Pat O'Brien

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, at another time I will be pleased to highlight the outstanding economic performance of the government and remind Canadians and the members in the House of that.

In conclusion and I say this with respect, if it really is a seriously intended motion of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, obviously I cannot support it. It would literally handcuff the Department of Justice in the duties it now has to carry out. It would also make impossible a number of very important initiatives that I have tried to outline today. With those remarks, I say I cannot support the motion.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

I am very pleased to note the agreement of my colleague from Wild Rose. We draw a distinction between violent and non-violent criminals particularly when we are talking about young offenders. We could say that for any offender. I believe and my constituents recognize that when we are dealing with violent and non-violent crime we need two different strategies. The answer is not to lock them up and throw away the key. We have to be more analytical and realistic than that and try to take the best action in whichever situation we are dealing with, violence or non-violence.

Earlier I alluded to the well known fact that the vast majority of young offenders, a shockingly high proportion of young offenders or criminals of an age, come from families with serious problems of one type or another. I know that is so from 22 years in the classroom in the field of education.

Perhaps there are more people from the field of education in this parliament than ever before in the history of the Canadian parliament. These educators know. They have seen it. When a young person acting out and getting in trouble at school unfortunately slides into youth crime, in a shockingly high percentage of cases we are dealing with a young person who comes from a “problem family”.

It is extremely important as a government to support Canadian families more effectively. I am very proud of the fact the government has made several steps in that direction. It needs to go further and I hope it will. I for one intend to encourage that so that we will do even more to promote healthy family life as a way of preventing and minimizing the chances of young offenders being involved crime and crime in general.

I can speak specifically to several important initiatives undertaken in the past and previous budgets. One initiative was increasing the child tax credit for families that wish to have one of the parents stay at home with the children. They wish to exercise the option my wife and I exercised as a mutual decision. There ought to be recognition that those families are making a very important contribution to society and to raising good children.

The increase in the child tax credit and the increase in support for poor families by removing them from the tax rolls in the last budget are very real and tangible ways the government has tried to support families. We need to and will do more.

Another initiative is the increase in the child care expense deduction for families that choose not to have one of the parents at home or through whatever situation cannot have one of the parents at home with the children. There is also the case of a single parent family where the single parent must work to support the children. Increasing the child care expense deduction was a important improvement in supporting those families.

I may be considered old fashioned, but if so I proudly say I think many of the problems in Canada begin with problem families. That is not to be simplistic. To me it is quite obvious. I am proud of the initiatives the government has undertaken to improve support for Canadian families. I look forward to even further increases over the next three budgets during the time we intend to be in office and hopefully for many more thereafter.

A third area that has come to my attention repeatedly in the town hall meetings I have held on a regular basis with my constituents and in many calls and letters I receive as all members receive is the need to be more cognizant of justice to victims, better treatment for victims. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too much toward being so concerned about the rights of the accused that we have failed to take proper care of victims and to respect their rights.

I am pleased to see the initiatives the minister is undertaking to begin to do more to improve the treatment of victims. Specifically what? Better access to information for victims. The notion that the minister has put forth for discussion with other governments of a central victims office for victims who are trying to obtain information so that they are not tied up in a bureaucratic maze. They could get the information and the legal protection they need much more quickly and much more readily and could deal with their situations much more effectively.

The whole idea needs to be explored. The minister is committed to exploring the necessity of having victim impact statements play a much greater role in court cases and in sentencing convicted persons. We have seen more of this in the last few years. There is much more room for it. I am pleased the minister has indicated she is moving in that direction.

I sensed a fair bit of support from some of my colleagues opposite of a number of my comments. I suspect at this point we may digress.

I want to move to the area of the firearms debate, the Bill C-68 debate we all lived through. I thought it had begun to wrap up, but I am hearing some points raised from hon. members opposite. I have a number of concerns about some of the statements I have heard. I do not purport to be an expert on this topic. I never did. I will simply state the following.

I know what the officials in my community think. I was pleased that the Reform Party held a convention in London, Ontario a couple of weeks ago. They were very welcome and they have been a nice economic boost to London, Ontario. I had a lot of good feedback from the Reform members of how impressed they were with our community. We were pleased to hear that.

Let me share with my colleagues opposite the views of the people of London, Ontario. They expressed them without any reservation to me and my colleagues in the past term.

First of all, the well-respected and nationally known chief of police in London, Ontario, Julian Fantiono, came on my monthly show which I hold on cable television for my constituents. He obviously was not going to be partisan supporting me, but in a very non-partisan, clear and effective statement he outlined why he as the chief of police of London, Ontario fully, totally and completely supported the registration of firearms. His explanation was not at all nebulous. Let me share the key point of it with my colleagues who question the value of this.

