Lynn Myers

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.

I am pleased to enter this debate today on behalf of the people of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington who feel strongly about our criminal justice system. Certainly as the former chairman of the Waterloo regional police, I too have a strong and keen interest in justice matters as they relate to Canada.

I note with great dismay that the opposition motion is proposing to criticize the government for, among other things, failing to deliver youth justice programs and legislation that reflect the concern of Canadians.

Let me remind the House that our government launched a strategy for the renewal of youth justice on May 12, 1998 that will be effective in dealing with the complex problem of youth crime. I point out that it is complex and not a simplistic matter as the Reform Party would paint it.

Moreover, last week this government tabled a bill that is a key component of the youth justice strategy, the youth criminal justice act. The recent federal budget included $206 million over the next three years to ensure that programs are put in place to help achieve the objectives of the legislation. This is but a recent example of a long list of initiatives we as a government have undertaken over the years to protect Canadians wherever they may live in this great land of ours.

The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice recognizes the foremost objectives of public protection. It distinguishes between legislation and programs appropriate for the small group of violent young offenders and those appropriate for the vast majority of non-violent young offenders. It takes a much broader, more integrated approach and emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation. This is precisely what Canadians want us to do.

The issue facing us and those interested in the youth justice system is not whether the system should be tough or lenient but whether to 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 who are found to be in possession of stolen property should be held accountable for their actions. Last year we sent 4,355 of them into custody where the most serious offence was one of 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 probation order.

These are both offences and those who are found to have committed these offences should be held accountable. We know that and we think that is appropriate. These two groups of offences constitute over one-third of the custodial sentences handed down to youth last year. Being the lead jailer of children in the western world is surely not a preferred answer to our problems with youth crime.

The median custodial sentence for youth is 45 days. This will cost us as taxpayers as much as $9,000. Let me be clear here. No one is saying these youths should not be held accountable for their actions. They should and they will. Their offences should result in meaningful consequences. 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 more sense to spend $9,000 locking up a minor thief or someone who has violated curfew or if there are other ways to spend that money.

The choice is not one of doing nothing or putting a young person in prison. There are programs in all parts of Canada for holding young people accountable for what they have done so they do not involve courts and jails but which do involve the victims.

The youth criminal justice act recognizes extrajudicial non-court measures as being important and the most effective way to deal with less serious youth crime. The act supports the use of such measures wherever they would be capable of holding the young person accountable, and this we must do.

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 that young person. In order to encourage the use of creative and effective consequences for our young people, the act supports the appropriate exercise of discretion by police officers and prosecutors. The act recognizes a range of approaches that can provide meaningful consequences, including police warnings, formal cautions, referrals to community programs, cautions by prosecutors and other sanctions.

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

In this context I was not surprised to learn recently that public opinion polls show that over 85% of Ontario residents would prefer money to be invested in crime prevention, which is much more than would want additional prisons for youth. This reflects the thinking of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington. Almost as many people, 79%, would prefer us to invest in alternatives to prison for youth rather than in prison construction. That is very telling and underscores the commitment of Canadians in this very important area.

The other side of the coin is that by dealing sensibly with minor crime we can refocus the system on the serious crime 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 will be targeted to youth who 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 the custody. This will allow authorities to closely monitor and control the young person and to ensure 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's sentence is not adequate to hold the young person accountable, the court may impose an adult sentence. The new legislation will make it easier to impose adult sentences for the most serious violent offenders. 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 and older who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, et cetera, will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

We are creating a fifth presumptive category for repeat violent offenders where young offenders 14 and older who demonstrate a pattern of violent behaviour will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise. This repeat offender presumption is in addition to the fact that even one serious offence can result in an adult sentence if the prosecutor requests it and the court is satisfied it is appropriate.

The proposed legislation 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. An individualized plan of treatment and intensive supervision must be approved by the court. Additional federal resources have been allocated for the costs of this new sentencing option.

Accomplishing the objectives of the new legislation will not be easy. Clearly much of the work needs to be done by the provinces which administer Canada's criminal law. We know that.

Thus it is important that there be adequate time for discussion and implementation planning with the provinces and others involved in the administration of our youth justice system in order to ensure that we have the best possible youth justice system that can respond appropriately to the wide range of problems brought to it.

