Pat O'Brien

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. My colleague from Wild Rose has raised several points.

Let me begin with the hon. member's assertion that this is legislation built by lawyers for lawyers. Perhaps he was not in the Chamber when I quoted the statement of Mr. Newark, executive officer the Canadian Police Association: "This proposed high risk offenders legislation is the single most important improvement in Canadian public safety legislation in the last 20 years". Mr. Newark is not a lawyer. He is a law enforcement officer and I take his comments very advisedly. It speaks very clearly to the fact that experts in the field besides lawyers view this legislation as a very important improvement.

As to my comments about the application of Bill C-55 to the aboriginal community, with all due respect to my colleague, I certainly did not say that one community should get this but others should not. He attributed those comments to me but I certainly did not say that.

I was reacting to his colleague who spoke just before me. He said that he saw no way this bill should be applied any differently to the aboriginal community than to the rest of Canadian society. I repeat, in my opinion that is a very short sighted view of Canadian society. The reality of the aboriginal community in Canada is that different techniques are more effective within that community. But because we can apply a bill in a different way with one community does not mean than we are favouring one community over another.

If that were the case, as a parent with three children, two boys and one girl, I would have to treat them exactly the same in every aspect of their lives. That is just not common sense in a family situation or in the justice system. That is the point I was trying to make.

With reference to how this may apply in other communities, I would only say to my hon. friend opposite that we live a dynamic society. The bill is an improvement. That is not to say it is perfect or that over time it cannot be improved. Perhaps there will be opportunities to apply it differently in various communities as the cases may warrant.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

I believe the member for Wild Rose, in interjecting just now, asked if I have a problem with equality. No, I do not have a problem with equality. However, not every single Canadian has to be treated in exactly the same way in every single aspect of our society in order to respect equality. As a matter of fact, I suggest that it is just the opposite. That kind of an attitude fails to recognize that there exists in this great land, from coast to coast to coast, a number of differences among Canadians.

I would ask my colleagues from the Reform Party to respect my opportunity to speak to the House without heckling me as I certainly did with them when they were speaking, although I disagreed with some of their points of view. I would certainly welcome their questions within the spirit of the rules.

It is obvious that our aboriginal peoples, respecting their traditions and what reality has shown us is more effective in dealing with offenders from the aboriginal community, that there is nothing wrong with taking a look at how this bill can be most effectively applied to aboriginal offenders. I would be disappointed in the Minister of Justice and in this bill if it did not hold out that possibility. That was the first point I want to make.

I am sure all of us, as members of Parliament, whatever part of the House we sit in, are well aware of the public perception that the rate of violent crimes has increased. I hear that from time to time from some of my constituents. However, I also hear from police officers, chiefs of police and other experts in the law enforcement field that fortunately the reality is that we do not have this massive increase in violent crime. We have some alarming trends that need to be dealt with and the purpose of Bill C-55 is to do just that. It is to address the reality of high risk offenders and to deal with those people effectively.

However, as members of Parliament, it is very important that we not subscribe to, let alone fuel, the perception that Canada is seeing a massive increase in violent crime because it is simply not the case. Anybody, whether he be an elected member of the House of Commons or a non-elected Canadian citizen, who fuels that myth and buys into it is doing a disservice to our society. Statistics and facts do not bear it out.

In my view, we need to ask where the dangerous trends are in our society vis-à-vis violent crime and address those. I believe Bill C-55 will do that very effectively.

First, as the speech from the throne made the commitment to the Canadian people, there has been widespread, public consultation on this bill. As one member of Parliament, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians agree with this bill and will support it becoming legislation.

Most experts, whether they be in law enforcement or other aspects of the criminal justice system, support this move by the government. I quote Mr. Scott Newark, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, in speaking to this bill. He said: "The proposed high risk offenders legislation is the single most important improvement in Canadian public safety legislation in the last 20 years". That does not come from me as a Liberal member of Parliament. I am quoting the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association.

On matters of crime and justice, whether it was Bill C-68, the gun legislation issue was so emotional, or whether it is this bill, I do not purport to be an expert in law enforcement or in the justice system. I am not a lawyer as most Canadians are not lawyers.

