Chris Axworthy

[Criminal Code, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support Bill C-72. I commend the Minister of Justice for responding quickly to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on this matter.

This is a matter of concern to all Canadians. It is clearly a problem that has been identified in the criminal justice system. It is appropriate the minister respond, as he has indicated, and preclude a person from being able to rely on self-induced intoxication as a defence.

It is also proper that the minister is considering the most appropriate way the proposal can be introduced into our criminal system. It would be irresponsible not to consider the constitutional ramifications of the proposal.

As we all know, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about their safety, the safety of their families and the safety of their communities. Their confidence in the criminal justice system and its effectiveness in reducing crime rates have given rise to concern over the last few years. There is increasing

demand that the government take action to deal with this situation.

I believe firmly and my party believes firmly that society should take stern, tough measures against violent crimes and those that commit them. I also believe just as strongly that we must balance the approach by putting in place programs to effectively prevent crime. We must be both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

It is true that Canadians need to believe that those who commit violent crimes for whatever reason will be properly dealt with in the courts. This bill will address one concern: that someone can use the defence of intoxication to get away with a crime of violence. It is appropriate that the punishment fit the crime.

Unfortunately it is a knee-jerk reaction that is not good enough. From experience we know that simply expanding the incarceration system, the prison system, spending more money on courts and prisons, making more and more laws to punish more and more people has little positive effect on the overall sense of security and overall levels of criminal activity.

The Minister of Justice recently pointed to this problem. He said that building more jails, filling them with criminals and throwing away the key will not solve Canada's crime problems. In a speech to the Empire Club of Toronto he stated: "I believe we have to go beyond the slogans to the substance of the issue to prefer logic to rhetoric".

He continued: "If crime prevention is to be successful, it has to be a co-operative effort by law enforcement agencies, social agencies, the education system, community workers and health professionals. The goal is preventing crime. Making the streets safer has as much to do with literacy as it does with laws, human rights and living standards".

"Crime prevention means recognizing the connection between the crime rate and the unemployment rate, between unsupervised access by young people to movies saturated with violence and the way they behave toward one another and how a kid behaves in a school and whether he has a hot meal".

The Minister of Justice is entirely right in linking the causes of crime to the level of criminal activity which has caused so many people concern.

Before I go on to comment more about that let me talk about this defence. We know that the conduct of Henri Daviault, who consumed 40 ounces of brandy and seven or eight beer before raping a 64-year-old, partially paralysed woman is something that is reprehensible, something that every decent member of society finds absolutely disgusting.

Carl Blair, drank 40 ounces of rye, 40 ounces of vodka and a large quantity of beer and then brutally beat his wife. This kind of activity cannot be tolerated. We have to do everything within our means to address this effectively.

One of the things we can do, one of the things that we have the power to do, is ensure that drunkenness cannot be used as an excuse for violent behaviour, that it cannot be used to avoid a criminal sanction for such reprehensible acts.

Where did this activity come from, where did this seeming disregard for the rights of women come from, why do people turn to these actions? We know from reports by the standing committee on justice and the solicitor general on crime prevention that those represented on the committee maintain that the identification and punishment of criminals are, on their own, ineffective means of reducing future risks of victimization and promoting community safety.

Over the past decade we have seen the United States and some states in that country spending unprecedented sums of money on more judges and more prisons. In some states the building of prisons is the largest industry. Yet there, as here, citizens continue to report an increasing fear of crime in their communities. Pouring more money into punishment and incarceration cannot be seen as the complete answer to the concerns Canadians have about their justice system and safety in their communities. It cannot be seen as the complete answer to the problem of criminal activity that we experience. While the punishment must fit the crime, we must also act to eradicate the conditions that lead to individuals violating those laws. We must find new, effective and cost efficient ways of addressing the causes of crime.

There is a growing recognition in Canada and in our communities that any effort to reduce crime must include programs targeted at its root causes, as the Minister of Justice indicated in his recent speech to the Empire Club. Evidence points to a strong connection between social and economic conditions and crime. The minister admitted as much. Extensive hearings by committees of the House have identified, among other things, unemployment, poverty, physical and sexual abuse, illiteracy, inadequate housing, social and economic inequality as major contributors to crime.