Youth crime cannot be legislated away. We can, however, deal with it more appropriately than we are doing at the moment. We can set up effective programs outside the youth justice system and custodial and non-custodial rehabilitation programs within it that will reduce crime. I think it is important that we move in that manner.

The government has and will continue to deliver on criminal justice programs. The youth criminal justice act is the most recent example of our ability to deal effectively and compassionately with these kinds of very complex issues. As a result we have enhanced the safety and security of Canadians no matter where they live in this great country. All Canadians are well served by the actions of our government when it comes to these kinds of matters.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Cumberland—Colchester. He made a number of comments with respect to confidence and levels of confidence.

I heard the minister this morning speak very eloquently in terms of her position and the government's position with respect to this bill. From my perspective and I think the perspective of many members in this House, it underscored the fact that there is a high degree of confidence and we can proceed in this manner in a way that is meaningful and fitting for all Canadians. That is important to note.

Does the hon. member agree that there are times when we need, from a cultural perspective, to ensure that our cultural interests are defended and ensured? Does the member also agree that in this case the Americans, with bullying tactics, are trying to undermine that cultural perspective?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Concerns have been raised over the state of on reserve aboriginal housing. Poor living conditions and overcrowding problems are occurring on reserves in many parts of the country.

Will the government commit to improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians by ensuring that they have the resources necessary to meet their serious housing needs?

[National Farm Safety Week, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Farm Safety Week. Having a riding such as Waterloo—Wellington in which there are many farms and still living on my own family farm, I realize the importance of this nationwide event.

The farm can be a very dangerous place, as members know, if precaution is not taken. It is very important for all Canadians, especially those living in or visiting rural areas to learn about the dangers surrounding farm equipment and farm animals. Children and adults alike must acknowledge these dangers and act accordingly.

This week offers an excellent opportunity for Canadians to learn about and identify the possible dangers of farms. Events taking place across the country can provide education and awareness of farm safety procedures.

I urge all members of my riding as well as all Canadians to get involved in this event, to learn more about what they can do to keep their farms safe.

I would also like to commend the Canada Safety Council for putting on the National Farm Safety Week. Its efforts in this and other fields must be appreciated and acknowledged.

[Criminal Code, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my private member's bills. They are Bill C-413, C-414, C-425 and C-426.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very real pleasure for me to stand in the House today to address the very important Bill C-55. I do so on behalf of the residents of my area of Waterloo—Wellington.

This new measure will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers continue to have access to Canadian advertising revenues by regulating the advertising services supplied by foreign magazine publishers in Canada. It is important to note that this bill is in keeping with Canada's longstanding policy of promoting Canadian culture and that it respects our international trade obligations. We must have Canadian magazines that are vigorous and viable. Unless Canadians stand up for Canadian culture, no one else will.

For 40 years the federal government has supported our domestic magazine publishing industry. That cultural policy has been a clear success. Today there are more than 1,500 magazine titles published in Canada with revenues of over $1 billion. Eighteen of the top twenty magazines available here are Canadian.

It is important to note at this time that the bill that is being proposed does not affect the content of magazines. Publishers will continue to produce editorial content that they consider attractive to Canadians. It does not affect the price of magazines, for example. Canadians will continue to enjoy access to foreign and domestic magazines that are competitively priced.

The advertising revenues generated through the supply of advertising services are critical for any magazine publisher. Such revenues generate more money than subscriptions or newsstand sales combined. Without this key revenue source, editorial content cannot be created or photos purchased. Canadian magazines simply cannot survive without sufficient advertising revenues.

The government wants to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to their own ideas, stories and information. That is why Bill C-55 is important. It will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have access to the funds they need to stay healthy and provide an essential vehicle of cultural expression. That is important to note.

The act will prohibit foreign publishers from supplying advertising services directed primarily at the Canadian market to a Canadian advertiser. We do not expect, for example, foreign publishers to respect the will of parliament and not contravene the legislation. However we need the tools to enforce it if necessary, if in fact those expectations are met.

These tools are flexible and give publishers a chance to comply with the law before more serious penalties are needed. If a foreign publisher is suspected of contravening the law, the minister has the authority to send a letter requiring that the action be halted or to demand the foreign publisher to prove that no offence has taken place. In other words, they can be let off with a warning.

However failure to comply with a letter to stop would mean that the minister could turn to the courts. The court can order the publisher then to stop publishing advertising services or other activities it deems are outside the law.

