goodwill and mainstream consideration to a larger group.

Three pieces of legislation will be amended by the bill. On disability issues there is some background worth mentioning. Today more than four million people in Canada, about 16% of the population, have some disability. Canadians with disabilities continue to experience some obstacles to daily living in areas such as employment, transportation and housing where most of us take full participation for granted.

Legislative reform has been advocated by the disability rights movement for almost two decades. At the parliamentary level the issue was raised when the former House of Commons Standing Committee on Human and the Status of Persons with Disabilities actively promoted the equality rights of persons with disabilities. The committee made specific recommendations for legislative reform requiring all federal departments, crown corporations and agencies to review and reform legislation to ensure the inclusion of persons with disabilities in federal programs.

In response to the report the government agreed to undertake a comprehensive review to identify the action required to eliminate these barriers to the social and economic integration of persons with disabilities.

The idea of an omnibus bill that would make simultaneous amendments to a number of pieces of federal legislation to address the concerns of Canadians with disabilities was promoted by the disability community as far back as the late eighties and early nineties.

Today we have that omnibus bill in Bill S-5. The goal was to bring federal laws in line with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the right to equality for persons with mental and physical disabilities.

The Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted in 1977 to provide for an informal process for resolving cases of discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction. Like most provincial anti-discrimination laws, the act establishes a specialized system of redress whereby discriminatory actions are discouraged by means of education and by ensuring that those who discriminate will bear the costs of compensating their victims. The act applies to all federal government departments, agencies and crown corporations as well as federally regulated businesses and industries such as banking, transportation and communications.

The human rights system essentially operates on a complaint basis. A complaint of discrimination must be lodged with the Canadian Human Rights Commission before the process can go forward. Moreover, the human rights system is self-contained in that there is no direct right to seek damages before the courts for acts of discrimination.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is the administrative agency responsible for promoting an understanding of and compliance with the act. The adjudicative function under the legislation is carried out by human rights tribunals looking into complaints of discrimination. They have the power to fashion reasonable remedies to address the unique social problems underlying these complaints.

In the Speech from the Throne on October 1, 1986 the then government announced its intention to proceed with amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. On December 10, 1992 the former minister of justice, the Hon. Kim Campbell, tabled in the House of Commons Bill C-108, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. That bill died with the dissolution of that Parliament.

In June 1996 during the last session of the Parliament, one amendment to the human rights act was made, adding sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

This bill completes the long stated goals of inclusiveness that I mentioned. For example, the removal of barriers to facilitate equal access to the Canadian justice system. This has been a longstanding goal of those with disabilities who have been either labelled mentally handicapped or denied methods to assist them to communicate in a court of law.

It was concluded that unless statutory provisions excluding the evidence of these persons was improved, they would continue to be discounted. These could include the removal of barriers to receiving testimony from persons with disabilities; allowing witnesses to use the medium with which they are most comfortable in order to testify in court; allowing individuals with a disability to use alternative methods, such as the voice, to identify the accused; and eliminating discrimination against persons with a disability in the jury selection process. Certainly we have excluded many worthy jurors in the past.

There is particular concern about the people with disabilities who are physically and sexually assaulted but who are unable to obtain the protection of the criminal justice system. The previous legislation I do not think went far enough and amendments in this bill are in response to that.

The bill also amends the Canada Evidence Act. Clause 1 would replace section 6 of the Canada Evidence Act which currently allows witnesses who are unable to speak to give evidence by any means that would make it intelligible. Clause 1 would extend this allowance to persons who have difficulty in communicating by reason of any disability. This change could require the use of sign language or oral interpreters, assistive learning devices or real time captioning.

According to clause 1, persons with mental disabilities who have been determined to have the capacity to give evidence and have difficulty in communicating because of a physical or mental disability could give evidence with appropriate help.

Clause 1 would also allow a witness to give evidence about the identity of an accused either visually or by using a sensory method of identification. This new section would permit the admission into court of voice and touch methods of identifying an accused person. In most cases victims visually identify the accused first in a line-up and then in the courtroom as part of the evidence. However, persons who are blind or who have low vision are often unable to identify an accused in this manner.

The bill also deals with the offence of sexual exploitation. The child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code, section 153 I believe, make it an offence for a person in a position of trust or authority to sexually exploit a young person. They also make it an offence for a person to sexually exploit a young person with whom he or she is in a relationship of dependency.

