Paul Devillers

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the beginning that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

It is a great pleasure to speak to this House in reply to the throne speech, which outlines the government's priorities for the first session of the 36th Parliament.

I would like to start by thanking the people of Simcoe North for renewing their vote of confidence by granting me a second term in the federal election last June. I would also like to mention the inestimable support I have received from my wife and family.

There are many positive elements in the throne speech. Thanks to the persistent efforts of the federal government and the support of Canadians, we can at last enjoy the fruits of our collective labours. Optimism is no longer the exception but the rule, since we now have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians fairly and equitably.

I would like to expand on three themes we find in the throne speech: social reform, economic reform and national unity. The legislation that will be introduced to implement the proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan and the non-taxable seniors benefit will, I believe, ensure that our public pension system will remain sustainable for generations to come.

I may point out that when the seniors benefit comes into effect in 2001, benefits for our neediest seniors will increase. In fact, about 75 percent of seniors, which includes nine elderly women out of ten, will have an income that is either equal to or higher than their present income.

I support unconditionally the government's commitment to maintain a comprehensive public health care system that provides universal access to high quality care for all Canadians.

After the National Forum on Health tabled its report this year, the government had to acknowledge its conclusions, and it did so in the throne speech. Canadians, including many of my constituents, were worried about the restructuring of our medicare system.

The announcement that the government, working with its partners, will develop a national plan, time table and fiscal framework for setting up a system that guarantees access to medically necessary drugs, and will also support home and community care, shows that the message sent by Canadians about public health care has been received and understood by this government.

I am very proud of the government's economic record. The throne speech reflects our commitment to thoughtful economic management. I would like to mention some examples of this commitment, for instance a balanced budget no later than 1998-99.

This will be the first time in almost 30 years that the country has had a balanced budget. With a surplus debt to GDP ratio the current account balance has gone from a deficit of 4.2 percent of GDP to a surplus of .55 percent in 1996. The government achieved the first annual surplus since 1982.

All the spending contained in the throne speech is funded by budgetary surpluses. I want to be crystal clear on this point. The budgetary surpluses during this mandate will be the source of funding for new programs.

The government will not be relying on borrowing moneys. We will not be spending our children's inheritance. Fifty per cent of budgetary surpluses will go to investments in social and economic priorities and fifty per cent will go to tax reduction and debt repayment. This 50:50 split ensures that the Liberal commitments to sound economic planning and to social responsibility will go hand in hand.

In the second mandate the government will do more on job creation for young Canadians. In February 1997 the government announced the youth employment strategy. This strategy consolidates over $2 billion in new and existing programs and services for young people.

The government will also work with the business community and the provinces to forecast areas of job growth. This planning ahead is a concrete example of how the government will help young people meet the challenges of the job market.

I recently lead community consultation on job creation in my riding of Simcoe North. The citizens of Simcoe North felt that apprenticeship and training programs would help young people get into fulfilling and well paying jobs. They also felt that the perception of various kinds of jobs needs to improve. For example, the skilled trades should be valued for the contribution they make to a vibrant economy.

The government will be initiating measures similar to those suggested by the people of Simcoe North. Internship programs will be extended and expanded. The government will provide enhanced funding for student summer placements. A Canada-wide mentorship program will be created in partnership with the provincial governments and the private sector.

Once again the government has shown that it is listening to Canadians and working with them to secure a better future for young Canadians.

I am particularly encouraged by the government statement on national unity. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I have had the opportunity to discuss national unity with Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. The government's approach to national unity reflects the concerns I have heard from these Canadians.

First, the government is committed to the recognition of Quebec's unique language, culture and legal system. The government will work closely with provincial and territorial leaders to advance the progress made in the Calgary declaration. Recognition of Quebec's unique character, language and legal system will not entail any new powers, privileges or rights. This message must be carried to all Canadians in every province and region.

Second, the government will ensure that the national unity debate is conducted with clarity and frankness. It is critical that Quebeckers, especially francophone Quebeckers, understand the consequences and the implications of separation. It is equally fundamental that Canadians outside Quebec understand the same consequences and the implications.

In the words of the throne speech:

—the government will bring frankness and clarity to any debate that puts into question the future existence or unity of Canada. It will create a better understanding of the true complexity and difficulty for all of us in severing ties—

I congratulate the government on the commitment to deal assertively to bring clarity to this debate.

None of this government's programs could be carried out if our national unity initiatives were not successful. The government therefore views its mandate in that area in a global and encompassing fashion. Any measure that strengthens the country will have a unifying effect on Canada.

That having been said, we pledge to work in partnership with the provinces and territory. Our federation as we know it is flexible. This needs to be repeated over and over in the presence of separatists. Far from being fixed and immovable, our federation is one that keeps evolving.

During this second mandate, we will continue to reflect and meet the demands of every province and region. I am confident that, with such flexibility and the synergy fostered by this government, we will enter the new millennium with a new invigorated Canada.

I realize that Canadians have done a great deal to help the federal government put its financial house in order and strengthen the social and political fabric of Canada. We have come a long, hard way, but the end is in sight.

To conclude, I want to reaffirm my solemn commitment to represent my constituents to the best of my abilities and to co-operate with all members of this House to ensure our government reflects and is sensitive to the needs of all Canadians.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Reform Party, both this hon. member's speech and the leader's speech yesterday. Their rhetoric and their imagery is improving. Unfortunately, their content and their comprehension remains at about the level of the previous Parliament.

I want to question the hon. member on the point he raised in his speech about the lack of consultation with the Canadian people. The issue of what will be done and where we will be going once the budget is balanced and once we have surpluses was a major plank in the Liberal platform. It was put to the people during the electoral campaign and the majority of Canadians voted for the platform, as is evidenced by the composition of the House. If that is not consultation, what is?

