Roger Gallaway

[Young Offenders Act, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Motion M-278, wherein the hon.

member moves that the government should amend the Young Offenders Act to reduce the age for whom it applies down to the age of 10 from 12, to allow for the publication of the names of individuals convicted under the act, and to require the immediate transfer to adult court of individuals being tried for the repeat offence of violent crimes.

I want to address each of these suggested amendments to the Young Offenders Act in turn. In my opinion this is quite a surprising motion in the sense that the mover belongs to a party which at a recent policy conference three months ago stated that the Young Offenders Act should be repealed. Now we are starting to snip around the edges of the Young Offenders Act with this motion.

I am surprised by some of the statements I heard made by the mover of this motion. In particular I am referring to Dr. O'Shaughnessy. As a member of the committee I heard Dr. O'Shaughnessy speak.

My recollection, and I think the record will show this clearly, is that Dr. O'Shaughnessy agreed that the age for young offenders should remain at 12. It is very easy to selectively refer to witnesses and experts who have a particular opinion, but at the end of the day, as decision makers and legislators, we have to decide what is best based on the evidence presented to us and not be selective and say: "Well, expert A said that it should be lowered to the age of 10 and my mind is made up and that is good enough for me. I want to lower it to the age of 10".

I am very surprised by this because it is almost an Old Testament world where it is an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth. I think as a society we have moved beyond that.

The other part of this whole concept of tinkering with the Young Offenders Act begs the question where do the provinces fit into this. If we follow the motion that was passed by the members of the Reform Party at their policy convention, we will find that it is very consistent because we do not have to worry about the provinces. Everybody who commits an act that is deemed to be criminal is dealt with in the criminal courts regardless of age.

Therefore, if one asks the question where the provinces are in all of this, the answer is, if we follow their logic, the provinces have no place in this. Everybody, regardless of age, is capable of being a criminal in the worst sense of the word.

The provinces do have a role in this. There is no question about that. The provinces have child welfare legislation. I will certainly concede that it is not a uniform code across this country. Unfortunately that is the reality, but one can certainly suggest that there ought to be a uniform code across this country in terms of child welfare legislation.

We have heard references to the fact that an 11-year old will say to the police: "You cannot touch me. There is nothing you can do about it". In fact, that is an absolute fallacy because there are actions the police can take. I have no doubt that 11-year olds will say that. Certainly as a parent, children at various ages will say various things. It is part of their development into adulthood. However, to suggest that because they fall below the age of 12 that nothing can be done is quite frankly not true.

I want to first say that this motion is premature because the issues raised in this motion are three of the issues that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be reporting on shortly.

As members know, the standing committee has been travelling across Canada and has heard submissions from average Canadians, expert Canadians and Canadians from all walks of life and all positions within and without the criminal justice system. To move ahead now with this motion and to accept it without the benefit of the opinion of the standing committee, which in turn has benefited from the many Canadians who have appeared before it and have taken the time and energy to make submissions to the committee, would be an absolute insult to the people and would not show the committee the consideration that its opinion should deserve.

It seems to me that the appropriate solution in the circumstances is to wait merely for a couple of months until the committee tables its report.

I agree with my colleague that these are issues that are of concern, but with all due respect they are more complex than they at first appear. The issue of how to address violent activity by young people under the age of 12 is a particular difficult one, there is no question about that. I believe there is good reason for selecting the age of 12 as the minimum age for criminal responsibility under the Young Offenders Act. It is because of the concern that many children under the age of 12 lack the knowledge and experience to fully appreciate the nature and consequences of their actions or the ability to fully participate in the proceedings against them. These two capacities are fundamental to a fair and just criminal prosecution.

This is not to say that nothing is done, which I have already referred to, when children under 12 commit a criminal offence. In many provinces the commission of criminal offences by children under the age of 12 is a ground for intervention by child welfare authorities. These persons in conjunction with the family and the community can best determine how the long term interests of both the child and the community can be met.

