Chuck Cadman

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the most recent instalment of a petition which calls on parliament to enact legislation to raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years for sexual activity between a young person and an adult.

The petition now contains the names of over 12,000 persons. I present it on behalf of Ms. Diane Sowden of Coquitlam, British Columbia, who has dedicated an enormous amount of time and energy to get rid of sexual exploitation of our youth.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

This is very important legislation. In fact, there are probably few pieces of legislation more important in a democracy than that which establishes the rules for election of the people's representatives to government.

With such an important piece of legislation it is significant that the government decided to direct its passage through parliament by way of the more unorthodox method of proceeding directly to committee before second reading. The government indicated that it wished the committee to thoroughly study this legislation, to call witnesses, to hear concerns, propose significant amendments and return it to the House in a more complete and acceptable form. I suppose that sounded good, but once again the government merely went through the motions.

The committee heard major concerns. Significant changes were proposed. The committee did not listen. It returned the bill in essentially the same format in which it was received. Once again we are faced with legislation which leads us to believe it will be subject to a charter challenge.

The committee heard from various individuals about the unconstitutionality of third party spending limits in the bill. Powerful groups have threatened court challenges. There has been little, if any, attempt to work out the differences. Once again the taxpayer will pay for these court challenges because the government is not ready to do the necessary work to bring about resolution and agreement.

Spending limits definitely favour the party in power. All other parties are operating on unequal footing. We all know that the amount of money spent on campaigns is not always a deciding factor but we also know that it can play a significant role.

The committee heard a number of concerns over the publication blackout period provisions in this legislation. The courts have struck down previous similar legislation, but the government is proceeding down the same path once again without even attempting to come to a compromise with media representatives.

The Chief Elections Officer of Ontario has challenged the need for blackout provisions. He has pointed out the difficulties in enforcing them. Constitutional law experts have indicated that our courts will again strike down these provisions. Once again the taxpayers will pay for these court cases and really, for what?

The committee heard a number of concerns over the 50 candidate rule for registered party status. The courts have struck down this 50 candidate rule as being too oppressive. The courts have suggested that as little as two candidates should be sufficient to be recognized as a party.

There was discussion of coming to a consensus and agreeing on a more practical limit of 12 candidates to be recognized as a registered political party. Instead of even considering compromise and agreement, the minister seems intent on maintaining the 50 candidate rule. Once again this is another provision of this legislation that is subject to a court challenge. Once again the taxpayer will be expected to pay for the government's refusal to consult, to consider change and to compromise.

The government seems intent on limiting the opportunity for new parties to grow from small beginnings. The government is perfectly content to maintain the status quo. The citizens of Canada are being deprived of new political initiatives and new choices. Just as with recent moves with the airline industry, it seems to be all in favour of limiting competition.

Then there is the issue of political patronage appointments. In something so crucial to a democracy of a country, one would expect that the presiding government should have little involvement in the selection of the personnel who run the electoral organizations. In fact, Canada has often been asked to assist third world countries to supervise and report on elections to ensure that the presiding government operates in a free, fair and open manner. Surely the presence of political appointees within the very organization tasked with counting the votes and reporting on the results should be independent of the presiding power in office.

Even our Chief Electoral Officer testified that it is critical that he be given the power to hire returning officers based on merit. If he is given the responsibility to properly operate our election process, he must be provided with personnel chosen by him, supervised by him and paid by him. Political appointments are not beholden to him. They owe their allegiance to the governor in council, the Prime Minister and the party in power who put them into their positions and who decide on their remuneration. That is not right. One of the interested parties to an election cannot have control over the employees who control the counting of votes and the reporting of results.

Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to change this process of political patronage. Elections Canada wants and needs to hire its own personnel to properly oversee an election. The government is intent on maintaining its system of political patronage. This is certainly a sorry indictment against democratic principles and the status of Canada on the world stage.

The timing of elections is also a major advantage to the party in power. At present there is only a maximum number of years legislative bodies may operate without an election. Section 4 of the charter of rights and freedoms states, “No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members”.

Bill C-2 does not include an automatic date for Canadian elections. The charter does not stop us from legislating an election every five years or some other lesser time period. To do so would place all political parties on an equal footing as everyone would know the exact timing of an upcoming election. Every party would have the same opportunity to plan for the election, to generate war chests for election expenses and to expend funds to advertise the benefits of party policy or the detriments of government policy or opposition policy.

The committee that studied this bill heard about the advantage of present government members being able to distribute a householder just prior to the call of an election because of inside information. We can probably all remember a government which called a needless election at great expense to the taxpayer just because the governing party had the power to do so.

Legislating the timing of an election to a specific period of time would not solve all of our problems but it would level the playing field and it would place greater controls on the expenditure of public funds. It would also provide greater definition to all parties in the House of Commons. Our employees would know when an election is to be called and they would be able to prepare their careers and their lives accordingly. Members of parliament would know when their commitment to their constituents would end or when it would need to be renewed through a campaign. I imagine a number of companies and individual citizens would also be better equipped to react to parliamentary influences.

