Lynn Myers

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the very good question.

Those of us who are working with community based policing know full well the importance of getting out into the community, especially with respect to young people, to ensure that we deal with them in an effective and meaningful way. We have done it in the past and we continue to do so. It underscores the commitment of not only the police but also the wider community to do the right thing when it comes to young people wherever they live in Canada.

With respect to resources and the kind of commitment that are necessary to deal with young people, the hon. member makes a very good point in terms of the local police agencies having the kind of resources necessary to do the job effectively and well.

When we give the kind of discretion that is being proposed it requires additional work, but I have to tell the hon. member that the policing profession is very professional. It carries out its duties with a great sense of loyalty and dedication, knowing that it must do the right thing, especially for young people. The kinds of training programs that are put in place underscore that kind of commitment to professionalism and dedication.

I am convinced that with the proper and necessary resources the police will act in the appropriate way. They really are unsung heroes. They put their lives on the line daily for all of us. We need to congratulate them repeatedly for the kind of work that they do, especially in the all important youth area.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act. At the very outset, I want to indicate that it is a very important piece of legislation. It underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada to deal with a very complex issue as it relates to youth justice.

As the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I sat on that board for 10 years. I can tell the House firsthand that the senior officer and rank and file levels, along with all members of the police service, worked diligently in this area to ensure that we had a justice system in place, especially as it related to our young people. With 700 police officers and civilians, we were cognizant of the fact that this was an important area and one that required the kind of attention the Government of Canada is now prepared to move on. From that sense I am very pleased to see this legislation proceed.

By quick way of review, I remind all members of the House that our government launched a strategy for the renewal of youth justice on May 12, 1998. This process has been going on for quite a while. Subsequent to that, the youth criminal justice act was introduced. Then the federal budget announced $206 million over three years to ensure that programs were put in place to help achieve the objectives of this legislation. The point in indicating that is to say that now is the time to move on with this, get it to committee and let Canadians have their say with respect to this area. I am pleased that we are moving in that direction and doing so expeditiously.

The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice recognized the foremost objective of public protection. It distinguishes legislation and programs appropriate for the small group of violent young offenders and those appropriate for the vast majority of non-violent youth offenders. It takes a much broader and more integrated approach that emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation. That is very key to this whole debate.

The issue facing those of us who are interested in the youth justice system is not whether the system should be tough or lenient, but whether it should be made to deal with crime in a sensible way. The proposals as outlined indicate clearly that youth crime should be met with meaningful consequences. What is meaningful depends in large part on what the young offender has done.

For example, most of us believe that youths who commit minor thefts or have been in possession of stolen property should be held accountable for their actions and rightfully so. However, last year we sent 4,355 youths into custody when their most serious offence was one of the minor property offences. Another 4,332 youths were put in custody for the offence of failure to comply with a disposition, typically violating a term of a probation order. These are both offences. Those who are found to have committed these offences should be held accountable and we know that. These two groups of offences constituted over one-third of the custodial sentences handed down to youth last year. That quite frankly is unacceptable. Being the lead jailer of children in the western world is surely not the preferred answer to youth crime.

The median custodial sentence for youth is 45 days. As taxpayers this will cost us as much as $9,000. No one is saying that these youth should not be held accountable for their actions. They should be and they must be. Their offences should result in meaningful consequences, but we must ask ourselves whether taking these youths to court and sending them to prison is invariably the best way to accomplish this. We need to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to spend $9,000 locking up a minor thief or someone who has violated a curfew.

The choice is not one of doing nothing or putting a young person in prison. There are programs in all parts of Canada, including my area, for holding young people accountable for what they have done that do not involve courts or jails but involve the victims. The youth criminal justice act recognizes that extrajudicial non-court measures are often the most effective way to deal with less serious youth crime.

The act supports the use of such measures wherever and whenever possible that would be capable of holding the young person accountable. The act clearly provides that these measures should encourage the repair of harm caused to the victim and to the community. They should also promote the involvement of families, victims and the community in ensuring an appropriate, meaningful consequence for the young person.

In order to encourage the use of creative and effective consequences for young people, the act supports the appropriate exercise of discretion by police officers and prosecutors. The act also recognizes that a range of approaches can provide meaningful consequences, including police warnings, formal police cautions, referrals to community programs, cautions by prosecutors and extra judicial sanctions, for example apologies to victims, restitution and community service.

