Andy Mitchell

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the motion on the issue of victims rights.

Although as a society we have an obligation to protect the rights of the accused and the rights of the convicted, we also need to establish and safeguard the rights of all victims and their families.

If an occasion should arise where the rights of the victim and the rights of the perpetrator are in conflict, the resolution of that conflict should be very easy: it should be in favour of the victim. I sincerely believe this can be done without compromising our fine tradition of rights and freedoms.

The call for better victims rights is not a new one. In 1981 a federal-provincial task force was struck to examine the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The task force reported in 1983 with suggestions to provide information to victims, develop victims rights, develop victim services, introduce victim impact statements and compensate losses where appropriate. I agree with all of these proposals. However, I do not agree with its conclusion that many proposed victims rights "were not appropriate to be included in the criminal law". Since that time some progress has been made.

In 1988, Bill C-89 amended the Criminal Code to allow courts to consider victim impact statements during sentencing. Recent amendments which will soon come into force will require courts to consider any properly prepared impact statement. Similar changes have been made to the Young Offenders Act and to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Provisions have been placed in the Criminal Code regarding restitution. In section 727.9 of the Criminal Code a victim fine surcharge has been introduced, not to exceed 15 per cent of any fine levied. Unfortunately, proceeds go to the crown and not directly to the victim. Under section 725 of the Criminal Code a court can order compensation to a victim. However, application must be made by the victim who would need to seek a civil judgment to enforce the order and the accused would not pay the amount ordered.

It is progress, but it is not enough. It is not sufficient for the federal government to point to the provinces and suggest that the administration of justice is a provincial matter. It is not good enough that changes on these matters are done haphazardly and at a snail's pace. It is certainly not good enough to suggest further patience by those whose lives have been shattered as victims of crime.

The federal government has a clear responsibility to set the protection of victims as a national priority. I believe this motion can achieve that objective.

We can accomplish our objectives by including the rights of victims in a preamble to the Criminal Code. On matters which

traditionally fall within the scope of the provinces, this preamble should state that the administration of the law, as established in the Criminal Code, specifies the rights of victims.

There are five principles which should be included in a statement of victims rights. First, victims should be kept informed of the criminal investigations, court proceedings and parole applications being undertaken in respect of criminal action perpetrated against them or their families. These people need to know the process. They need to be informed of what is going on. Victims of crime are not an impediment to court proceedings, the lawyers and others who administer the law. They are the reason for it and should benefit from it.

Second, victims should be financially compensated for personal injury or financial and all other forms of loss which result from criminal actions against them or their families. They should not have to make a separate application to the court, nor be required to obtain a civil enforcement order. The thought that a victim must in essence sue an individual convicted of a crime against them to obtain restitution is beyond comprehension.

Third, an individual convicted of committing a property crime should have a portion of their fine or labour in prison go to providing restitution to the victim. Innocent bystanders should not have to absorb the cost of another's deviant behaviour.

Fourth, victims should have the unconditional right to have their impact statements heard by the courts and parole boards. The rules and processes surrounding this procedure should be simple and should facilitate, not impede such action.

Fifth, the statement of principle should call for the administration of justice under the Criminal Code by the provinces in a manner which obliges them to inform victims of the services available to them, including possible legal recourse.

The intent of the motion before us is to further protect the rights of victims who are all too often forgotten by the justice system, which is why I will support the motion today. I will carefully watch the progress of the minister and the committee. I hope they find merit in my suggestion to include the bill of rights in a preamble to the Criminal Code.

I am not a lawyer, a judge or a learned legal scholar. I do not know the intricacies of the law. But I am a father, a husband and a concerned citizen. As parliamentarians we have an obligation to continue the progress of the last few years, to set a national standard and an example to protect and assist all victims of crime.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, many of the constituents in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka are directly affected by recent changes to FEDNOR programming. As a new initiative, this will have a positive impact on their businesses.

I wholeheartedly support the government's renewed commitment to regional economic development in northern Ontario. The budget for this program is being increased to $60 million over three years. The government is assuring that this money is being wisely invested on programs and services that work to increase the economic and employment potential in northern Ontario.