I have learned through 16 years of elected office at the municipal and now federal level that we ought very carefully to seek out expert opinion before casting a vote on important legislation. It is very important to me to hear from the law enforcement community on issues such as gun control and Bill C-55. I put great stock in the comments of the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association.

There was widespread public input on the bill. There is very general and widespread support for Bill C-55. Several initiatives are set out in the bill, three of which are most important.

It creates a new long term offender designation that targets sex offenders and adds a period of long term supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison. That is a very valid concern of the people who have contacted me as a member of Parliament. Unfortunately, repeat violent offenders will pose a risk to public safety now and in the years to come. Some of them will pose a risk for the remainder of their lives. This legislation seeks to deal specifically with the threat to public safety.

The second important initiative is the strengthening of the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.

The third initiative is the new judicial restraint provision to permit controls, including electronic monitoring, to be applied to individuals who pose a high risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.

Public perception matches the reality of the statistics. Although there has not been a massive increase in violent crime in Canada, a number of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, pose a serious threat to public safety. The initiatives to which I have just referred very effectively deal with those people.

Concomitant with that, and very important in my mind, is the fact that the government also is taking an initiative to deal with low risk, non-violent offenders in other ways besides incarceration. The answer is not simply to build more jails. If that were true the safest society in the world would be the United States of America. It incarcerates an incredible percentage of its population. Statistics tell us that on a per capita basis the most dangerous society in the world in which to live-the society in which a person has the greatest odds of being assaulted, robbed, sexually assaulted or murdered-is the United States of America. The building of more jails in the U.S.A. has not resulted in a safer society. As a matter of fact, it has not dealt with the problem effectively at all.

I am very pleased to be a member of a government which is going to proceed, through this and other pieces of legislation, to deal more effectively with repeat violent offenders, including sexual offenders. However, at the same time a more enlightened, effective and efficient approach has to be taken in dealing with those offenders who are low risk, non-violent offenders. Both initiatives have to be seen as complementary.

The fact of the matter is that the public will see more effective measures to deal with high risk offenders. What do I mean exactly by a high risk offender? It is someone who has been convicted of a serious violent crime and who has been found to have a strong likelihood of reoffending, but who cannot be shown to meet the narrow definition of the dangerous offender which would result in indefinite incarceration.

The bill increases the options of the government in dealing with violent offenders. Suffice it to say that most of the constituents who have contacted me regard this bill as good legislation. They support it. That includes lay people and law enforcement officers in my community. They support it as a necessary improvement in dealing with serious violent offenders, and I am pleased to support the legislation.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Brampton.

I have a number of thoughts to express to the House today, having consulted widely with my constituents of London-Middlesex on this bill and having received considerable input from them.

The hon. member who just spoke, my colleague opposite from the Reform Party, in his last point addressed the matter of application of this bill to the aboriginal community. Frankly, I get a little tired of hearing from the Reform Party that unless we treat each and every Canadian in the exactly the same way on exactly every piece of legislation, somehow we are taking a wrong approach or that we are being unfair. That simply perpetuates a myth that ought to be debunked right now.

[Fuel Imports, October 2nd, 1996]

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

Atomic Energy Canada and Ontario Hydro are proposing to import plutonium fuels from the United States. If the federal government agrees to this proposal will the minister commit our government to a full environmental assessment with public hearings to afford Canadians a fair and full opportunity for meaningful input?

[Paralympic Games, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer, Canadians were very proud observers of an outstanding performance by our Canadian Paralympic Team at the 1996 games in Atlanta. With a total of 69 medals, these games proved to be most successful for Canada.

As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex and on behalf of all Londoners, I would like to extend our congratulations and thanks to the following Londoners who represented Canada so well in Atlanta.

Marie-Claire Ross who brought home two gold, one silver and three bronze medals in swimming; Jeff Christy, silver medalist in goalball; Lisa Stevens, gold medalist in basketball; Adam Purdy, swimming; Paul Bowes, the men's basketball coach Dr. Douglas Dittmer, the team physician.

To all of these men and women and to every member of our Paralympic Team from every region of Canada, we say congratulations to all. You have made us as Canadians very proud.