The social and economic conditions that lie at the root of criminal behaviour are of course complex. A safer community strategy must look well beyond the criminal justice system to incorporate all levels of all governments and a variety of community groups to seek real answers to these real problems.

A successful response will recognize that employment policy, educational policy, family policy, youth policy, health policy must be understood in the context of their impact on crime. We know there is a strong connection between poor economic conditions, unemployment and crime. Study after study point to these contributing factors and point the direction we must

pursue if we are going to effectively deal with criminal activity in our country.

In closing, simply reacting to crime is not the answer. Apprehending, prosecuting, sentencing, incarcerating and treating offenders cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars annually. While these measures are important, while we must be tough on crime and criminals, they will continue to be ineffective until they are coupled with long term solutions for prevention, until they are coupled with long term solutions to be tough on the causes of crime also.

Crime prevention through social development involves positive interventions in the lives of the disadvantaged and neglected in order to bring about a reduction in deviant tendencies. This approach aims to reduce crime and create safe communities by tackling the social and economic conditions that breed crime.

To approach the issue of criminal concerns in our country, the difficulties with our criminal justice system in the piecemeal way with which the government is proceeding, is simply not the answer. The government deals with the specific issue of the intoxication defence. It is only reacting because of public pressure which arose as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

This is not a planned approach to effectively dealing with crime in our communities. There may be differences of opinion in how we address this problem, but what the government needs is a holistic, wide ranging, complete approach to the issue of criminal justice. As with all things we must focus on prevention rather than just picking up the pieces afterward. If ever we want to see a contrast we only have to look south of the border to see what is happening in the United States. If we do not deal with the causes of crime we will continue to reflect more similarly the tragic social, economic and criminal situations which exist there.

While the Minister of Justice is proposing a few useful, though piecemeal, measures such as this one to deal with concerns with the Canadian criminal justice system, the government is attacking the very programs which would assist in getting tough on the causes of crime. The Liberal government's attack on social programs can only be seen to serve to increase the sense of insecurity in our communities and to increase the causes of crime.

We have seen this over the years with the last government. This government is pursuing the same, even more aggressive attack on social programs and we will see it increasing the tensions in our communities and giving rise to greater stress which will give rise to greater criminal activity.

What the government needs is two things. It needs a comprehensive criminal justice approach, not a piecemeal approach. Canadians deserve to see a plan, some vision, some effort over the long term to see where the justice system should go. It needs to be based on informed opinion, not on the reactions of the public to individual concerns. Only responding to public pressure on individual issues is not good enough. The government needs to get tough on the causes of crime as well as on crime.

Second, it needs to stop eroding the very programs which serve to prevent crime. Its neo-conservative attack on social programs means Canada is bound to lose the war on crime. Canada and Canadians deserve better.

[Gun Control, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent that this Liberal government is trying hard to stifle discussion of its gun control legislation.

The interest in, and demand for, copies of Bill C-68 is overwhelming. Initially the Minister of Justice limited MPs to just 15 copies. If that was not bad enough, we now find that the chief government whip has further ordered the House distribution centre to limit that number to five copies per member. Five copies among 75,000 or 100,000 citizens is hardly the open and honest government of the Liberal red book.

Canadians are being denied their most basic democratic right; the right to understand and discuss the laws of the land.

The last time such anti-democratic action was taken by a federal government was by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. The legislation-you guessed it-was gun control, Bill C-17.

I want to congratulate the Saskatchewan Association of Responsible Firearms Owners that has been making copies of this legislation available for $5 each. Surely important issues deserve open and informed debate. Surely Canadians are entitled to access proposed legislation that affects them. Why does the Liberal government want to deprive Canadians?

[Atlantic Canada, February 22nd, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing a fairer future for Atlantic Canada by adopting policies and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructures and diversifying single industry communities.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for Moncton for seconding my motion. Basically, as the motion indicates, I am calling on the government to consider the advisability of providing a fairer future for Atlantic Canada by adopting policies and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructures and diversifying single industry communities.