The bill provides for maximum fines to be levied against foreign publishers found by the courts to have contravened the law. Where an offence is committed by an individual there is a maximum fine as well. The level of fines must be high enough to be an effective deterrent.

This measure deals only with the supply of advertising services to Canadian advertisers. It will not affect the importation of foreign magazines. It will not affect any Canadian reader's ability to purchase foreign magazines at newsstands or through subscription. The Canadian market will continue to be one of the most open in the world. The act will not apply to foreign publishers now operating in Canada that maintain their current levels of activity. Canadian magazine publishers and Canadian cultural groups support the bill, which is something we should all note.

Canada will defend its rights as a sovereign country to develop measures designed to support our domestic cultural expression. We have negotiated rights in international trade agreements and we will defend those rights.

Bill C-55 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-55 does not violate the NAFTA or any other international trade obligations. It has never been challenged before the WTO or in any other dispute settlement today.

American magazines cross our borders every day and Canadian magazines compete successfully for readers, despite our close proximity and common language. This is because Canadian publishers produce original content for the Canadian market, content which is of interest to Canadians. The bill is about the advertising services market and the massive cost advantages foreign publishers would enjoy.

Finally, the legislation ensures that Canadians continue to have the freedom to express and enjoy a diversity of Canadian ideas, something we should all be proud of. The new law will guarantee that Canadians will continue to have access to magazines which tell their stories to each other in their own voices. It is in keeping with Canada's longstanding cultural policies and will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have access to the funds they need to do so.

I urge all members of the House to work for a speedy passage of Bill C-55. It is certainly something Canadians want, deserve and expect. We need to move expeditiously on it.

[Division No. 319, March 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Motion No. 7, the amendment to Bill C-49 proposed by the hon. member for Skeena.

This amendment would delete the names of the 14 first nations from the schedule and in effect would make it an empty schedule. We will not be supporting this motion. It is absolutely necessary that the schedule identify the 14 participating first nations. If they are deleted from the schedule, no first nations can opt in, rendering the act inoperable. The proposed amendment suggests that the first nations can opt in through section 45 of the act but section 45 does not come into force until four or five years after the first nation has opted in.

I am sure hon. members will share my disbelief over the logic of this proposed amendment. This is not useful or even workable as an amendment. It does not improve the bill. In fact it would only serve to change the commitments made in the framework agreement.

I want to take a moment to remind hon. members why this bill is being enacted and why it is a positive piece of legislation for first nations.

The new land management regime outlined in the framework agreement empowers participating first nations to opt out of the land management sections of the Indian Act and establish their own legal regime to manage their own lands and resources. This bill will facilitate the exercise of first nations government as far as lands and resources are concerned. It gives the 14 first nations the authority to pass laws for the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of their lands. The crown continues to hold the title to the lands but the jurisdiction and authority to manage that land will now lie with the communities themselves.

The first nations will no longer need to get approval from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to promote economic development on their own lands. This bill is an innovative way to establish an alternative land management regime to give 14 first nations control over their lands and natural resources.

As stated at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, this bill is about first nations accountability, capacity building and economic development. Most important, this bill is part of a first nations community driven process that culminates here in the House of Commons.

This bill does not create a third order of government. The framework agreement that it puts into effect gives first nations the powers, rights and privileges of a landowner. I am sure no members in the House would tolerate in their own lives and businesses the kind of red tape the Indian Act imposes upon aboriginal land management.

The framework agreement will get these 14 first nations out from under these provisions. It will give them a new degree of flexibility. They will be able to get on with the task of building the economy in their communities.

The framework agreement provides first nations with greater control over their future. They will have greater autonomy and control over land and revenues in their area. The new land regime does not fundamentally alter the crown's fiduciary relationship with the first nations. However, when first nations exercise their new authority, the crown's fiduciary obligations respecting those new authorities will diminish.

This bill establishes a framework for accountability. The 14 first nations will establish a framework that defines accountability both toward the government and toward their communities.

I want to thank the hon. member for South Shore in particular for his remarks at second reading about the accountability provisions of this legislation. I fully agree with him when he said that this is a very positive piece of legislation.

Following the extensive debate this bill received at second reading, it was brought before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development where it received support from many witnesses from the first nations communities.