In his response to my initial question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry referenced an approximate fivefold leveraging of money from Canada's financial institutions to help get capital into the hands of northern Ontario's small business men and women.

This partnering is an excellent example of how government and the private sector can work together for the benefit of small businesses. This is very good news for northern Ontario. Improved access to capital constantly dominates small business' wish list. It is one very important part of the recently announced FEDNOR initiative and is an improvement that my colleagues and I in northern Ontario worked very hard to see implemented.

The government has also worked persistently to get more money into the hands of Canada's small business men and women so they in turn can invest in their businesses, expand their services and most importantly, hire fellow Canadians.

The government's renewed FEDNOR initiative emphasizes working with private and public sector partners to facilitate in five specific areas: access to capital which I mentioned; enhanced business competitiveness; community economic development; networking, and providing a stronger regional voice for the north.

This emphasis on developing specific tools for northern Ontario businesses is of critical importance in the communities in my riding and in communities across northern Ontario. I strongly support the partnership approach in the new initiative which creates

an environment in which small businesses can create wealth and jobs in northern Ontario.

It is also significant to note that not only are the programs being improved but service delivery is being made more efficient. FEDNOR's operating expenditures will be reduced by 40 per cent.

The existing Community Futures development corporation will become a major delivery component of this program, making highly effective use of resources that are already in place in northern Ontario. These organizations will be provided new capital and given the tools to attract additional private sector investment.

Also, the new FEDNOR program will be providing up to $4 million in direct investment in tourism, another very important component of the economy in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. This will be done through co-operative marketing initiatives and through the development of specialty tourism packages and training.

The government cares about northern Ontario. It understands its role to create an environment in which the small business community of northern Ontario can create jobs. The changes to FEDNOR demonstrate this Liberal government's commitment to a jobs and growth agenda.

[National Volunteer Week, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of National Volunteer Week I rise today to thank the millions of volunteers working in communities across the country.

During National Volunteer Week we honour people like my constituents, Marion White and Elspeth Hogg, recent recipients of the Canada Volunteer Award. These constituents and countless other Canadians selflessly donate time and energy to people in need.

Over 13 million Canadians are volunteers and collectively we donate services valued at over $16 billion. Our communities thrive because of these generous people, because here in Canada we care about our neighbours and are willing to work hard for the sake of our communities.

In honour of National Volunteer Week, I thank the many many constituents in my riding who give so freely of their time to hospitals, firehalls, schools and service clubs.

Volunteering is about commitment and caring. It is about the power of each one of us to make our world a better place. To all volunteers everywhere I offer my congratulations.

[Pensions, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the many constituents in my riding who took the time to take part in a public pension forum I held in Rosseau last week.

Close to 70 people turned out to provide me with their comments, concerns and ideas about how to improve Canada's public pension system so that it will be affordable, fair and sustainable for future generations of Canadians.

My constituents invested their time and energy to learn about options to change the Canada pension plan and the details of the proposed new seniors benefit. They considered and suggested potential solutions. They participated in round table discussions with their peers and put forth recommendations that I will in turn forward to the ministers of finance and human resources development for consideration in future deliberations.

I thank my constituents for their valuable interventions on the subject of public pensions. I encourage them to keep coming forward with their thoughts and ideas.

[Fednor, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry recently announced that the budget of FedNor, the regional development agency in northern Ontario, is being increased to $60 million over three years.

In view of the concerns of the auditor general, will the parliamentary secretary advise the House what the minister will do to ensure that Canadian taxpayers get full value for this expenditure, particularly as it relates to access to capital for small businesses in northern Ontario?

[Contraventions Act, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to take the opportunity to mention to the House that the original Contraventions Act, which was passed in 1992 and amended today, began a long process that dates back to 1982. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Stan Darling, who initiated the legislation.

I want to let my colleagues know how important this piece of legislation is to my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We have

long suffered a safety issue on our waterways and have needed better enforcement procedures. This bill will give us that opportunity. It works well through provincial regulatory authorities to make that happen.