In many cases, unlike the criminal proceedings, there is no open trial; not a trial in the sense of the law. In fact, it is a decision made

by child welfare authorities, a decision which we would hope would be in the best interests of the child. That is how it is dealt with.

To suggest the police could do nothing with an 11-year old is absolutely true. If we also follow the logic that we should lower the age to 10, what would happen when we have a 9-year old saying the same thing? If we keep following their logic, we are going to go right down to some mystical age like one or two and we will be able to lock them up.

Similarly, the issue of allowing for the publication of names of individuals convicted under the act is also complex. I want to remind this House that recent changes to the act which came into force on December 1, 1995 under Bill C-37 provide for greater information sharing among professionals like school officials and police to ensure compliance with the youth court orders, or when the safety of others is at stake. In addition, there can be a youth court order that the identity of a young offender found guilty of an offence involving serious personal injury be disclosed to designated person when the young offender poses a risk of serious harm to others.

At the same time a number of reasons support the prohibition of publications such as preventing barriers being imposed which could stand in the way of a youth becoming more positively involved in the community, including employment and educational opportunities.

The motion would require the immediate transfer to adult court of individuals being tried for the repeat offence of violent crimes. I know and the Minister of Justice knows that the commission of serious crimes by persons of any age is a cause of grave concern to all Canadians, but the best research available suggests that focusing merely on harsher treatment is neither going to be effective in deterring most youth from committing crimes in the first instance nor in preventing their reoffending and therefore offers no protection whatsoever to the public. Flexibility in the law to address the individual circumstances of each case is extremely important.

I will address the issue of the immediate transfer to adult court. I remind the House that in respect of most serious offences committed by older youths, this issue was already addressed in the amendments that came into force on December 1, 1995.

I emphasize that amendments to the legislation alone will not solve the problem of youth crime because it is tied to poverty, unemployment, family violence, racism, illiteracy, alcoholism, drug abuse and many other factors contributing to criminal behaviour in young people and in adults.

For a number of reasons this motion is premature. It is inconsistent with its mover's party position. It would be inappropriate for the House to adopt it without waiting for the full report of the standing committee on justice. Therefore I cannot support this motion.

[Petitions, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present eight petitions today, duly certified, dealing variously with criminals benefiting from the proceeds of crime, taxation, sexual orientation and public hazards.

[Trade, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, talk of increased exports is taking on visible meaning in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton.

Tomorrow morning hundreds of feet above the St. Clair River, the iron workers of local 700 will put in place the final beam joining the two halves of our second Bluewater Bridge in Point Edward.

This new international crossing is clear evidence of the growth of trade between Canada and the United States, and in particular, Ontario and the Great Lakes states. With approximately 5,000 trucks crossing each day on the existing bridge, this second span will be open for the anticipated surge of 10,000 trucks daily by the millennium.

I look forward to joining with Councillor Barbara Horner, the Commissioners of the Bluewater Bridge Authority and the thousands of proud area residents in celebrating this new link.

Increased trade is not just a statistic, it is tangible in Sarnia-Lambton, now the gateway to the NAFTA superhighway.

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in favour of Bill C-201, which as we have heard, is an amendment to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired drivers.

I do not want to go into the background. I know a lot has been said on this. There has been a lot of talk of victims. I think everyone in this room and probably people who are watching these proceedings, we all know of someone or some family who has been touched by this.

I will deal with a particular part of this bill. I have heard the criticism that any minimum sentence fetters the discretion of the

judiciary. As a general rule, I believe that is true. There is no question that we do not want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary.

Judges have to deal with all the facts. They have to consider all the evidence and then they will pass a sentence. That is why in our system of laws, as a rule we do not impose a minimum sentence. We impose a maximum. In the case of section 255 it is 14 years. However, we are dealing with the exception here. There are always exceptions. In law there is the old expression of exceptions to the rule.