When the formal court process is required many sentences other than custody can provide meaningful consequences for youth crime. Community based alternatives, for example, are often more effective than custody. They are encouraged by the new legislation, particularly for low risk, non-violent offenders, alternatives that require young people to repay victims in society for the harm done, teach responsibility and respect for others and reinforce societal values, Canadian values. When these front end measures and non-custodial sentences are used effectively the provinces can reinvest the money saved into crime prevention strategies that will address the legitimate concerns of Canadians about crime.

As part of its strategy for the renewal of youth justice the federal government has committed itself to a wide range of prevention programs. In this context it was not surprising to learn that public opinion polls show that over 85% of Ontario residents would prefer money to be invested in crime prevention than in additional prisons for youth. Almost as many, 79%, would prefer us to invest in alternatives to prison for youth rather than prison construction.

The other side of the coin is that by dealing sensibly with minor crime we can refocus the system on serious crime that Canadians have legitimate concerns about. The new act's sentencing principles make it very clear that youth sentences should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person. Custody, then, will be targeted to youth that commit violent and serious repeat offences.

In the new legislation judges will be required to impose a period of supervision in the community following custody that is equal to half the period of that custody. This will allow authorities to closely monitor and control the young person and to ensure that he or she receives the necessary treatment and programs to return successfully to the community.

The period of supervision administered by the provinces will include stringent mandatory and optional conditions tailored to the individual. If a youth sentence, for example, would not be adequate to hold a young person accountable, the court may impose an adult sentence. The new legislation would make it easier to impose adult sentences for the most serious violent crimes. We are expanding both the list of offences and lowering the age at which youth can receive an adult sentence.

When the legislation is passed, youth 14 years of age and older who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

We are also creating a fifth presumptive category for repeat of violent offences. This too underscores a commitment of the Government of Canada to move in this area and do it in an appropriate Canadian kind of way.

The proposed legislation also provides for a new sentencing option for the most violent, high risk young offenders. The intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order provides greater control and guaranteed treatment to address the causes of the young person's violent behaviour. This is a kind of individualized treatment of intensive supervision which must be approved by the court and will assist us in curtailing youth crime in these areas.

I want to conclude by saying that youth crime cannot be legislated away. I think we all know and understand that. We can, however, deal more appropriately with it than we do at the moment. We can set up an effective set of programs outside the youth justice system and custodial and non-custodial rehabilitation programs within it which would reduce crime and hopefully will.

I believe Canadians think that in this sense we are on the right track. Our method of criminal youth justice is appropriate. It is a complex issue and I think we are doing it in a very effective way.

Let me simply conclude by saying that certainly the residents in my area of Waterloo—Wellington, and I believe those across Canada, support our balanced approach to this very complex issue.

Now is the time to act. Let us move the bill on to committee. Let us have Canadians have their say with respect to this area. Let us do so expeditiously. With great foresight we have brought forward legislation in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter this debate today with respect to the Canada Elections Act. I find it of considerable interest. I sat on the procedure and House affairs committee and this was certainly a part of the committee's work. I thought we did it in a very non-partisan, effective way that ended up being very succinct and to the point in terms of the kind of meaningful changes Canadians expect in terms of their electoral system.

We in Canada have a model electoral system that is emulated around the world. It is certainly considered to be one that is of great interest to nations wherever they are in the world. It underscores the great democracy that we in Canada have. It is one which I think we should be very proud of in terms of its effectiveness and what it means for Canadians wherever they may live in this great land of ours. It also underscores the values, institutions and symbols that unite us as a people and present us as an effective nation not only to ourselves internally but to the wider world community.

I am a little surprised by the Reform Party, especially the member for Elk Island who tried to denigrate the things we are trying to do. Instead he should be celebrating the fact that this bill is going to committee where they can be part of a system where there can be effective changes. Instead of trying to work with the government in this all important area, Reformers are content as usual to take extremist views to try to sabotage the system. That is most unfortunate.

But then Reform is a party that is always intent on pitting region against region, people against people and group against group. It is most unfortunate that Reformers take that tact all the time. It underscores where that party is coming from. I know Canadians want and will have no part of it. What Canadians will have a part of is the government's position on this all important legislation, understanding that this is the way we have to go. We need to ensure that we do the right thing for Canadians in this area because it underscores our democratic system as we know it.

There are many issues I could get involved with, election financing for example. I know—

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Or effective?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some intent to the hon. member opposite. I want to ask him two questions.