Basically this motion is broad enough to include a major reassessment of government policy toward Atlantic Canada, a reassessment of whether those policies have been successful and an opportunity to consider maybe doing things in a rather different way.

What I will do is not spend too much time on the problems but put forward some ideas for solutions. I will draw upon the recent experience in Saskatchewan and British Columbia with regard to mechanisms for bringing together diverse groups in our society with the aim of building a vision for the future to which we can all be committed and to which we can then direct government policy and regulation.

Atlantic Canada has long been a region dependent on its natural resources and on the involvement of the public sector. Both have been allowed to decline as government policies and private sector decisions have conspired to create an environment that undermines long term development and sustainability of many of the communities and economies of the region.

The economic and political policies of the past that have resulted in the underdevelopment of the Atlantic region must be challenged and overcome. Policies that have promoted the export of unprocessed and semi-processed resources along with jobs that otherwise might be involved in that value added activity must be replaced with value added production and the skilled jobs that accompany those processes.

This will require the federal and provincial governments to be much more involved with the local communities in reaching this goal. Also we have to be cognizant of the impact of federal cutbacks over the last decade to the support structure of both rural and urban life in Atlantic Canada and be prepared to respond to those extra difficulties.

The future course of economic development must begin with the involvement of people in their communities working with their governments. This will require a new partnership with the federal government, the people, the communities and institutions; a partnership unlike any relationship that currently exists in Atlantic Canada.

In order to make that relationship work we must commit ourselves to some real and achievable goals. It should not be unreasonable to expect in Atlantic Canada that we move toward full employment; that we move toward a full opportunity economy which builds on the diversity of Atlantic Canada and ensures the full participation of women, youth, aboriginal people, visible minorities and people with disabilities.

It should be within our realm of opportunity to consider the importance of community involvement and the community control of economic decision-making. We should be building an economy based on environmentally sustainable economic principles. Nowhere other than in the Atlantic provinces have we seen the impact of not ensuring that our economic policies are environmentally sustainable.

We should be able to ensure the protection and the improvement of our social programs to support Atlantic Canadians in their times of difficulty between jobs and particularly now when we see that a major resource is simply not there to support the population as it did previously.

We need a new emphasis on co-operative development, an emphasis that places people and their communities ahead of corporate profit. We also need transportation systems that meet the needs of the regions so that products made within the region can effectively be moved to markets.

Atlantic regional development is not just about increasing incomes. Development is a process by which human capabilities and natural resources combine to fulfil social, cultural, political, psychological and material needs. This is a process in which increased self-reliance, independence of individuals, communities and the region are achieved by building on the strength that thrives on the interdependence of equals.

As someone who lived in Atlantic Canada for more than a decade, there are no more independent people in the country, wanting to work together for the benefit of all rather than work against each other so that only a few benefit.

Development can only be sustained if it strengthens the social fabric, building a consensus as to goals, values and means and focusing on increased productivity and the needs and potential of those in society, particularly the most disadvantaged. An integral component of real economic development strategy for

Atlantic Canada is the reduction of the inequity of incomes and the removal of the pain of poverty for so many of our citizens. It is clear from the writings of a wide range of economists that inequality of income is a major drain on economic growth.

These goals of building together will only be achieved if the process is from the bottom up, with people participating in the decisions that affect them. People in communities must recognize that they have a capacity and a responsibility to shape and direct the development process at all levels. That capacity and responsibility must be encouraged through the planning process and through the role that government plays.

The regional development policies of previous governments have always been controlled from the top down. Surely we believe that people in the community have the best interests of that community at heart. People who are rooted in a community have the most at stake in evaluating and encouraging sustainable development. It is critical that we use that resource, that understanding and that community commitment. We should support community economic development that gives communities a true sense of ownership and increases local control over the economy.

It has been very clear that allowing people to come in from outside, reap the profits and leave is a devastating strategy and one that has long term negative effects, not long term beneficial effects. As much as possible development should be owned and managed locally, be located within the community, provide work for local people, make use of local materials and serve community needs for products and services. The best types of economic development activities are those that maintain a community focus.

