Peter Mancini

[Devco, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over 10 days since the Minister of Natural Resources made his drive-by announcement killing over 1,100 jobs in Cape Breton.

Today a delegation of labour leaders, representatives of Devco workers, is meeting with representatives of all parties with a simple question for the minister: Why did he reject their reasonable proposal for the future of Devco given that the corporation had previously approved the plan?

Will the minister now agree to have the union proposal reviewed and costed by an unbiased third party in consultation with the union?

[Privilege, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was a lock-up in my riding having to do with the announcement regarding Cape Breton Development Corporation. I received notice of that meeting early in the morning. I made arrangements to be in my riding. During the lock-up, my understanding is that journalists were allowed in and my staff was not.

[Devco, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, four unions representing Devco employees met with the Devco president on February 3, 1999 to discuss many details. At the end of this meeting Devco supplied the unions with the employee listings of those who would qualify for pensions and those who would not.

Of the 1,184 employees who have long term service, the list shows that hundreds will not receive pensions. The UMWA list shows 852 members who do not qualify. The CUPE list shows 86 members who do not qualify. The CAW list shows 86 members who do not qualify. The IAM list shows 60 members who do not qualify.

Mr. Drake, the president of the UMWA suggests that “we believe this battle should be recognized across Canada as a reasonable request by reasonable people for fair and just compensation”, and we concur.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of my hon. colleague. I am particularly pleased to hear her highlight the Sydney tar ponds as an area of concern. I look forward to the commitment of some funds in the budget to help remedy that site.

I think her comments are well informed and indicate how important and how scarce freshwater is becoming, given the environmental problems and the whole environmental context she discussed.

Would she support a ban on the export of freshwater from this country?

[Privilege, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence.

I rise concerning last week's Devco announcement. I was informed by the minister's office on Wednesday that no announcement was forthcoming. Subsequent events led to the announcement the next day in my riding. As part of that announcement there was a lock-up for media and for personnel interested in the matter.

As I had no notice of the announcement I had to change my travel plans and arrived at my riding by 3.30, not in time for the lock-up. I had requested that one of my staff be allowed in that lock-up as I had been given no notice of this most important announcement to the people of my riding. My staff person was not permitted by, I assume, the minister's office. I find that a breach of my own representation and responsibility as a member of parliament.

I could not be there because the minister's office would not be forthcoming with the date of the announcement. My staff was not permitted in to hear the dramatic effects on my community that this announcement would have. I ask that the government make sure that members of parliament or their designated staff be permitted into those types of briefings.

[Devco, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the finance minister boasted about the legacy of the Liberal Party. My question is for the Prime Minister who may remember the legacy of Lester Pearson.

After broken promises of full consultation the government through the Minister of Natural Resources betrayed the people of Cape Breton, betrayed its own legacy. Shame on them. Only a third of the miners who have spent 25 years underground may qualify for a pension.

Will the Prime Minister honour this legacy by guaranteeing a full pension for the majority of the workforce of those people at Devco?

[Devco, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.

There are press reports that this minister will announce a short term funding formula for Devco. Will the minister confirm whether or not that funding is forthcoming? Will the minister tell us, does the government have a plan to end the uncertainty for the future of Devco and ensure its future as a crown corporation, or will it be another case of Liberal privatization?

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 1998]

I am asked who gets 10 years. Again, sentencing is a complicated factor. Some people get five, some people get seven. Even if the offender were sentenced to a lesser amount—and I am not taking away from Bill C-219, I am just providing an example—it would add one additional year.

I have no great problem with that. I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. I think it would bring home how wrong it is to use a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence. It would add that one year penalty. I would submit that in most cases there would be an additional period of time in any event.

Therefore I have no problem with the bill. It seems to me that it is simply codifying what happens in common law, except—and this is one area that I think is worthy of some discussion and some thought—it makes it a mandatory consecutive sentence, as opposed to providing the judge with the discretion to make it concurrent. Even at that I have no great problem with the bill.

However, I do have a problem with some of the motivation. I only say this because it is an ongoing debate as to whether or not increased penalties prevent crime. I appreciate where the hon. member is coming from when he says that it will teach a lesson to those who decide to steal a car in order to commit a crime. For those very few offenders who do in a premeditated and calculated way determine that they are going to steal a vehicle to commit an offence it may in fact be a deterrent. However, the vast majority of individuals who come before the court because of the commission of a criminal offence rarely plan it. In fact, they say that is why most of them get caught. It is a spur of the moment, poorly thought out action.

It is a criminal action, nonetheless. It is a serious action, nonetheless. But the very real argument that there would be general deterrence or specific deterrence by saying “Listen, buddy, when you decide you are going to steal that car to commit an offence, you had better think twice because you are going to end up serving consecutive time for the commission of the offence”, that thought process does not happen. Nine times out of ten, I would venture to guess, the vast majority of stolen vehicles are stolen on impulse and they are stolen to commit another crime that happens on impulse. The reality is that offenders do not sit down to calculate how much time they might serve for the commission of an offence.