Clause 2 of this bill would apply the same prohibitions in relation to persons with disabilities. Clause 2 would create a hybrid offence punishable upon summary conviction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding 18 months or upon indictment for a term not exceeding five years.

Clause 2 would also create a new offence, sexual exploitation of persons with disabilities, that would be separate from the general offence of sexual assault.

Part of the reason for creating a new offence separate from the general offence of sexual assault is that specific recognition of the various ways in which persons with disabilities can be sexually exploited would allow individuals to be held criminally accountable for a much broader range of damaging and sexually intrusive behaviour. This proposed offence would be easily recognizable on a criminal record as being one against persons with disabilities in vulnerable relationships as opposed to a generic charge of sexual assault.

The wording in subsections (5) and (6) removes the defence of mistaken belief in consent where that belief was based on the accused's self-induced intoxication or recklessness or wilful blindness. Subsection (6) requires the judge to instruct a jury presented with the defence of mistaken belief in consent to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Clauses 4 through 7 of the bill are designed to facilitate the inclusion of persons with disabilities on juries. Clause 4 would permit a juror with a physical disability who is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror to be accommodated in order to carry out their duties.

Clause 6 of the bill pertains to challenges for cause by the prosecution or an accused. Currently section 638(1)(e) of the Criminal Code permits a juror to be challenged for elimination from the jury on the basis that they are physically unable to properly carry out their responsibilities. Clause 6 would amend this section to prevent disability in and of itself from being a barrier to jury service, particularly if the person with the disability had been accommodated and was able to carry out the role of a juror.

However, disability could be a cause for exclusion where, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretive or support devices the person was still physically unable to properly perform the responsibilities of a juror. That makes sense. But this could happen for example in a case where a significant amount of visual evidence was involved and where the potential juror was blind. The caveat is reasonableness.

Clause 8 deals with videotaped evidence. The child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code currently allow complainants under 18 to give evidence of a sexual offence by way of videotape so long as the tape has been made within a reasonable time after the offence was committed and provided that the complainant adopts the contents of the videotape during testimony. The intention behind this section is to preserve the evidence of children who might not otherwise recall events that took place months or even years before, and to remove the need for them to repeat their story many times both in and out of court.

Clause 8 of the bill would allow similar videotaped evidence by persons with disabilities who might have difficulty communicating due to that disability.

The next section deals with human rights and the human rights system and clauses 9 and 10 amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Clause 10 would limit the factors for assessing undue hardship for those of health, safety and cost in providing assistance in those special circumstances. Accommodating special needs is not an absolute right and may not be practical or it may be unreasonably costly in certain circumstances.

These are the same three factors set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code. It has been done in Ontario in this regard. Bill S-5 would allow the governor in council to make regulations prescribing standards for assessing undue hardship.

One or more of the contentious issues surrounding the duty to accommodate is what is meant by cost in determining instances of undue hardship. Some equality seeking groups would prefer not to have any cost factors taken into a consideration of undue hardship. They fear that doing so would create two classes of human rights claimants, those we could afford to treat equally and those we could not. Since cost is to be a relevant consideration in assessing undue hardship, they would like to see it limited to financial cost as is the case under the Ontario Human Rights Code. There is controversy there.

The equality seeking groups find the whole notion of accommodation itself offensive. In their view, notions of accommodation and undue hardship promote a second class version of rights. That is unacceptable to them. They suggest that the idea that the needs of disadvantaged people are special and must be reasonably accommodated presupposes that there is a norm to which people must conform or be considered different or abnormal; such a person's needs must be accommodated but only if they do not cause undue hardship to accommodate.

Moreover, the accommodation approach to achieving equality effectively leaves unchallenged the assumptions, institutions and relationships underlying discriminatory rules themselves. Accommodation permits an employer for example to avoid liability for what otherwise would be held to be a discriminatory practice.

While accommodation will reduce the effects of the same treatment approach to equality in individual situations, it will not alter the overall systemic impact of certain rules. It has been suggested that a better approach might be to hold employers and service providers under the federal human rights act to one standard of equality and then ask them to justify any deviation from that standard, rather than upholding discriminatory practices in attempting to fit people adversely affected by them into a general practice.

That has not been chosen in this bill and probably is too idealistic.

Clause 27 of the bill would restructure the existing ad hoc human rights tribunal panel under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The bill creates a permanent, smaller and expert Canadian Human Rights Tribunal composed of a maximum of 15 members, including a chairperson and a vice-chairperson. Temporary members could be appointed to meet workload requirements.