The hon. member has struck on one topic that has become a problem in this country: Too many people are careening around on the roads in an impaired state. According to the most recent statistics, approximately 88,000 people were charged with impaired driving. More important, more than 1,400 people in 1994 lost their lives as a result of impaired driving. To me the telling statistic is that this is three times higher than the murder rate in terms of victims.

The argument could be made that we do not have a minimum sentence for murder so why would we want to impose one on impaired driving? The answer is quite simple. We recognize that murders are committed for various reasons. Some are premeditated but more often they are crimes of passion; they are done on the spur of the moment.

Impaired driving involves two steps. One is putting yourself into the position of being impaired and that is not an act of passion. That is not an act that happens on the spur of the moment. That is something that in most cases people can control. I do acknowledge there are people in our society who have addiction problems, but people have some degree of choice in whether or not they will drink. They ought to realize before they start drinking that they have a vehicle somewhere in the neighbourhood.

Once people get into that impaired state they lose all judgment. As a result we see there is a problem on the roads and highways in this country. In 1994 it caused 1,400 people to be killed, not by a crime of passion, not by somebody who got into a state on the spur of the moment, but they were killed by someone who ought not to have been behind the wheel. As I said earlier, we all know someone who has personally been affected by an impaired driver.

There were 1,400 people in 1994, three times the number of people who were murdered, acts of passion, being killed. It is a problem. We do move to address problems in this House. We are required and it is our duty to address problems. I commend the member for moving to do it.

I want to deal with the whole question of minimum sentencing. Whether seven years is appropriate or not, I am not certain. Whether two years is appropriate or not, I am not certain. But this is a situation that we have to deal with. This is a signal.

There are those who suggest that we could use the money we are going to spend incarcerating people on an education campaign. Education campaigns on this have been going provincially for years. There are road checks, spot checks, the RIDE program in Ontario. They have reduced it some. Every year there are various ways of dealing with it. Some people are either immune to it or not affected by the education programs, whichever. The end result is we have to take a more extraordinary measure to tell people they have a choice as to whether they are going to drink. We have to tell people to think about it before they climb into that car if they have had a drink because they are the risk on the road.

The time has arrived for this place to send this bill to committee and let the committee decide whether seven years is too severe, or maybe three years is more appropriate, perhaps one year. In principle, without any equivocation I believe that we have to look at a minimum sentence.

This is not saying to the judiciary that we want to fetter their discretion. This is saying to the judiciary that we believe this is an extraordinary circumstance and we believe we have to tell them what the parameters are at the bottom and at the top rather than saying just what the top is.

People in this country want this. This is not falling into a trap. It is an exception to the rule. It is an exception to our normal rules of jurisprudence but this is an exceptional problem and sometimes we must take extraordinary measures.

[Broadcasting Act, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate at report stage of my private member's Bill C-216.

This bill has one clear objective and that is to prohibit negative option billing by cable companies. This prohibition would also apply to other distribution undertakings as defined by the Broadcasting Act, such as direct to home satellite.

On Motion No. 1, I cannot support this amendment as proposed by the member for Richmond-Wolfe. The amendment would have the effect of defeating this bill totally. Quite simply, we cannot turn our back on consumers and leave the door open to a repeat of last year's cable fiasco.

I am fully aware of the position expressed by the Bloc critic in his belief that the consumer protection act in the province of Quebec prevents negative option billing by cable companies. However, I must say I am confused in that I heard that argument and then I also heard the argument that if it applies in Quebec it should not apply outside the province of Quebec.

The reality in Quebec is such that all new programming services are marketed through negative option billing. In fact in most cases the Quebec consumer is afforded less choice by cable companies than elsewhere in the country. In Quebec new services are simply tacked on to the basic service and the price goes up. There are no additional tiers of specialty services.

The cable television industry has a unique and powerful position in providing programming services to Canadians. Very few industries are capable of supplying a service directly into our homes 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.

More important, in this country the cable industry has a monopoly on the service it provides. The cable industry abused its unique and powerful relationship with consumers by employing an outrageous billing practice known as negative option billing to market the last round of specialty channels.