The first question is I wonder what he thought there was to gain by bashing the judiciary? These judges are people of integrity and great stature, people whose job it is to interpret the laws as made by parliament. I wonder exactly what his game plan is in terms of trying to bash these honourable people, people who do the right thing most of the time in terms of what they do and say.

The second question I have is that the hon. member spoke about running for parliament and being around to do the right thing in terms of caring for the country. Is he planning on doing that the next time, or is he going to jump ship and seek provincial politics?

I would be really interested in answers to both of those questions, the honour of the judiciary and where his commitment lies in terms of parliament vis-à-vis the provincial political arena.

[Speech From The Throne, October 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I really do not need to be lectured by the member opposite about the importance of farmers. I still live on the family farm and we settled in 1827. I know the importance of what the family farm means. I am still on it. I still live it.

I was part of the tour that went to Saskatchewan and Manitoba this summer. I know firsthand the kinds of heartache those farmers are facing. It is very real and it is very disturbing. We as a government, as the minister of agriculture mentioned today, along with our provincial partners have committed the kinds of resources that are necessary to do the right thing in that very important area.

[Speech From The Throne, October 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do know there are ongoing problems that we as Canadians face and that certainly we as a government face. It requires a concerted effort on the part of all parliamentarians and all Canadians to address those problems. We need to attack those areas that need attention. I think the member heard that in the throne speech, if he was paying attention and I hope he was. We are on the cusp of doing great things with respect to our children's agenda for example, and issues related to the homeless and poverty.

We will as a government do the kinds of things that are necessary to put in place initiatives to ensure that those problems are eradicated. Canadians expect no less of us and that is what we as a government will be doing. We will be doing it with vision and foresight, unlike the party opposite which instead of uniting Canadians in a common cause to eradicate problems seems determined always to take extremist views that pull people apart, that pit region against region, people against people and group against group.

We on the government side will have no part of that agenda. Mercifully and thank God that we do not. We know what we have to do. We will do the right thing in terms of all the issues noted. We will do it with vigour and with the compassion that Canadians know only we can provide.

[Speech From The Throne, October 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.

The residents of Waterloo—Wellington have gratefully received the throne speech and what it entails. That bodes well for us as a government and certainly as Canadians. That is important to note. I also thank my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair, for moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the hon. member for Laval West for seconding it.

I extend my congratulations to Her Excellency the Governor General for being installed in that prestigious position. It is one which the residents of Waterloo—Wellington think is a great position for her. We are grateful for that.

I want to look at some of the health care provisions provided in the throne speech. The government continues to be deeply committed to a universal and publicly administered health care system that delivers the highest quality health care to all Canadians, no matter where they live in this great country of ours. As reiterated in the Speech from Throne on October 12, good health and quality care are essential to the well-being of all Canadians.

The measures announced in the 1999 federal budget will improve access to quality care and help restore the confidence of Canadians in the future of medicare, but a high quality health care system depends on more than money. It requires adjustments in the way health care is organized and delivered.

At their meeting in September 1999 in Charlottetown, health ministers from all Canadian provinces and territories underlined access to quality care and its link to an appropriate supply, deployment and distribution of highly qualified health professionals. Those ministers agreed to continue to work collaboratively on health resources and the human resources necessary in planning, having noted concrete progress in this area. That is also important to note.

The throne speech puts further emphasis on the government's connectedness agenda to ensure that Canada is economically competitive in a global marketplace and to improve the quality of life of Canadians. Investments in the health infrastructure have an important role to play in this regard.

As we have noted, a modern health information system will give health professionals and individual citizens improved access to up to date information about health issues and treatment options. The government will ensure that citizens in every region of this great country have access to such information so that they too can make better informed decisions.

As part of the government's plan to improve Canada's information infrastructure, the government will reintroduce legislation to protect personal and business information in the digital world. The reintroduction of the bill, formerly Bill C-54, will have some impact on the development of the health infrastructure. Examples will include that Canada's privacy concerns are protected.

The government's intention to build on the personal gateway project to the government information and community content, www.access.ca, could tie into the health infrastructure initiatives such as a Canadian Health Network.

In addition, the government's five year plan for improving physical infrastructure includes telecommunication in health. The government will also take steps to modernize overall health protection for a changing world. Investments in the health protection branch national health surveillance infrastructure will be part of this modernization process. That too is important.

The government will also continue to address the serious health problems in aboriginal communities, for example, supporting their efforts to promote wellness and to strengthen the delivery of health services for them. The first nations health information system can help achieve this objective in a very meaningful way.