Appointments to the tribunal would be made on the basis of experience, expertise and interest in and sensitivity to human rights, as well as with regard to the need of regional representation. The chairperson, the vice-chairperson and at least two other members of the tribunal would be required to have certain legal qualifications.

The bill also would provide that the terms of office for both the chairperson and the vice-chairperson could extend during good behaviour for as long as seven years. Other members would continue to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding five years.

Clause 27 contains provisions for remedial and also disciplinary measures which could be taken against any member of the tribunal. It is good to see some accountability measure built in.

Pursuant to clause 27, at any stage after a complaint of discrimination was filed, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could ask the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to institute an inquiry into it if the commission is satisfied that such action is warranted. The chairperson would respond by assigning a member of the tribunal to hear the case. In instances of complex complaints, perhaps a three member panel could be assigned.

Clause 27 would allow the chairperson to make rules of procedure for tribunal hearings. These rules would cover such things as the summoning of witnesses, the production and service of documents, the introduction of evidence and time limits on hearings and decision making. They could also deal with the addition of parties and interested persons to the proceedings.

Finally, clause 27 would create a new section 52 of the act to allow tribunal members or panels to take measures to ensure the confidentiality of an inquiry where certain conditions existed.

Under section 53 of the current act, if at the conclusion of an inquiry a tribunal finds that the complaint has not been substantiated, it must dismiss the matter. Where however it is determined that the complaint has been substantiated, the tribunal may make an order against the person found to have engaged or to be engaging in the discriminatory practice. This situation would continue under the bill.

Section 57 of the act would also continue to allow any tribunal order, including those newly added to the bill, to be enforced as an order of the Federal Court of Canada.

The bill would repeal sections 55 and 56 thereby eliminating the current review of tribunal structure.

Human rights tribunals may make such specialized orders as compensating the victim of discrimination for any lost wages, for the cost of obtaining alternative services or accommodations, or for injury to his or her feelings or self-respect.

The sections of the act also permit a tribunal to make a special order of compensation where a person is found to have wilfully or recklessly engaged in a discriminatory practice or still to be doing so.

Clause 27 of the bill would also continue to allow compensation for pain and suffering or for wilful or reckless discrimination. However it would increase the maximum penalty dollar amount to $20,000 from $5,000. The rationale is that some provincial human rights laws have no limits on how much money can be awarded to a complainant while others have limits ranging from $2,000 to $10,000. The raising of the limit under the Canadian Human Rights Act would ensure that tribunals had enough discretion to award an amount that was fair in the circumstances.

With respect to the issue of hate propaganda, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act makes it a discriminatory practice to use the telephone or any telecommunications device undertaken to communicate messages which are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt because they belong to a group identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground, such as race, national or ethnic origin.

Under section 54 of the act a tribunal is currently restricted to use cease and desist orders where it finds that a complaint has been substantiated.

Clause 28 would expand the order-making powers of tribunals in these cases. It would allow tribunals to compensate victims specifically identified in the discriminatory communication up to a maximum of $20,000 where the discriminatory practice was found to be or to have been engaged in wilfully or recklessly. The tribunal could also order the communicator to pay a penalty of up to $10,000. In considering whether to order a penalty payment the tribunal would be required to consider such factors as the nature and gravity of the practice and the wilfulness or the intent of the communicator. This would not be used lightly.

Clause 28 is a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. There seems to be a need to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate telephone lines. Victims of such lines can apply for compensation and offenders can be subjected to a financial penalty to accomplish this deterrence.

Clause 32 of the bill would respond to these requests for accountability by requiring the commission to submit all reports of itself to Parliament through the Speakers of both Houses. The clause is significant in that it would require the new Canadian human rights tribunal to report annually to Parliament on its activities. This would provide some measure of transparency to the tribunal process and would serve to ensure the independence of the tribunal from the commission.

Other noteworthy amendments include the retaliation clause, clause 14, which would make complaint retaliation a discriminatory practice which would be dealt with under the act like any other case of discrimination. The idea seems to be that the anti-discrimination system created by the Canadian Human Rights Act would be better suited than criminal courts to deal with these types of cases.

The introduction of such long awaited amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act has not been met with unanimous applause as one might expect. While many of the amendments are clearly perceived as positive, in particular those pertaining to the creation of an expert permanent tribunal, most attention seems to be focused on what is missing from the package. The same appears to be true of the reaction of the disabled community to the proposed amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code.

With respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill does not deal with the issue of same sex benefits or with the mandatory retirement provisions in section 15(c) of the act. There are calls for amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Canadian human rights commission to deal with dissemination of hate messages in any form, telephone mail or the Internet whether exported or imported. There are recommendations that the act be updated to respond to the transmission of hate messages and specifically that Holocaust denial be defined as constituting hate propaganda under the act.

We need to continue our evaluation of the existing federal human rights system's ability to promote and protect human rights into the future. There will always be controversy on these matters.

The passage of this legislation is helpful but it is not the whole answer. There is a cultural context of reasonableness, tolerance, common sense and goodwill on which these measures rest. The historical Judeo-Christian ethic of Canadian culture is operative here. Good people can make poor situations work if they want to. Where attitudes change and are adaptable, much can be accomplished beyond mere rules of legislation.

To help the disadvantaged we need an economic engine that will generate the wealth to pay for our desired social programs. The good samaritan of the Bible could not have helped very much if he did not have the money to put his concern into action. The samaritan had his own financial resources which were not someone else's taxes, unlike some of the others who passed by on the road that day.

The point is that right thinking about economics creates the economic engine to pay for the social programs and the very good things that need to be done. We need to have balance and reason. This is a lesson the NDP may never learn and the Liberals are so reluctant to admit.

Reformers care about people. We make every effort to be the voice of average Canadians as we bring the concerns of voters to Ottawa rather than bringing a central Canadian, top down Ottawa agenda back to the community.

Reformers are supporting this bill today. However, I need to comment on the number the bill has been assigned because it has an

S

in front of it. That means it went through the Senate first, which troubles me.

The contents of Bill S-5 are satisfactory as far as they go and we support the majority of amendments to the applicable acts. However, it is not the contents that concern me as much as the process through which this bill came to the House for debate.

Peter Hogg in the

Constitutional Law of Canada

writes:

Although the Constitution Act, 1867 gives to the Senate the same powers as the House of Commons (except that, by s. 53, money bills must originate in the House of Commons), it has to be (and usually is) accepted by opposition as well as government senators that the appointive nature of the Senate must necessarily make its role subordinate to the elective House.

Richard Van Loon and Michael Whittington in

The Canadian Political System

state:

The Senate is not permitted constitutionally to introduce money bills, and in practice it cannot amend or defeat money bills either. (There is still some question as to the constitutionality of Senate amendments of money bills, but in practical terms the Senate does not even attempt to amend them today). Because of the lack of government ministers in the Senate, virtually all government bills are by convention introduced in the House of Commons.

Bill S-7 was originally tabled in the House of Commons by the former justice minister and the current health minister in April 1997 as Bill C-98. The bill died on the order paper with the dissolution of the 35th Parliament.

The current minister could have easily introduced this bill at the outset of the 36th Parliament, as there was not a great amount of legislation for her to be responsible for at the time. Instead the government, for reasons unknown, decided to introduce the bill in the Senate.

We all know how the Senate is currently in a state of flux. Canadians from coast to coast are wondering how effective the Senate really is. Do senators truly understand the needs of average Canadians? Who are they accountable to if they do not represent a specific constituency?

Before I have senators calling me in an outrage at my office, I want to make one point very clear. There are senators who take their job very seriously, work hard for their province and region and who want to make Canada a better place in which to live. That is without dispute. We even have senators with commendable attendance records. Those senators would probably have a good chance of getting elected to that House and should have nothing to worry about by a triple E Senate concept.

Reformers are not upset with the handful of hard workers. We are upset with the majority who look at the Senate as a place to simply collect a paycheque and then proceed to do work unrelated to the Senate. It must be remembered that Reformers have not abandoned their hopes of solving the historical national problem of the Senate. It is unfinished business in nation building and Reformers are committed to Senate reform, not abolition.

As members of the House of Commons, we are here because the majority of our constituents want us to be here. If my constituents are frustrated with my performance they will have their chance to get rid of me. It is quite simple. However, look at how difficult it is to get rid of an unpopular senator, someone who has gone out of the bounds of rules. It is next to impossible.

Members of Parliament do not want to become rubber stamps. We do not want to rubber stamp Bill S-5. The House of Commons is an elected House and legislation should go from here to the other place. Senators who feel they too often rubber stamp bills from here should perhaps line up and support the Reformers who want an elected upper house.

The government House leader's office had indicated to me today that the reason Bill S-5 was not introduced first in the House was that the agenda in the fall was too busy. That stretches credibility. It said that it was essential to get the bill through as quickly as possible so it was started in the Senate.