Bill C-2 was an opportunity to vastly improve our electoral process. Once again the government has taken the easy way out. It makes minor changes. It ignores or refuses to introduce long overdue initiatives. The government protects itself by maintaining the status quo or increasing the inequity of its position compared to the competition. It ignores the pronouncements of the courts and continues to place the public purse at risk of considerable future legal proceedings.

Instead of providing leadership and progressive thinking, the government has decided to stay the course and will only change when it is forced to. This is unacceptable and it is unfortunate. All that lies ahead is more litigation at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer.

I hope my words cause some members to reconsider their position on this important piece of legislation.

[Petitions, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present the third instalment of a petition from Mrs. Nancy Caldwell of Middleton, Nova Scotia.

Mrs. Caldwell has gathered a further 5,200 signatures calling on parliament to enact legislation providing for tougher penalties to be meted out against those who commit sexual assault against children. This brings the total number of signatures to approximately 18,000.

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-427, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abduction).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce this legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically the section concerning the offence of abduction of children. Section 281 of the Criminal Code currently provides for the offence of abduction of persons under the age of 14 years by a person other than the person's parents or guardian. I propose to change this offence so that it applies to the abduction of all children under the age of 16 years.

I ask that all members support this initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-426, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code specifically concerning the offence of theft of motor vehicles. This initiative is restricted to those offenders who are in the business, so to speak, of stealing motor vehicles. Organized crime and other gang related enterprises are becoming quite active in this type of criminal activity.

The purpose of this legislation is to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of four years of imprisonment for anyone who is convicted of more than one theft of a motor vehicle.

I ask all members of this place to support this legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Youth Criminal Justice, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of the government's promises to bring in effective youth criminal justice legislation.

We are nearing the third anniversary of the appointment of the present justice minister. After months of promises she finally introduced Bill C-68 and then Bill C-3 as her response to the highly criticized Young Offenders Act.

Press releases were long on talk of getting tough on crime. Now Canadians are discovering that the proposals leave far too many opportunities for even more leniency toward violent young offenders.

There is a groundswell of opposition developing across the country. Two individuals, Bruce McGloan from Calgary and Joseph Wamback from Newmarket, Ontario, have joined forces and have been collecting petitions to oppose the government's actions on youth justice. They now have hundreds of thousands of supporters.

These individuals are just two who have been victimized by violent crimes against their children. Bruce lost his son to a young killer. Joseph's son is now paralyzed after a violent assault. Bruce and Joe are to be commended for their efforts, but the government should be ashamed of its record.

[Youth Criminal Justice, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is telling Canadians that her proposed changes to the young offenders law will make young lawbreakers more accountable for their crimes. The youth sentence for crimes such as manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault is now a maximum of three years. The minister wants to reduce that to a maximum of two years, plus one year in the community under supervision. That is probation. Most Canadians would see that as less accountability.

Is this really getting tough on violent crime? Where is the increased accountability in releasing violent offenders from custody earlier than they are now?

[Rcmp, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I asked a question of the solicitor general regarding the city of Surrey's request to be compensated for overtime paid to the RCMP, costs resulting directly from budget slashing by the government. Surrey is now considering its own municipal police force.

In dismissing my question as being trivial and for show only, the parliamentary secretary insulted the 330,000 citizens of Surrey. This was a question posed by them through their city council, their mayor and their member of parliament.

My question involves the overtime bill in Surrey. Will the solicitor general honour this request and reimburse the RCMP overtime costs?

[Petitions, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present the second instalment of a petition from Mrs. Nancy Caldwell of Middleton, Nova Scotia. It contains a further 6,200 signatures calling on parliament to enact legislation providing for tougher penalties to be meted out against those who commit sexual assault against our children.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there is one very simple reason for which members of the official opposition oppose this treaty, which is that we are representing the views of the vast majority of our constituents in British Columbia.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments proposed in Group No. 1 concerning Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

The government calls this a debate, but we all know that it has no intention of listening. We all know of the government's commitment to pass the Nisga'a final agreement before we break for Christmas. We all know that the government has made a commitment to refuse to even entertain any amendment to the Nisga'a final agreement. In effect, the government is making parliament superfluous. In this instance parliament no longer has power over its own legislation. The government in power is forcing the passage of an agreement over which this place has absolutely no input or control. It is indeed unfortunate that the other opposition parties are permitting this action to occur without a whisper of condemnation.

All members of this place must at many times wonder whether we have become redundant when we continually witness the Prime Minister, his office and the Privy Council office dictate what legislation passes through this place and in what manner.

Bill C-9 is a prime example of the complete abdication of democratic principles. Sure, we are being provided with the opportunity to speak, the opportunity to challenge the actions of the government and the opportunity even to vote on this legislation, but the government members are given their marching orders and the government is not open to any alteration of the bill. It is all just a charade. There is no democracy in the legislation.