The government announced in last February's budget that it was providing $328 million over three years to start building a truly national network of information about health and health services to strengthen the health care system and make it more accountable to Canadians. All these measures are important to Canadians as core values for all of us.

Let me turn my attention to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research which are important vehicles. It will fund health research that will improve the quality of life and health of Canadians and lead to more effective health products and services and will result in the strengthening of the Canadian health care system. It will offer unique opportunities for economic development in the knowledge based economy. This initiative came from the research community which has been working closely with health officials to develop the design and structure of the CIHR.

The CIHR will integrate the wide range of approaches to health research under a single umbrella organization, providing co-ordination and support for these efforts based on a shared health research agenda. Biomedical scientists will work collaboratively with clinic researchers; researchers specializing in health services and systems; and researchers working on the health of populations, societal and cultural dimensions of health and environmental influences on health.

The CIHR will be a truly national institution, breaking down traditional barriers between disparate research sectors and different research agencies. It will establish strong, co-operative partnerships among researchers, research funders in federal, provincial and territorial governments, voluntary health organizations in the private sector and users of health research in general.

Virtual health research institutes will link researchers working on a common theme. These institutes will be guided by a strong ethical framework and will adopt integrated multidisciplinary approaches to health research as a whole. The CIHR will provide opportunities and support for Canadian scientists to participate in international collaborations for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live and within the wider global community as well.

In the budget last February the government gave $50 million a year for three years to the granting councils to work toward the objectives of the CIHR. The impact of this new funding has already been felt in the research community. I look forward to the CIHR bill being introduced this fall.

I will now turn briefly to a discussion of the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST. In the budget of 1999 the Government of Canada announced an investment of $11.5 billion over five years in health care. This was the single largest new investment the government ever made. The increase in the CHST cash from the previous 1999 budget level of $12.5 billion to $15 billion by 2001-02 takes what is regarded as the health component of the CHST to as high a level as it was before the period of expenditure restraint in the mid-1990s.

The budget of 1999 also dealt with the issue of equitable distribution of the CHST to provinces and territories. By 2001-02, CHST entitlements will be distributed on an equal per capita basis. As a result provinces and territories will receive $985 per capita in CHST entitlements by the year 2003-04. This increase clearly demonstrates the government's determination to work with all our partners to provide the absolutely best health care possible to all our citizens.

The Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the government's commitment to move forward with our partners in the health care community on a common priority and common front. They include supporting the testing of innovations in integrated service areas such as home care and pharmacare, ensuring that citizens in every region of the country have improved access to up to date information about health issues and treatment options through the modern health information system so that they can make good choices.

All this underscores what we are up to as a government in terms of the throne speech and the vision that will take us into the 21st century. It is important to note that as we march confidently into the 21st century we do so by linking arms with all Canadians and not, as some would have us do, by leaving some Canadians behind.

Let us as a government on behalf of all Canadians keep our focus on the opportunities of the future in the 21st century and not on the grievances of the past. In the spirit of co-operation, fairness and equity that is precisely what we as a government are doing. We are doing it with vision, foresight and compassion.

[Older Persons, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1999 the Canadian Medical Association joined the United Nations in celebrating the International Day of Older Persons which was put in place to recognize the contributions to society of our older citizens.

Older persons across the country and around the world are an active and important part of society. As fellow members of society, it is our duty to ensure these older persons receive the health care and special services they need and deserve. The federal government recognizes these needs and is committed to working with Canadians to continually improve our health care system.

We must accommodate the changing demands of our aging and increasing population. The International Day of Older Persons gave us the opportunity to really look at this important sector of our population. Older persons have special health care needs and services which must be made readily available to them.

I would like to applaud the Canadian Medical Association's efforts during this international day. I urge Canadians to work together with each other and with the government to ensure our older persons are well taken care of.

[The Environment, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the global community recognized World Environment Day on June 5 and will recognize World Population Day on July 11.

Population growth has a significant impact on our environment as growing human activity around the world consumes the resources that all living things require. Clean freshwater and farmland are becoming more scarce. Fish are declining in the world's rivers, lakes and oceans. The loss of forests impacts biodiversity when habitats that shelter plant and animal species are destroyed. Billions of tonnes of topsoil are lost through erosion each year. Toxic chemicals in the environment especially threaten the health of children, the elderly and the urban poor. Our ecosystem and our health bear the brunt of these impacts.

My aim is not to dishearten but simply to raise awareness of the links between population, the environment and human health. By considering these links and the principles of sustainable development and by formulating our priorities, policies and laws we can make a great step forward.