The elected representatives of the Canadian people sit in the House of Commons, not in the Senate. Canadians do not want their elected representatives relegated to the house of sober second thought. They want government legislation to begin in the House of Commons and then proceed to the other place, not vice versa.

The issue here is the principle of democracy and of good government. I think there is a ring of Liberal arrogance with this move through the Senate with this bill.

I want to conclude that we are supportive of the components of this bill. It will clearly provide the necessary changes to enable persons with disabilities to play a more active role in the justice process, something the disabled community has long been calling for. It provides for ways of redress and is part of a larger quest of Reform to change and update our government institutions to better serve every Canadian.

I am glad to recommend this bill, whatever its shortcomings, to my own community.

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (section 227), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing and perhaps even sad that Bill C-215 is necessary. There remains a badly flawed section of the Criminal Code which is section 227. In response to that, the private member's bill drafted by the member for Wild Rose in specific content says this: “The enactment provides that a person commits culpable homicide or the offence of causing the death of another person by criminal negligence or by means of the commission of offence under subsection 249(4) or 255(3) of the Criminal Code, regardless of the time within which death occurs at the time of the occurrence of the last event by means of which the person caused or contributed to the cause of death.”

That sounds like a convoluted phraseology but I will try to explain it.

The law says that an individual commits criminal negligence causing death, and if the individual then commits an assault, the person is in the hospital and dies after a period of time, the perpetrator is not culpable. The perpetrator cannot be charged because their victim took too long to die.

The ironic fact is that on September 4 the justice minister announced that she planned to introduce the exact same legislation as this bill. Why the Liberals would not support this proposed legislation is nothing short of political manoeuvring. Waiting for the government to draft new legislation has resulted in more time being wasted. It could have allowed another perpetrator to go free.

Bill C-215 called for the scrapping of section 227 of the Criminal Code because section 227 now states that no person can be convicted of a homicide if the death occurs more than a year and a day from the time of the offence. The private member's bill would have changed this in order to allow charges to be laid if the assault resulted in death, no matter how long the victim was able to hang on to life.

The reason for this bill stems from the death of Marvin Ward from Manitoba. This gentleman never regained consciousness following a savage baseball attack in May 1995. It took Mr. Ward 14 months to pass away and the suspects then could not be charged.

It is apparent from the cases such as this that section 227 of the Criminal Code does not recognize modern medicine's ability to keep people alive for an extended period of time. The private member's bill would allow for those to face charges if the assault resulted in death, no matter how long the victim is alive. There would be no time limits. If the bill were passed, it would ultimately have meant that Mr. Ward's death would not have been in vain. It would have proved that we as legislators can effectively change a badly flawed section of the Criminal Code.

The member for Wild Rose has followed this issue since last October and had this private member's bill drafted in March of this year. It was fortunate that it was picked in the draw for Private Members' Business but this is where the good fortune ended because the committee that looks at private members' bills did not deem it to be votable.

On September 4 the justice minister announced that she too was scrapping section 227 of the Criminal Code as early as this fall, fulfilling a promise made by the former justice minister in March. On this premise alone the private member's bill should have been made votable but perhaps we can let the media decide or those who follow these issues can have a conversation about that.

So we present the private member's bill in different manners. First of all I would like to present it in a way that is based on the criteria that the standing committee for Private Members' Business sets for the selection of votable items. Perhaps we can let the people who are listening today be the judge to see if this bill meets the guidelines and should have been made votable today.

There are 11 criteria that must be met in the selection of votable items. The first criteria is the private member's bill must be of national, regional or local significance. It cannot be highly contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. Certainly this bill would be considered to have national significance since it affects the Criminal Code of Canada and in no way is this bill contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. It involves the death of individuals and the consequences thereof. It is essential then to change the section of the Criminal Code and not allow perpetrators to go free.

Criteria number two, the bill must not appear to discriminate or favour for or against a certain area or region of the country. In no way does this bill discriminate in favour of a certain region or area of the country. This bill would be applicable right across the country. This is federal legislation.

Criteria number three, the bill cannot be with regard to electoral boundaries or constituency names. Obviously that category does not apply here.

Criteria number four, the bill should not require obvious amendment because it is substantially redundant with the law or is fundamentally ineffective to implement its own intent or is unclear in its meaning or is otherwise defective in its drafting. Bill C-215 is not redundant with the laws that already exist, nor is it ineffective in its intent and meaning. It is very clear. It is a very short bill. It has a simple concept and is not defective in its drafting.