Negotiations are taking place right now between Ontario and the federal government and within a very short period of time enforcement officers will have the means to enforce safety regulations.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc and from the Reform Party for agreeing to this process today. It has allowed this bill to be passed quickly so that enforcement can be on our waterways this summer.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to two of the points made by the hon. member.

If one honestly and without political rhetoric or without trying to score political points takes a look at the membership of the committee, one will see a group of eminent individuals who have proven track records in the field they are being asked to review. To suggest for a second that these individuals are lackeys of the government is to do them a disservice. I have a lot of respect for the individuals I see on this list. I have confidence that they are going to do their job well and properly.

On the point that they want to reform the tax system, I do not believe anyone in the House would not agree with that. Probably most Canadians agree with that. However, there is a process that needs to be followed.

When I was in the private sector and had to make important decisions, I did not off the top of my head figure out what I was going to do. What I did and what the government is doing is gathering the facts, the information and getting an opinion. That is what this committee is going to do.

The committee is the beginning of a process of gathering information so that just as in the private sector where decisions are made based on the information, so too can we as parliamentarians have a good, sound and knowledgeable debate and make good decisions because we will have gone out and gathered the facts, had the information and had been able to do our jobs properly. That is what this is all about. That is why I applaud the Minister of Finance for this initiative.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion.

I was quite surprised last night to see the motion in which the official opposition criticized the establishment of the committee. The committee is being established to do something I believe all members of the House would like to see happen. It will review the present corporate tax structure and make suggestions on how it can be improved, made more efficient and operate to the benefit of all Canadians far beyond what it does now.

Our corporate taxation system has to be more than just a means of collecting revenue. An effective taxation system must be

designed so that it will encourage the expansion of the economy, encourage the creation of employment and encourage economic activity.

The committee is being charged to look at the corporate taxation system and to ensure it is designed in a way that will not curb employment. When the Minister of Finance announced the establishment of this technical committee in his most recent budget he made it very very clear that its job was to find out what the facts were, to investigate the existing system, to change things that are presently there, making them far more effective.

It is high time this was done. The last time this was looked at was nine years ago. That has been far too long. I think there is a consensus among most Canadians and in the House that what the government does needs to be done in the most efficient way possible.

I will leave aside the issue of whether the appropriate level of taxation is there or whether corporations are paying their fair share. It is generally agreed there is a desire to make sure the administration of tax collection in this country is efficient, that it is done in the least expensive way possible and that the least number of public dollars are used in operating government to do those things.

That is what this technical committee is all about. It is all about making sure that things are done more efficiently and that resources are not being wasted unnecessarily on administration.

I was very surprised to see the contents of the motion that was put forward by the official opposition. It seems to suggest that it is inappropriate to have people look at a problem who are best able and most knowledgeable in that area. It is common sense that if a technical area of concern such as the corporate tax structure is being studied, the initial investigation should be done by people who have a good academic background, who have a good practical background, who have a good understanding of the tax system.

It makes little sense to seek out individuals who do not understand the system and who are not able to address some of the problems. It makes perfect sense to seek out experts in the field. I almost get the impression that the concern across the way is that their experts, their people were not picked. They are complaining about that. It is like "if you don't play the ball game my way I am going to take the ball and go home". It does not work that way.

The people who have been selected to sit on this committee are very knowledgeable. I have a list of the individuals who have been selected. As you go down that list you will see the names of individuals with very strong credentials. These are people who understand the tax system. They understand how the system works and can provide some very solid recommendations on how it can be improved.

It should also be made clear that the individuals on this technical committee will not provide the final word. They are not going to create policy. They are not going to come back and tell us this is the way it is going to be. That is not the intent.

This is the beginning of a process that I hope will lead to some very concrete changes that will make the system cheaper to run administratively, that will make it simple and fair. Most important, the process will lead to making economic fundamentals right and will lead to increased job creation.

It is important to understand this is the beginning of the process. It is simply an opportunity to have some people who are experts in their field take a look at the problem and come up with some possible alternatives.