[Petitions, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition from my constituents of London-Middlesex.

Relative to the possible taxation of dental benefits, these petitioners note that this has been a topic of discussion for the past two or three years. They are pleased that the government has seen fit not to tax such dental benefits. They call on Parliament and this government to forgo such consideration on a permanent basis and that we do not tax dental benefits.

[1996 Summer Olympic Games, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer Canadians were very proud observers of an outstanding performance by our Canadian Olympic team at the 1996 games in Atlanta. With a total of 22 medals, these games proved to be the most successful ever for Canada.

As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex and on behalf of all Londoners, I would like to extend our congratulations and thanks to the following Londoners who represented Canada so well in Atlanta: Catherine Bond-Mills, heptathlon; Jason Tunks, discus; Casey Patton, boxing; Lesley Thompson, silver medalist in rowing; Brian Peaker, silver medalist in rowing; and Al Morrow and Volker Nolte, coaches in rowing.

Athletes who did much of their training in London were Jeff Lay, silver medalist in rowing, and the dynamic duo of Marnie McBean and Kathleen Heddle, bronze and gold medalists in rowing.

To all of these men and women and to every member of our Olympic team from every region of Canada, we say congratulations to all of you. You have made Canadians very proud.

[Petitions, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions from constituents of London-Middlesex and other Londoners.

These petitioners note that Canadian law does not prohibit criminals from selling their stories and financially benefiting thereby. The petitioners ask Parliament to enact Bill C-205 which has been moved by my colleague from Scarborough West. Such a bill would prohibit criminals from profiting from their crimes. I am very pleased to present these three petitions today.

[Copyright Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks just now the hon. member of the Reform Party made repeated reference to a letter from my colleague, the hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Bill C-32 was first introduced in the House on April 25. Before that date absolutely no one knew what would be in the bill. The letter to which the member opposite refers, the letter from the member for Essex-Kent, was written well before April 25. It is fair to say that Bill C-32 very adequately addresses and satisfies the concerns expressed in that letter.

I regard it not as a duty but as a privilege and a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32. I am genuinely pleased to have the opportunity of saying good things about a manifestly good piece of legislation.

It is with pride that I express my support for a cause so timely and just, so attentive to the principles of fairness and equity, so responsive to the exigencies of our modern age and so ultimately beneficial to Canadian culture.

I use this latter term somewhat guardedly. I am well aware of the dangers inherent in seeming to speak too annoyingly about culture with a capital c . Therefore, unless someone asks me to define the concept, a task that has defeated many a scholarly mind, allow me to resort to terms that most of us can more readily understand.

Here in Canada, the arts and cultural industries give work to more than half a million persons and put $16 billion annually into our national economy. Whatever our opinion might be on culture

with a capital "C", it is evident that, from a purely financial point of view, culture plays an important role in our country. Any measure supporting the livelihood of workers and the prosperity of their sector is ultimately supporting all of our economy and also our identity and our sovereignty.

Bill C-32 is one such measure. In fact, it is a whole series of measures applicable to copyright, an essential element for artistic creators of this country. Copyright is the legal framework whereby creators of works like movies, books, songs, information products and computer programs, receive some financial compensation whenever their work is used by other people.

Prominent among the bill's provisions is its so-called p and p component, which stands for performers and producers rights.

I heard a comment earlier asking whether I was reading my remarks. Yes, I am reading some remarks, but I can tell hon. members of the Reform Party that I have spent considerable months working on the issue with other members of my caucus. I am extremely well informed on the bill. I sit on the Canadian heritage committee as the vice-chair. I welcome the hon. member who made the comment or any others who come before the committee to address it. It is important legislation that we are quite prepared to examine in detail.

These p and p provisions will in effect extend royalty payments to producers and the performers of sound recordings. One might well ask whether royalties do not already ensue whenever recordings are broadcast over the air waves or performed in public. They do indeed, but under the current rights regime royalties in such cases go only to composers and lyricists of the songs in question.

In other words, when a radio station uses the latest recording by Céline Dion or Anne Murray of a song that happens to have been written by someone else, the songwriter gets duly paid for the use of the piece. However the company that made the recording and the song's performer and interpreter, Céline or Anne, do not. That is fundamentally unfair.