With the CRTC's blessing the cable monopolies added new specialty channels to existing services and increased the price, but apparently no one felt it necessary to ask consumers and customers if they wanted the new service. The onus was on the customers to somehow contact the cable company and cancel the service before it was charged to their bill. To add insult to injury, some of the larger cable operators packaged the new channels in such a manner that by cancelling them the customer would lose existing services.

By mid-January 1995 the cable companies finally backed down on forcing customers to cancel existing services to avoid new ones. Apologies were issued. Free viewing periods were extended. However, the onus was still on the customers to somehow cancel the new service before it appeared on their bills. The negative option survived and remains a threat to this very day.

This bill was first tabled in February 1995 in response to Canadian consumers who demanded that we put an end to this practice. The bill was reintroduced in this session of Parliament and passed second reading on April 30, 1996 and I might say by an overwhelming majority. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

In May, the committee heard testimony from various consumer groups, representatives of the cable industry and officials from the CRTC. In committee on May 30 of this year the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage moved an amendment to Bill C-216. The amendment was adopted by the committee and the bill was reported back to this House as amended.

The parliamentary secretary's amendment fine tuned and improved this important piece of legislation. I would like to thank the hon. member and indeed all members of the committee for their efforts in this regard.

The House should also note that the parliamentary secretary's amendment to Bill C-216 came as a result of testimony from the CRTC. CRTC officials had suggested the alternative wording as a means of improving the bill.

Some would say that a legislative end to negative option billing by cable companies is not necessary because the cable companies have learned their lesson.

We heard last week from the new chair of the CRTC as she announced 23 new specialty channels. We heard the former chair, Mr. Spicer, when he testified before the heritage committee. He said the issue was dead, but if we wanted to make certain it was dead we could do so and he would send flowers. He also stated that there was no harm in passing Bill C-216; this from the then chair of the CRTC.

The head of the Canadian Cable Television Association, Mr. Stursberg, testified at the committee that the cable industry would only use positive option billing practices. They said it will not happen again. If it will not happen again, I am prepared to call their bluff. This past week I received confirmation that contrary to what

the cable industry would have us believe it intends to use negative option billing to market the new round of specialty channels.

I received a call from Pauline Couture, a lobbyist who represents one of the 23 new specialty channels. She freely admitted that her client's business plans call for a negative option marketing strategy. When I asked how she reconciled this fact with the pledge made by the cable industry, she stated that in her view there are different kinds of positive option billing.

We can see that the industry intends to keep its pledge to consumers. It will use negative option billing but it will call it something else. That is not good enough. It said it will not happen again. Then why is the industry still trying to derail Bill C-216?

It was reported in the press last week that André Bureau had been lobbying MPs to speak against this bill. Interestingly, the same André Bureau was until 1989 the chair of the CRTC and could probably be described as the godfather of negative option billing. He was the person who first validated the practice. He is now the president and CEO of Astral Broadcasting, a group which is in the marketing of specialty channels.

With respect to the proposed amendment moved by the critic from the Bloc, I would tell my hon. colleague that I disagree with him on the issue of jurisdiction. I should point out that cable companies, telephone companies and direct to home satellite companies are all federally regulated undertakings. As such they can claim immunity from provincial laws, especially consumer protection laws. If my hon. friend would take the time and closely read Quebec's consumer protection law, he would see that in section 5 of the act there are services which are in fact exempt from the application. It refers to contracts regarding any telecommunications service supplied by an operating company.

Finally I would ask my hon. friend from the Bloc if, as his party maintains, Quebec has already solved the problem of negative option billing by the cable industry then why should we in this House neglect to do the same for the rest of the consumers in Canada?

Speaking with respect to Motion No. 2, which is the one I have proposed, I would like to briefly explain why I have proposed this small change to Bill C-216. My amendment would delete the words "offered by an undertaking licence" from line 11 of Bill C-216.