Criteria number five, the subject of the bill should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. This bill does not affect the government's legislative agenda at all. That is the problem. This bill is here because the government is failing to act. It was drafted long before the government even talked about looking into the matter.

Criteria number six, depending on the context of political issues and events, the number of times a topic has appeared in the House may be of significance. This topic, as far as I know, has never appeared in the House of Commons before. However, it does not mean that it is not an issue of interest to Canadians and many of the victims' associations across the country.

Criteria number seven, all other factors being equal, lower priority should be given to motions which deal with matters which the House can address in some way other than through another procedure. All in all this bill should receive a high priority since this cannot be dealt with through another procedure. It is my opinion that it is essential that this bill be dealt with now as it already has let four killers go free and potentially more still exist because of the flaw in the Criminal Code.

Criteria number eight, motions couched in partisan terms should not be selected. There is really nothing partisan about this bill whatsoever.

Criteria number nine, bills will be set aside in this selection process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they infringe upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional rules or if they impede or are contrary to normal federal, provincial or international relations. This is not the case either.

Criteria number ten, bills relating to a question that is substantially the same as a question already voted on by the House in the session should not be selected as votable items. This issue does not relate to any question that has been voted on by this House.

Criteria number eleven, items relating to a question that is substantially the same as a question contained in an item already selected as a votable item in the session should not be selected. Once again, no bills were selected as votable that appear the same as this one.

I hope that all can see how important this would have been in restoring the word justice to our justice system. Some say that we have merely a legal system in Canada rather than a justice system. We as legislators have the ability to change this flawed piece of legislation and Mr. Ward deserves to rest in peace knowing that the killers were paying their dues and not walking free due to a legislative loophole.

In researching this issue, we found that we were not the only ones who recognized the need for this legislation. Upon hearing of the subject of the private member's bill, we received a number of letters of support and I will highlight just two of these.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is an organization dedicated to victims rights and public safety. They were pleased to support this bill and gave another example of how the Criminal Code has produced more victims.

Steve Sullivan, Executive Director, wrote:

I met a woman during the 1994 CAVEAT Safetynet conference whose brother was beaten so badly that he ended up in a coma. Almost two years later Rick Gall's family made the heartbreaking decision to remove his life support.

Kevin Fougere, the individual who beat Mr. Gall, could not be charged with the murder and was sentenced to 18 months for an assault related charge. Fougere was clearly responsible for Mr. Gall's death.

At that time, the justice minister said that he was not considering amending section 227. Earlier this year he made comments suggesting that he would amend it and those sentiments were recently repeated by the current justice minister.

They go on to say in writing:

Your bill would bring the law up to date with modern medical technology. It amends the section 227 so as to remove the requirement that the victim must die within one year and a day for homicide charges to be laid. It is simply a recognition that people must be held responsible for their actions and the consequences of them.

Please accept this letter of support for Bill 215. I hope that this bill is deemed votable and the government supports your initiative.

Victims of Violence also wrote to me, stating:

Please be advised that we strongly support your initiative with Bill C-215. For too long we have had to explain to families of homicide victims the stupidity of the law that allows killers to escape proper charges and sentencing even if the death of the victim occurs as a direct result of the criminal's act.

As you are no doubt aware, the Criminal Code has simply not kept up with modern medicine. Severely injured people are being kept alive for extended periods of time today with possible hopes of recovery. The families of these victims are sometimes faced with the dilemma of allowing life support to be continued at a cost of having the murderer walk free if their loved one lives beyond one year and a day but still dies as a direct result of the injury.

Bill C-215 is just a common sense bill to bring the Criminal Code in tune with the reality of modern medicine today. It will undoubtedly save the families of some murder victims additional grief and suffering. We commend you for this effort.

I think those are very clear sentiments. In view of the 11 criteria that I have laid out, I would like to move a motion to receive unanimous consent of the House that this bill be made votable.

[Finance, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting unanimous consent to be able to speak as the mover for private member's Bill C-215. It is the bill of the member for Wild Rose, but he is caught in traffic.

He is trying to get to the House but cannot do so. The member for Wild Rose does not want this period of time to go to the bottom of the order, so I need the unanimous consent of the House to be able to speak on the bill as if it were my own.

[Supreme Court Of Canada, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada soon to be filled. The justice minister has said in the House that there is merit in broadening the consultation process for candidate selection.

There is not a lot of public confidence in the justice system, so will the government advise Canadians how the next supreme court appointment will be put through more appropriate public examination?