The minister has been put in a position of accepting an agreement entered into by his predecessor and he has been told to get it through parliament without any changes. It is a tough job because he has been given a Volkswagen and has been told to sell a Cadillac, with all due respect to the folks at Volkswagen.

He has an agreement that creates a third order of government and he tries to suggest that the constitution is not being thwarted. He has an agreement that creates inequalities and he tries to suggest that equality of all citizens is being upheld. He has a clause in the legislation that clearly states that if there is a conflict between provincial and federal laws and the agreement, then the agreement reigns supreme, but he argues that this is not the case.

I would certainly like somebody to explain to me paragraph 13 of the general provisions of the agreement. It states:

In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law, this Agreement will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

That quotation certainly appears to state that the agreement is paramount even to federal and provincial laws. In fact, it sounds suspiciously like a constitutional document, but it has not been added to our constitution through the amending formula. It has been undertaken by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and we are merely rubber stamping it.

I received quite an extensive e-mail from one of my constituents. She is a 17 year old student who has taken the initiative to study the Nisga'a final agreement. She is strongly opposed to the treaty.

She is concerned about the land of the agreement being handed over to the Nisga'a people when the Gitksan and Gitanyow people also have claims to some of the same parcels of land. What does the minister say about this issue and the concern? He maintains that he is working on it and these other bands will be looked after in future negotiations and agreements.

I have great difficulty in accepting these proposals. First, if the land is already allotted to the Nisga'a and it actually belongs to these other bands, how can justice really be done to rectify the situation in the future? Second, will Canadians have to pay a premium to these other bands should it be determined that they have been deprived of ancestral lands? While I certainly do not suggest civil disobedience or illegal activity, my 17 year old constituent is certainly concerned that these other native bands might be forced to take the law into their own hands in order to obtain their rightful lands. Is this what we are bringing forth with this legislation?

I have expressed my displeasure and disappointment over the complete disregard for democracy with Bill C-9. I would now like to discuss a recent poll taken from the citizens of my home province of British Columbia. It significantly supports the amendments as proposed by Group No. 1 in the report stage of this legislation. The poll also strongly supports my claims in regard to the failure of the democratic principles to be respected.

Citizens of British Columbia were asked if they had had adequate opportunity to provide input to the Nisga'a treaty. Of no surprise the results were much the same as they are for this place. They have been given a fait accompli and have been told to live with it. The deal is done. The treaty and the legislation will pass unchanged.

Some 91% of the citizens polled from the riding of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not feel that they had been provided with adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stick up for his constituents? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The citizens of British Columbia were asked if they believed the people of British Columbia should have the right to vote on the principles of the Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum. Some 94% of the constituents of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women stated that they believed that they should have the right to vote in a provincial referendum. What does the government say? It states that the members of this place represent their constituents and vote for them, but that obviously fails to work democratically in situations such as this when members of parliament vote against the wishes of their constituents.

The poll also asked how the people of British Columbia wanted their federal member of parliament to vote on this treaty. Of those polled, 94% wanted the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to vote against this treaty. Do we really think this member will vote in compliance with the wishes of his constituents? No, he will vote as he is told by the powers to be here in Ottawa. It is a shame: 82% of the constituents of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women want her to vote against this legislation but she will not do so; 92% of the constituents of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans want him to vote against this legislation but he will not do so; 92% of the constituents of the member for Richmond want him to vote against the legislation, but he will not do so; and 91% of the constituents of Vancouver Quadra want him to vote against this legislation. I will not say that he will not listen to his constituents as he has been known to buck the powers to be in the past. I can only hope that again he will see the light.

I would just like to conclude with a quote from Professor Ehor Boyanowsky who appeared before the panel of my colleagues in Vancouver. Professor Boyanowsky is a professor of criminal psychology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. His area of expertise is individual and group violence and inter-group violence and conflict.

Professor Boyanowsky told a compelling story based on an extrapolation into the future of the conditions being set up today under the Nisga'a agreement. I will not go into his story but suggest that members read it for themselves. There is one thing he did say which bears repeating. He stated:

The psychological literature is very clear. Where you draw a line around people, where you can take an underclass and make them into an overclass, very quickly they become the object of enmity. Where you form the basis of difference between people on an ethnic basis or genealogical basis, you create hatred. This was true in eastern Europe, it is still true in the Balkan countries. We are re-creating, reimposing because our English predecessors who came here knew no better, so they reimposed a British model on Canada. I think what we have to do is say that we have a certain image in our minds of how Canada should function and we do whatever we can to try to preserve that. This does not mean that we do not compensate native peoples for the lands and the injustices they have been the subject of in the past, but what we do is we remain true to certain kinds of principles. And those principles are based on individual ownership, individual opportunity, and the opportunity for redistribution of resources unfettered by genealogical distinctions or ethnic differences. I think that otherwise, what happens is you end up with enmity, with hatred and with people partially frozen in time between an old system and a new system, especially when they, for example, cannot use their lands.

With that I will conclude my remarks.