Quite simply these words which were added as part of the amendment passed at the committee stage are redundant and I must emphasize redundant. They are unnecessary because paragraph 3(1)(t) of the Broadcasting Act, which my bill seeks to amend, already states clearly that we are talking about distribution undertakings, in other words, cable companies that are licensed to provide programming services.

Since the Broadcasting Act already makes this crystal clear, there is no need to include these additional words in Bill C-216. As a result I would encourage all members to support Motion No. 2 which is the motion fine tuned which was proposed and put forward by the parliamentary secretary and was the amendment proposed by the CRTC itself.

[Broadcasting Act, September 16th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-216, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 11, on page 1, with the following:

"vice".

[American Coast Guard, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first we had the Helms-Burton act, that sleight of hand by the American Congress to legislate outside the territory of the United States.

Now we have the American coast guard stopping Canadian pleasure boats in mid-Great Lakes and demanding entry permission certificates that incidentally cost $20. These same people are threatening our citizens with seizure of their boats for future non-compliance.

The last time I looked there was no white line in the middle of the St. Clair and Detroit rivers. Canadian boats out for a cruise wander in and out of U.S. waters.

Perhaps the Ministers of National Revenue, Fisheries and Oceans and Foreign Affairs will collectively reciprocate with some of the 830,000 pleasure craft in the state of Michigan. At $20 per boat we could use the $16.5 million windfall.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with respect to an issue that was raised several months ago in the House dealing with priorities within the Department of Canadian Heritage and specifically in Sports Canada.

At the time I raised the question on March 25, I wanted to deal with the whole issue of how the department treated sports that were inherently and specifically Canadian. In particular I raised the question of lacrosse.

The Department of Canadian Heritage through Sports Canada is there to encourage sports in this country at a national level. In other words, we would have and provide some level of funding to those organizations which provide a national tie to other local and provincial organizations.

In Canada there are more than 200,000 young people participating in the sport of lacrosse, yet under the funding framework devised by Sports Canada the Canadian Lacrosse Association, the national co-ordinating agency for lacrosse in Canada, was cut totally from any funding whatsoever.

It seemed that was an anomaly, a bleep in the funding framework, created by people at Sports Canada. In bobsledding, in which there are 400 people including athletes and support staff, its national association received $315,500 in 1995-96. Synchronized swimming, in which there are fewer than 10,000 people, received $535,000 for its national association. Yet those youth, some 200,000, who participate in lacrosse in Canada are receiving nothing.

As a result of that I raised the question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who replied on March 25 that she would instruct her officials to find a way to provide funding to the Canadian Lacrosse Association because without that national association the sport will eventually die. There will be no national perspective, no national tournaments.

To this date there has been no funding provided, although the department has indicated it wants to explore it with the Canadian Lacrosse Association. I suggest there are certain anomalies within the department that must be corrected.

I will go one step further to what is referred to as carded A athletes. We certainly want to encourage our top level athletes in this country, as most countries do. We have reached a point where we are providing funding to athletes who are very wealthy.

For example, those athletes who sign endorsements for hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some cases more, continue to receive $800 a month from the Government of Canada. The department seems to have reversed its priorities, whereas it has cut lacrosse off at the knees and provided $315,000 to bobsledding and $535,000 to synchronized swimming. It has said to these 200,000 children involved in lacrosse sorry, their national association does not count because under the circumstances it is not a recognized Olympic sport.

At the same time we are feeding out $800 a month, about $200 more than a single welfare recipient receives in the province of Ontario. Yet at the same time they are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsements from commercial interests.

I am asking the department therefore to get its priorities in order, to say we believe there are some sports that are inherently Canadian. Let us forget about the International Olympic Association. Let us start looking at Canada. Let us start looking within the Department of Canadian Heritage. Let us start encouraging those sports that are inherently Canadian and provide funding to encourage them rather than to say we will write a blank cheque to the International Olympic Association and provide funding to those sports which are Olympic in nature but which in most respects are inherently not Canadian. I once again urge the department to move on that.