Let me make one more general comment with regard to this. If economic development is to work in Atlantic Canada it must pursue the principle of economic self-reliance. It is no longer possible in this country, if it ever was possible, to maintain industries and economic units that are no longer efficient. We need to pursue a principle of economic self-reliance, harnessing all of its resources to both determine and meet the needs of the people of Atlantic Canada. As I have said, that means the control of the resources and economic institutions must be much more firmly in the hands of Atlantic Canadians.

In order to ensure that community economic development objectives are met, one strategy would be to encourage the development of locally based community development organizations. They could represent all sectors of the community. Their function could be to oversee discussions, decisions and implementation of development projects.

This would ensure that the communities, in co-operation with the private and public sectors, would be instrumental in making decisions about the kind of development that would occur and would be able to ensure the community would benefit most from that development.

They could be coalitions of local, social, business, financial and labour organizations, as well as co-operatives and governments. They could perform the function of co-ordinating development within those various regions. They could be responsible for the allocation of whatever public funds might be available within those regions to ensure that those funds are used to the best possible advantage.

One very good example of how this could work is in Cape Breton. An organization called New Dawn Enterprises, which I have visited in the past, has assisted in developing a network of firms and facilities throughout Cape Breton. This development corporation holds assets of some $10 million and has become involved in a very wide range of activities from construction to real estate to care for the elderly. There are examples within Atlantic Canada we could learn from and utilize across the whole region.

Across Atlantic Canada there is a large, effective, efficient and responsive network of co-operatives we could also build on. Atlantic Canadians have built a co-operative movement which attests to their resilience and creativity in the face of adversity. Those co-operatives maintain jobs in the communities, provide services to the communities and provide local control to ensure that local needs are met. People have a stake in those enterprises and they often are more productive as a result.

It is necessary to ensure, at both the federal and provincial levels of government, that we remove any barriers to co-operative development and that we ensure and encourage the development of co-operatives across the region.

This is clearly an integral part of the development of Atlantic Canada. In the last decade, 1980 to 1989, small firms created 90 per cent of the new jobs in Atlantic Canada, while large firms saw reductions in employment capacities.

A report that was done by Enterprise Cape Breton found it was locally based operations which were the most successful. Projects that received $100,000 or less in the form of support had a success rate of 72 per cent, at an average cost of $23,000 per job, while those projects receiving $1 million or more had a failure rate of 71 per cent, with an average cost of $154,000 per job. The proof in Atlantic Canada is that it is small business that is going

to create jobs, and it is small business on which we should focus our activities.

The agencies that we have in operation in Atlantic Canada also need to be reconsidered. As I have pointed out they have not worked very well. Their support, in large sums of money, to large enterprises have not given benefit to the community as one would have wanted. However, support in small sums to small businesses have done so. We need to ensure that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency really becomes an advocate for employment creation and economic development in the region and is not used, as it has been in that past, as a political slush fund. We need to reconsider and reassess the agencies that we use as arms of government in the development of Atlantic Canada.

I have talked about co-operatives but credit unions also have an important role in Atlantic Canada and we need to encourage them as well. I will give one example of a real success story to show how credit unions can really contribute to the economic development of the region.

In 1984, in Eagle River, Labrador, the Bank of Montreal closed its branch saying it was no longer a viable operation, which is a fairly familiar picture across Canada. With the aid of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company the community was able to establish its own credit union. In fact, it had the co-operation of the caisse populaire located in the neighbouring Quebec community. The credit union has been able to provide basic essential financial services to people in that area.

In the less than four years that this financial institution has existed it has provided more than $3 million in loans to local residents. It is a viable, profitable and locally owned enterprise, showing that credit unions can have a major role to play in the development of Atlantic Canada and across the country.

We should do what we can to support and nurture credit unions, especially those that are small and just beginning and need some support. There are many things that we can do. For example, governments could use credit unions much more than they do now as the depositories of funds or as their current accounts.