With this proposed legislation Canada will join the ranks of some 50 other countries that have already accepted the principle of performers and producers rights. Like them, we will at last recognize in law that those whose recording artistry and expertise bring a work into prominence are as deserving of royalties as composers or lyricists.

Some may look at the illustrious names I have just cited and suggest that I have not chosen the best examples to garner support for performers and producers rights.

Céline Dion and Anne Murray are, after all, fabulously successful and prosperous performers and have been so for some time. As such it may appear that they have little need for p and p royalties. To such a suggestion I would respond in two ways.

First, the Céline Dions and the Anne Murrays of the Canadian music industry are the exceptions, individuals who have reached the pinnacle of their profession. Below them, less visible but no less remarkable, lies a far faster preponderance of Canadian performers, musicians and recording artists, talented and dedicated professionals all but whose acquaintance with popular success may have proved at best fleeting, sporadic and far more modest.

Canadian artists are collectively among the least paid professionals in the country. For those who work in the sound recording industry, the prospect of sometimes getting performers and producers rights or a small fraction of the new royalty on blank audio cassettes could be valuable.

Second, whether rich or poor, famous or unknown, it does not matter what kind of person receives the performers and producers rights, because they are rights, not privileges, and these rights are theirs. They are based on the unquestionable principle of fair payment for work done.

If someone uses the product of my work, I am entitled to expect and to receive a fair payment from him, no matter who I am and what my achievements are, whether I am already rich or not, whether I do not particularly need money at the time or need it. If someone benefits from my works, if he exploits the product of the work I have done, I am entitled to expect a payment.

I realize that user pay approaches are far easier to defend in the abstract than in practice. In developing these legislative proposals we realized full well that we had little to gain by assisting one group and creating hardship elsewhere. That is why we were so careful to take account of the financial situation of broadcasters in establishing the new performers and producers regime.

Therefore members will not be surprised to learn that I am somewhat taken aback and disappointed with the vociferous stance against the bill being taken by certain broadcasters. They would have us believe that Bill C-32 will mean disaster for them, that it will push hundreds of financially beleaguered radio stations over the brink.

How can this be? How is it possible for the broadcasting industry to argue its interests have been irreparably damaged when we have taken such pains to minimize any potential adverse consequences, when they have been so careful to ensure that p and p royalty payments will accord with the ability to pay?

There are some 487 commercial radio stations in Canada. Of these approximately 65 per cent or well over 300 will be required to pay only a nominal flat fee of $100 per year, hardly a sum that is likely to push any station, beleaguered or not, over any brink.

This virtual exemption will apply to smaller stations right across Canada, those that take in annual advertising revenues of less than $1.25 million. This seems by any account a generous limit. Some are even saying it is too generous. It will in effect shelter $400 million, a full 55 per cent of all radio advertising revenue in the country.

As for the remainder of the country's radio stations the larger ones, the richer ones, those that take in advertising revenues in excess of $1.25 million, they will naturally be expected to pay more than the minimum $100 in keeping with their greater income.

Even so, the fees that are set will be phased in gradually over five years. Moreover, these fees will apply only to that portion of advertising revenues in excess of $1.25 million. As an additional measure of prediction the amount of the fee will be established by the copyright board after an open consultative process and after hearing from interested parties on the subject.

The bill will go to the committee on Canadian heritage, of which I am vice-chair. It is a very technical bill. We are certainly open to hearing input from all members. We believe the bill will stand on its merits and will bear careful scrutiny.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the province of Newfoundland for his questions and for his comments.

One of the feelings that I hold very strongly is that we ought to have held public hearings, however brief. The need for such hearings has been well addressed by my colleague from the province of Newfoundland.

If there are people from the Pentecostal faith who wish to be heard, let us bring them to Ottawa and hear them. If there are those of no particular religious belief who wish to be heard on this issue, let us bring them to Ottawa and let them be heard.

In my view, in a democracy, it is fundamentally unfair to change and imperil minority rights without the opportunity of all who wish to be heard to have that opportunity.