The committee also received correspondence from Phil Fontaine, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. Mr. Fontaine described this bill as unique and an important first step, but he also pointed out that this legislation will not initiate or impose change. I am quoting when I say “the act merely provides the opportunity for these 14 first nations communities to initiate change at the pace and in the direction established by their community”. That is important to note.

One of the issues raised in committee was the question of matrimonial property. I remind the House that the government has taken this issue very seriously. That is why the department has called a second meeting with aboriginal organizations to work in partnership to identify an individual who will conduct an independent fact finding process to investigate the issue of matrimonial property as it relates to reserve lands.

If there is a broader context in which this bill should be placed, it should be seen as part of the government's agenda to respond to longstanding issues that have held back aboriginal communities for generations, issues raised in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. These are the issues that the government addressed nearly a year ago when it tabled its aboriginal action plan, Gathering Strength. The action plan has four objectives. Each of them has a bearing on the bill before us. The four objectives are: renewing partnerships; strengthening aboriginal governance; developing a new fiscal relationship; and supporting strong communities, peoples and economies.

The framework agreement and this bill to implement it provide renewed partnerships and through new co-operative relationships with other levels of government and the private sector, the first objective. They help create new governance mechanisms through increased lawmaking powers and accountability, the second objective.

In fact the framework agreement provides opportunities to help build the capacity of first nations communities for self-government. It gives an opportunity for first nations peoples to demonstrate that they have the skills and knowledge required for accountable, democratic and efficient government structures.

These first nations will develop their own source of revenue and those who manage the process will remain accountable to the community for their actions. This relates to the third objective of Gathering Strength which is to develop a new fiscal relationship.

Control over lands and resources provides a foundation for stronger communities based on healthy economies. That is the fourth objective of Gathering Strength.

Land and resources provide opportunities for first nations. All too often these opportunities have not been tapped because first nations are hamstrung by the provisions of the Indian Act concerning land and resources. Local control over reserve lands will mean that first nations will be able to take advantage of economic development opportunities, and well that should be.

The benefits will also spread to neighbouring communities that will prosper from economic development spinoffs. We will see an end to the situation where transactions that off reserve might take a matter of weeks can go on for months when they involve first nations land.

New partnerships will be forged between the first nations and surrounding communities. That too is important to note and is worthy of our support.

I should add that the consultations on the development of this legislation have been ongoing since 1996. Canada has met with all affected provinces as well as other stakeholder groups such as the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Ontario Association of Cottage Owners.

The framework agreement that this bill provides is a win-win-win situation. The first nations communities win; they obtain the flexibility they need to build their economies. The government wins because the bill reduces the minister's day to day involvement in the routine decisions of land management and it meets the government's objectives of helping to build the capacity for self-government in first nations. The local non-aboriginal communities also win as the first nations begin to generate jobs and economic growth on Indian land, thereby contributing to the broader economy.

I thank all hon. members for providing lively discussion and understanding and I ask them to join me in supporting this very worthwhile bill.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know Bill Davis. I had the opportunity not so long ago to speak to him. I very much value and respect his opinion. When Bill Davis says that this is a good budget, we should all listen to that. He knows what he is talking about.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

What I do know is that we as a government have taken a very balanced approach not only in this budget year but in previous years as well. We have taken an approach that is balanced, equitable and fair. We have ensured that we cut taxes, that we pay down the debt and that we make the wise kinds of reinvestment Canadians want, need, deserve and expect. We have done a very good job at that.

Specific to the question, I point out that when we put in place innovation, research and the new centres of excellence we do so for everyone in the country no matter where they live, in a manner consistent with the values that sustain us as a people. It is important that we do so in a manner that enables Canadians wherever they live to access those very important areas and make sure that we all prosper and benefit as a result.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I represent the riding of Waterloo—Wellington in Ontario and I am certainly proud to do so. I do know that we are on the cusp of great prosperity in this great nation. That is because we as a government have laid the foundation that enables us to take our place in the future and in the 21st century. That is very important to note.

The hon. member spoke about the G-7. We are the envy of the G-7 in terms of what we are doing. For the past number of years the United Nations has repeatedly shown that we are the leading nation when it comes to the kinds of things we do for ourselves and for our people. I think that is very important to note.

With the research and innovation we have included in this budget, we will ensure that our young people have the fair chance here that is needed and necessary. This we do in the interests of all Canadians.