Much of Atlantic Canada is made up of single industry towns. Those are vulnerable communities, vulnerable economic units. Atlantic Canada is fortunate to have such resources in our communities but they must be managed by those who have the greatest stake in ensuring the long term viability of those resources in those communities, the people themselves.

Several resource based industries are in crisis and we should not tolerate that situation any longer. The most obvious of course is the fishery. Many of us today received representations indicating that a stock that had not been fished all that much in the past, turbot, is now under serious threat as a result of overfishing. It is important for Canada to exert its jurisdictional power to make sure that this resource does not go the way of the cod stocks which we all know so much about.

It is important for single industry towns, based on natural resources and non-renewable resources, to be much more effectively upgraded in the interest of the communities in which they operate.

I will not say any more about the fisheries. We all know what a disaster that has been. It is primarily a disaster because of federal policy mismanagement over the last few years, something we cannot do anything about now but something we do have to remember and treat as a lesson in the future.

The same sorts of concerns can be expressed about the forestry industry. In comparison to forestry industries in the rest of the world, a great proportion of forestry in Atlantic Canada is privately owned: New Brunswick, 49 per cent; Nova Scotia, about 70 per cent. This resource has not been used for the benefit of those living in Atlantic Canada but rather to benefit the corporations that control it and, which incidentally, pursue forestry practices that in their home countries they would not be able to pursue.

Therefore, we have to ensure that resource is also one for the benefit of the communities in question and for the benefit of Atlantic Canada. It must be developed in a way that is sustainable, to provide jobs and economic opportunities for Atlantic Canadians well into the future and ensure that young people from Atlantic Canada do not have to leave their homes in order to find economic opportunity.

In my last few moments I would like to make a quick reference to developments in two provinces and two resource based provinces which might be of use in considering how to develop Atlantic Canada. Let me first take the example of British Columbia and the arrangements that have been made there in order to develop the forestry industry.

We know that in the past there has been enormous tension between the forestry companies and environmentalists, between communities and environmentalists, the workers in the forestry industry and environmentalists. We know we have to resolve those differences.

What British Columbia did in a unique way was bring those different interests together and work with them to find a vision for the future of that region. Everyone made sacrifices and everyone gained. However, in the end there was a common vision adopted to which everyone could be committed and to which everyone could work. That is the clear focus. We have to change the way in which we consider economic development. We have to make sure we all work together to the best advantage of all.

I would certainly recommend that B.C. approach Atlantic Canadians and the federal-provincial governments, labour unions within the province, the business community, the communities themselves and environmentalists within Atlantic Canada. That should be pursued as a goal for economic opportunity development in the region.

[Correctional Service Of Canada, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I raise the issue of the Correctional Service of Canada's policy on strip searches of women prisoners and the atrocious mishandling of some of these women by male corrections officers at Kingston's prison for women on April 22, 1994.

Following an investigation by CSC officials, it was suggested that appropriate measures were taken in using the riot squad which includes male prison staff to strip and search the women and their cells.

CSC's policy states that searches should be conducted by members of the same sex, except in cases of institutional emergency. It is now clear that the female prisoners behaved in a passive manner and offered no physical resistance. This is a complete contradiction to the official version of events offered by the CSC which is nothing more than a one-sided whitewash of the incidents that occurred.

I am pleased that the Solicitor General has finally acted today to investigate this serious question. Serious issues still exist with regard to the lack of energy and speed with which the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Solicitor General pursued this matter.

The Solicitor General needs to pay much more careful attention to the activities of the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Privilege, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the leaking to the media of the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on changes to social programs.

I submit that the privileges of members of this House have been breached by the premature release to the media of this report due to be tabled today. It is a question of privilege because it is a violation of the proper order of proceedings that reports from committees should be presented first in the House of Commons so as to ensure equal opportunity to access by all members of Parliament and all Canadians. Until such presentation in this House, reports should be confidential.

To accentuate the breach that has taken place, as an associate member of the committee I was denied access to the report while it was freely available to the press.

I would ask that you consider what appropriate action might be taken to deal with what is surely a gross contempt of the rules and procedures of this House.