Chief Fantiono and other experts across this country have said that registration of firearms will improve the safety of the public, particularly front line officers working for the chief who attend at a crime scene or a potential crime scene. Registration of firearms will lead to more effective police work in tracking down weapons used in the commission of crimes and in the conviction of criminals using those weapons.

This is interesting. As soon as we quote experts who disagree with some of the members, they do not want to hear those opinions. That may be the case. What I am putting forward are not my personal explanations about the necessity of registration of firearms. I am putting forward the views of Chief Julian Fantiono, that I have on tape and which I would be glad to share with my sceptical colleagues opposite. I have heard these views shared by chiefs of police coast to coast to coast.

There is a very real value in the minds of the chiefs of police and front line officers in the registration of legal firearms. To me it is nonsense to say that criminals are not going to register their firearms and therefore no one should have to. The chief simply said his word for that was “nonsense”.

The member for Crowfoot has raised some very important points about the validity of this whole action by the government. Let me share with him some other facts from London, Ontario and my riding of London—Fanshawe. These are based on hundreds of inputs by phone calls, responses to a questionnaire that went to every household in my riding, meetings which I attended specifically on Bill C-68 and general meetings throughout the term where this topic came up. Seventy per cent of my constituents clearly supported the government in its action. Despite the heckling of the members opposite, those facts do not change.

Reference was made to election results somehow questioning the validity of Bill C-68. I would point out that in the province of Ontario in the last federal election certain colleagues of mine on our side of the House were targeted by the opponents to Bill C-68. They were targeted specifically for their support of that bill to try and have them lose the election. The reality is that every single one of those people who sought re-election is back here and where the people did not seek re-election, the Liberal replacement candidate is in this House now.

I would suggest to my friend from Wild Rose that you have to be careful when you draw results of elections, be they provincial or federal, highlighting one issue and drawing conclusions. There is evidence on this side that Bill C-68 did not defeat any Liberal MPs in the province of Ontario. I think that evidence is very clear for anyone to see.

Madam Speaker, subject to your ruling I have some facts on the estimates in terms of the economic performance of the government that I would be quite happy to move to if that is in order at this time. Could I ask for your guidance on that now? Could I move to the area of economic performance of the government as it relates to the estimates?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion of the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough if it is a serious motion. If the motion were to pass it would literally handcuff the Department of Justice and the important work it has to do.

It is quite clear to me as a member of parliament in my second term that Canadians want an improved system of justice. This is a priority concern of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Obviously it will be necessary to invest some taxpayer dollars into priority areas. To pass a motion like this one would prevent the department from carrying out its existing duties and would certainly make it impossible for the Department of Justice to move into new priority areas of the Canadian public.

I will address the heavy responsibilities the department executes. There is service to the government itself. There is the matter of policy development and the administration of law, and there is general administration.

Regarding service to the government, we well know that the Department of Justice drafts all legislation and provides legal advice to all departments. The department has the lead role in criminal justice policy in the areas of family and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce and of human rights policy.

I have heard very clearly from my constituents in London—Fanshawe that they are looking for new initiatives from the government. The government is responding and I support those initiatives.

One that comes to mind very readily is the area of crime prevention strategy. The minister is embarking on a national strategy for community safety and crime prevention. These lofty words are not just words but are being backed up by an important expenditure of funds. There is an increase in funding from $3 million a year to $32 million a year. That is a very real commitment to the important area of crime prevention.

I well know from my conversations with the chief of police in London, Ontario, Chief Fantino, that the chiefs of police understand the importance of preventing crime in the first place. It is the old analogy of the Fram oil filter we have all seen on TV, pay me now or pay me later. For every crime we can prevent through investment in people, particularly young people and families, the savings later on will be much greater than the necessary investment. Chief Fantino and other police chiefs and social agencies across the country have made that point repeatedly.

I was a member of the municipal council of London, Ontario, for 11 years during which time I spent several years serving on the Children's Aid Society. Over those years we repeatedly heard of the need to invest in families and in children which leads directly to preventing youth crime. It is very simple. We know a very high percentage of young people in Canada who get into difficulty with the law or who break the law come from problem families described one way or another.

Such initiatives will also involve other levels of provincial and municipal governments, NGOs, community experts such as the Children's Aid Society and the private sector in a very important partnership with this government to do much more in the area of crime prevention.

I know colleagues throughout the House heard the following concern from their constituents as I do from my constituents in London—Fanshawe. They are very worried about the issue of youth justice. They are concerned about youth crime, particularly the increase in violent youth crime. I share that concern as a Canadian and as a member of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I know you do as well.