At that point, the government will have some sound, in depth public input and public debate on it. That is when we, as parliamentarians and Canadians, either as individuals or as groups, will have an opportunity to look at the study and some of the recommendations and come back to have a public debate.

We can and will discuss things such as whether the corporate sector is paying its share of taxation as opposed to the personal sector. Are there appropriate trade-offs in the tax system where certain things are done in order to enhance investment and help job creation? Are those appropriate?

Members will have an opportunity for public debate about those things. Before beginning that debate, the minister is absolutely correct in having a technical committee take a look at the present system, study it in depth, look at some of the ways in which it can be made fair and simple. From looking at the list of individuals the minister has appointed to this committee, there are some very eminent individuals with a lot of knowledge and expertise who are going to be able to do this job in a very confident way.

The idea of having this committee and the selection of individuals sitting on this committee is really indicative of the approach the Minister of Finance has taken to the budget. He has taken a balanced approach and has tried, quite successfully, not to fixate on any one part of his responsibilities toward the budget but has taken a widespread and comprehensive approach.

In the budget, work is being done on deficit reduction. The deficit needs to be reduced. Work is being done on job creation. Job creation should be encouraged. There is a desire and a need for government to target specific areas, to help with job creation such as with youth unemployment. The government is working toward helping the least advantaged in society.

The minister has taken a very constructive, broad based approach, as can be seen with the technical committee. He under-

stands the issue which is the reform of corporate taxation. Rather than simply jumping into it willy-nilly, he starts at the beginning.

He starts by gathering the facts and determining the issues. That is what this technical committee is going to do. I am pleased it has been appointed. I have confidence in the people he has appointed. I know they will do an excellent job. I look forward to reviewing and debating their report.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget we will ensure that all parts of society according to their needs will contribute to reducing the deficit and no one part of the country or no one part of society will be totally spared.

I disagree with his figures. Our expenditure cuts will amount to 19 per cent of government programming. It is less than half of that amount in terms of transfers to the provinces.

In terms of building up a surplus in the UI fund, the hon. member opposite would be the first person to criticize the government during a recession if it were required to increase UI rates. Members opposite would be yelling at us that we were increasing UI rates during a recession at a time when we should not be taking money out of the hands of workers and the businesses which create jobs.

Having a UI surplus during periods of economic growth makes eminent good sense so that we do not have to take money out of the economy during a recessionary period. It makes good economic sense. It should have been done by previous governments. This government is doing it.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer both the observation of the member and his question.

As to his observation, I have no doubt that if the fundamentals were not right he would be very critical of the government. When the fundamentals are right because of positive government action I will say so. Our government has done a good job. It has made good progress in making the fundamentals right.

As to adding to the debt, I am glad the member admitted in his presentation that his party would have added $61 billion to the debt.

I will go back to my career in the financial services industry before I took this job to give an analogy of what we are talking about. Most of us have found ourselves in a position where we may have overspent. We may have bought a house that was a little too big or had a mortgage that was a little higher than it should be. Perhaps we bought a vehicle on the spur of the moment because of its accessories, making the debt for our car a little higher. Perhaps we ran the plastic up on the last trip or whatever and we find ourselves owing more than we should.

As somebody who dealt with consumer loans I often had individuals come to me who had found themselves in that situation. Our country is essentially in the situation today where we find that we have overspent and we have a large debt. If we took the philosophy of the third party in our dealings with such individuals, we could simply say that is too bad, that they have to pay back all the debt in one year and the fact they will not have enough money to feed their families or clothe their children is irrelevant.

Or, we could do what is generally done in the industry. We could arrange a debt consolidation loan where the need to eliminate that debt is recognized and the fact that while it is being eliminated food for the family and clothes for the children have to be provided. Therefore we would arrange for the payments to be over a reasonable period of time.

In my speech I pointed out that we take a balanced approach as a government. However, here we have a party fixated on one aspect of our responsibility. It does not recognize the social responsibility which the government has to Canadians.