[Education, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what world the minister lives in. He used to be a university professor. He should understand what post-secondary education is all about.

How can doubled tuition fees and skyrocketing student loans possibly help Canada, Canada's students or the future of the country?

[Education, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister will know that for good reason criticisms have come forward over his proposal to cut $2.5 billion from post--

secondary education. The criticism is based upon the need to ensure that Canadians are better educated, not worse educated. Provincial education ministers have expressed concern, at the least, and some have indicated that the proposals are disastrous.

I wonder when the minister will stop hysterically attacking provincial cabinet ministers who disagree with him and start listening to those ministers who want to save post-secondary education in Canada. When will he stop this disastrous attack on post-secondary education and Canadians in general?

[Liberal Government, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign the Liberals promised Canadians they would bring honesty and integrity to government. Yet earlier this week the Prime Minister slipped out of Ottawa to meet with 350 Canadians who paid $1,000 each to the Liberal Party to buy access to the Prime Minister.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who will remember that when the previous government carried on these sorts of activities she and her colleagues aggressively criticized that Prime Minister. Will she indicate how these secret meetings with those who pay for access and influence square with words about honesty and integrity that this government has spent so much time expressing?

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the week before last I raised a question in the House with the Deputy Prime Minister about the proposals in the green paper for post-secondary education funding.

We all know that there is much in the green paper which talks about the importance of education, skills upgrading and training to Canadians and to Canada in terms of our ability to compete in the new world economy.

I am glad to see those comments in the green paper but the proposals which the Minister of Human Resources Development goes on to suggest for post-secondary education belie this rhetoric.

The minister is proposing that the $2.6 billion which each year goes to the provinces for post-secondary education instead go to students in the form of loans. We remember that federal government transfers to the provinces were first cut by the Liberal government prior to 1984. Those cuts were continued by the Mulroney government through the 1980s and into the 1990s and of course, as we all remember, were vigorously criticized by the Liberal Party while in opposition. Now the Liberals are back in government and those cuts continue.

The government rationale here appears to be that the cash portion of post-secondary education funding coming from the federal government to the provinces is going to disappear anyway because of this trend begun first by the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives. As it is going to disappear why worry about tuition fees going up, they are going up already. Let us just let them go up even further.

What the government is planning to do in spite of arguing, quite rightly, for the importance of post-secondary education, is planning to slash $2.6 billion from post-secondary education and make that available as loans to students and have an income contingency loan repayment system.

The contradiction is quite clear. It is time the government recognized that it cannot say good things about post-secondary education and then cut funding to post-secondary education and expect Canada to compete in the world economy.

The imposing of a heavy burden of loans on students will of course lead to less accessibility of education as more and more potential students decide that they simply cannot afford to incur such heavy loans.

A study in Australia which has a similar program to that being proposed by the government has found that the average man repays 50 per cent of his loan by the age of 28 years but it takes an average woman until she is 38 years old in order to pay 50 per cent of that loan because of the difference in earning capacity for women. We know that Canadian women earn significantly less than Canadian men and thus they will be the most heavily burdened by this process.

Perhaps the most cynical and disturbing part of this proposal is what this government is doing is saying to Canadians and to Canada that the agreement that we have always regarded as important, that post-secondary education is an important contribution both to the student and to Canada as a society, is no longer the case.

What this government is saying is that the burden of paying for post-secondary education and thereby the benefits will all fall to the student and Canada will not benefit in the slightest.

This completely contradicts every study done in Canada since the Massey commission in 1951. It is stupid and the government should change its strategy and position on this.

It has done a good job of politicizing students in 1994. I am glad to see the students have seen through this government's action on this. I urge the government to change its policy and make post-secondary education an investment in Canada and Canadians and stop imposing the burden on Canadian students.

[Social Program Reform, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is about a contradiction in the social security green paper. There is much rhetoric in the paper and from the government generally about the importance of education, skills upgrading and training, with which we all agree.

Could she indicate how her government's policy is designed to double or triple tuition fees and put student loans through the roof? How can that policy support the notion of Canadians becoming more educated, better trained and having their skills upgraded?