The minister is trying to respond to those concerns. She proposed a justice strategy to replace the Young Offenders Act. It is clear to me and to most Canadians that the confidence of the Canadian public in the Young Offenders Act has been badly shaken.

It is important, however, to draw the important distinction between violent and non-violent youth crime. The input I have received from the people of London is that they have very little if any tolerance for violent youth crime, particularly by repeat young offenders. They expect the government to implement tougher penalties in this area.

We have done that since being elected in 1993 and we intend to go further in the area of violent youth crime particularly when we are dealing with repeat violent young offenders. In this instance public safety must and will come first.

I hear from social agencies, the chief of police and others in London that when we are dealing with non-violent youth crime incarceration is not a panacea. This is where the majority of my constituents and I as a member of parliament perhaps disagree with some colleagues in other parts of the House. Throwing these young people into institutions and thinking that will solve their problems and that they will not repeat these offences when they are let free is not realistic. It is incredibly expensive to put them in these institutions. More to the point, it is not an effective way to deal with non-violent criminals.

[Ireland, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 22 the people of Ireland opened the door to peace in their beautiful island.

Both in the north and south the Irish people voted decisively to end the tragic era of brutal violence and sectarian hatred and to move forward in peace. Both in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland the results of the voting demonstrate clearly that people of good will in Ireland are united in their desire for peace, equality and justice for all.

As Canadians we can understand very well the compromise that was necessary in Ireland to reach a peace accord which has been so overwhelmingly endorsed by the Irish people.

As Canadians we are proud of the good work being done by General John De Chastelaine. We join with peace loving people everywhere in applauding the historic breakthrough just achieved in Ireland. We pray that this historic and courageous first step will succeed in creating an enduring peace throughout all of Ireland.

[Thomas D'Arcy McGee, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Thomas D'Arcy McGee was a journalist, poet, Irish patriot, Canadian statesman and Father of Confederation.

During the 1860s he was the first and most eloquent Canadian political leader to argue for a union of all the British North American provinces into one great nation spanning the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In his many brilliant speeches he held forth a new nationality in which peoples of two major languages and many cultures and religions would overcome their differences to unite and form a great new nation, Canada.

April 7 will mark the 130th anniversary of the tragic assassination of D'Arcy McGee. A hundred and thirty years later we live in a Canada which is the realization of his vision and his prediction, a prosperous and peaceful Canada where disparate peoples live together harmoniously.

This is the Canada D'Arcy McGee dreamed of, worked for and even died for. As Canadians we owe him our thanks. Vive le Canada.

[Irish Benevolent Society, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my own city of London, Ontario, the Irish Benevolent Society held its 121st annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon.

The members of this society are Canadians of Irish ancestry and their friends. Although they come from a variety of different backgrounds, they celebrate together and raise funds for charitable work in our community.

Congratulations to them and to all similar groups that do so much good work throughout Canada. May the peace we enjoy here in Canada soon be a reality throughout all of Ireland, the ancestral land of so many Canadians.

Good luck. May the blessing of St. Patrick be on you.

[Constitution Act, 1997 (Representation), March 11th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-372, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced toward the end of the last parliament a private member's bill, Bill C-385. The election took place before the bill was called.

Today I keep the commitment I made publicly to my constituents to reintroduce the bill in the 36th Parliament if re-elected. The bill is seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria—Haliburton.

The purpose of the bill is to cap the size of the House of Commons at the current 301 members. Obviously redistribution would still occur but within that cap. The bill would replace subsection 51(1), rule 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which would see the size of the House increase indefinitely.

One only has to do the math to realize that if we had a population the size of the U.S.A., under our current rules some day we would have 3,000 members of Parliament. Clearly that is not an acceptable number of MPs.

The bill seeks to cap the size of the House and to respect that most basic and fundamental rule of representation by population.

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

[Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Friendship Group, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Friendship Group has been officially formed.

I wish to thank the hon. members from Egmont and Victoria—Haliburton for their good work in helping form this association. Also, thanks to former MP Mary Clancy who in the 35th Parliament chaired an informal association which helped prepare the ground for our formal friendship group.

The Canada-Ireland association has been formally launched with 56 members from the House and Senate. All five political parties, even the Reform Party, in every region of Canada are represented.

I am honoured to be elected first president of this association and I look forward to welcoming many more members.

Our major goal is clear, to maintain and strengthen the historic bonds of friendship between our two great nations, Canada and Ireland.

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber well before I was required. The bells were still ringing. The most I may have done at some point is shifted to talk to a colleague. I was here in plenty of time.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unless I stand corrected by you, Sir, it is my understanding of the parliamentary rules that it is out of order to speak to the absence or presence of members.

Perhaps while the member is casting his aspersions he could rationalize for us the flip-flop of his leader and why he now lives in Stornoway.