They know they are committing an offence which is why it is wrong. They ought to be punished for it. But if members of the House think they are going to be able affect the thought process of those who commit offences, it simply is not going to happen.

Rehabilitation is an aspect of sentencing that is rarely addressed by these kinds of bills. Rehabilitation is what happens to the offender after the commission of the offence. Hopefully it teaches them not to commit that offence by addressing the root causes of the offence. Rarely in the debates on these kinds of bills are the issues of rehabilitation addressed.

There was another bill mentioned by hon. members in this debate that had to do with consecutive sentencing. I have read the speeches on that bill given by the mover. It is a different bill, so I will not address it too long. However, nowhere in his comments in the House of Commons does the mover of that bill talk about rehabilitation. Until we address that problem, simply thinking that we can scare those who would offend by increasing sentences is simply not going to solve the problem. That being said, for the victim whose car is stolen, if they are seeking some kind of retribution, I suppose the one year sentence makes sense.

For the most part, the one year sentence, whether it be six months, eight months or a year, will be calculated by the judge in determining the sentence if a motor vehicle is used.

It is a worthwhile point of discussion. It is an interesting bill. It is motivated because the hon. member has heard from his constituents and chiefs of police who support it. As a lobby group, the chiefs of police come from a particular point of view, as do other lobby groups which try to effect bills.

Hon. members say that chiefs of police come from a lobby group that protects society. They do. The John Howard Society is a group that wants to protect society in a different way. The key for parliamentarians is not to be dictated to by either lobby group, but to find the balance that reflects the will of Canadians.

I thank the hon. member for introducing the bill. It has given us some thoughtful discussion.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the House on private member's Bill C-219 as the justice critic for the New Democratic Party and, since it is a private member's bill, as an individual member of parliament from Cape Breton and Sydney—Victoria.

The bill seeks essentially to do two things, as has already been commented upon by the previous speaker from the government. It makes it an offence to use a stolen car in the commission of another offence. It provides for consecutive sentencing of a person for a maximum period of one year should the individual who has stolen the car be convicted.

It is an interesting piece of legislation. The hon. member for Wild Rose was well intentioned when he prepared and submitted the bill to the House. It says a number of things. It speaks to a concern that has been addressed by the member for Wild Rose and other members in the House about crime and how we deal with crime. As the hon. member prior to me indicated, it makes a provision for a maximum sentence of one year if a vehicle is used in the commission of an offence or while fleeing an offence.

The hon. member who spoke prior to me is correct, at least in my experience, when he says that if a vehicle used in the commission of an offence is a stolen vehicle it is an aggravating factor in sentencing. It does not detract from the private member's bill that has been introduced in the House by the member for Wild Rose. It is a reality. It needs to be said that in the commission of an offence, whether that offence is break and enter, robbery or whatever, if the offender has used a stolen vehicle it comes to the attention of the judge.

It comes to the attention of the judge in a number of ways. First, the prosecutor will bring it to the attention of the judge. Second, and in my experience of some years as a criminal lawyer, in most cases the individual will also be charged with theft over a certain amount in addition to the offence for which he or she has been convicted, as referred to by the hon. member. That in and of itself is another criminal offence.

There is also a specific offence under section 335 of the Criminal Code which says that subject to subsection 1.1 every one who without the consent of the owner takes a motor vehicle—and it goes on to define that—or is an occupant of a motor vehicle that is taken without the consent of the owner is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Sometimes it is helpful for people watching or listening to the debate, or those reading Hansard , to have an example because the Criminal Code is such a complicated document. I practised criminal law for some 14 years. It is a comprehensive and complicated piece of legislation.

Let us take the example of an individual who commits a break and enter with a stolen vehicle, not into a dwelling house but into a place of business. That offender would be charged under section 348 of the Criminal Code and would be subject, because it is not a dwelling house, under an indictable offence, to a term not exceeding 10 years.

If the member for Wild Rose has his way and his bill becomes law, the use of the stolen vehicle would add another year to that sentence. I do not think it would make a huge difference when one looks at the other sections of the code, which make it an offence to steal a vehicle in any event—

[Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of hope. Fifty years ago a group of men and women from diverse cultures, traditions and faiths came together to offer humanity an extraordinary vision of how the world could be.

They adopted the Universal Declaration of Human rights which, half a century later, continues to address directly what is necessary for a life of dignity for every human being.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a proclamation of the most fundamental rights to which a human being is entitled, written in large part by a Canadian. It was to represent a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations. It is a message of hope, equality, liberation and empowerment. It is a message to all who are committed to freedom, justice and peace in the world.

On behalf of my party and for all of our children, I encourage Canadians to reflect upon these values and celebrate human rights day on December 10.