Specifically, what is the member's opinion of the electoral process? What is the point of going to the people with electoral platforms and having them judged and voted on?

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Petitions, April 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present two petitions on behalf of 133 and 25 constituents respectively.

They request that Parliament ask the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to suspend negotiations on social housing to the province of Ontario and to resume these negotiations only if the federal government proceeds under publicly declared principles with input from housing co-operative stakeholders.

[Infrastructure Program, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Ernie Eves, Ontario's minister of finance, has claimed today in the Globe and Mail that the federal Liberals are delaying the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program ``with an eye to the coming election campaign''.

The facts show who is really delaying the infrastructure program. The federal government has already signed agreements with eight provinces and one territory. The federal government is ready, willing and able.

The extended infrastructure program could create more than 6,500 new jobs in Ontario. Ontario is the only province that has not concluded an agreement. I would like Mr. Eves to tell the constituents of Simcoe North why Ontario is stalling on creating new jobs.

In many other files, the federal government has shown its unequivocal desire to move ahead. Who is stalling on harmonizing the GST in Ontario? Who rebuffed the Prime Minister's efforts to amend the Constitution? Who is delaying an agreement on labour force training for Ontarians? The provincial Tory government of Mike Harris, that's who.

Let's go to the polls today and ask Ontarians who is working for Canadians and who is playing politics.

[Health, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House about the impact of the Harris government's decisions on health care and hospital closures in Ontario.

I feel obliged to dispel certain falsehoods about the issue, namely about the reduction in transfer payments to the Ontario government from 1993-94 to 1998-99, which amount to only11.4 per cent. This represents at most 2.5 per cent of Ontario's revenues.

In the light of these statistics, the Harris government cannot say logically that the cuts in transfer payments are behind the cuts to health care and the closures of hospitals like the Montfort. The real reasons for these cuts and hospital closures is no doubt the decision of the Harris government to cut taxes, including personal income tax.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am at a disadvantage. I did not hear the comments of the solicitor general. I doubt very strongly that he said he agreed with the position of the Reform Party.

He was likely indicating the amendments to section 745 would have been through the House to preclude Mr. Olson from making

the application that will be dealt with shortly except that we did not receive the co-operation of the Bloc.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear the government has made the proper amendments to section 745 by the screening process and by making it not apply to multiple murders such as Mr. Olson who has caused the debate today and by requiring unanimity of the jury.

Up until now under section 745 it only took two-thirds of the jury to allow a reduction in the ineligibility of parole. The amendments deal with those three items. They would cover each and every one of the situations the Reform Party is complaining about today.

Reform members complain about a lack of respect. I have a great deal of respect for our judicial system. Even more important, I have respect for the Canadians who sit on juries and hear the full evidence in those cases. As has been pointed out, approximately 78 per cent of the cases before the court on 745 application receive some reduction-they are not all released on to the streets-in their ineligibility for parole.

I have faith in the Canadian people, something I do not think my friends in the Reform Party share.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party motion implies that the government has not paid attention to the needs of victims of crime and that it has been generally so negligent and insensitive that it should formally apologize to the families of victims, presumably for its inaction. This criticism is unjustified.

There are two kinds of actions a government can take to help unfortunate victims of crime and their families. First, it can implement laws, policies and programs which are directly focused on the needs of the families and the victims themselves, for example, by giving them information, by allowing them to partici-

pate in the prosecution of offenders through victim impact statements, et cetera.

The second way a government can show solidarity for crime victims is by enacting laws that prevent crimes in the first place, that deter criminality and, when crimes do occur, impose tough sentences of imprisonment that will keep chronic offenders away from potential future victims.

Some colleagues talked about murderers, their eligibility for parole and the legislation recently passed by this Parliament, but it seems to me that today's motion gives us an opportunity to address another government bill, which is before us, since it recently came back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am referring to Bill C-55, concerning high risk offenders, and the tools it provides to fight the most serious and violent crimes provided for in the Criminal Code after murder.

Bill C-55 is responsive to the demands of victims' rights organizations for tough measures. Let me briefly touch on the highlights of the bill because it is proof that there is no need for the government to apologize to anyone for its anti-crime strategies.

The legislation will create a new sentencing category to be called the long term offender. This measure targets sex offenders. It will allow courts to impose a regular penitentiary sentence on those sex offenders. Then if the judge decides to designate the offender as a long term offender, he can add up to 10 years of supervision to the sentence.

I ask colleagues to think about this. Someone who commits the offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm might normally receive a sentence of say 10 years, but under Bill C-55 the court could find him to a long term offender and add 10 more years of intensive supervision, thus effectively doubling the period of control over the offender by the correctional system.

This period of supervision will only begin when the offender has completed his full prison sentence. This long term supervision period has teeth. It will have conditions attached to it similar to parole conditions. These could include, for example, staying away from specific past victims and staying away from potential victims such as children. They can include a range of reporting and treatment requirements, all of which will allow authorities to keep very close tabs on the long term offender while hopefully encouraging his rehabilitation.

Moreover, Bill C-55 creates a new offence of breach of a long term supervision order. If the offender breaches one of the conditions, the supervisor can bring him into custody and bring charges for the new offence.

Some may argue that criminals should be locked up indefinitely. In some cases, this can be done. There has been a dangerous offender provision in Canadian law since 1976.

Since then, this provision was used approximately 186 times and it still is successfully used to deal with about 15 new cases every year, where offenders are found to be dangerous offenders. Dangerous offenders are covered by part XXIV of the Criminal Code, which contains a special procedure whereby individuals sentenced for a serious personal injury offence, who have previously committed similar offences and are likely to reoffend, may be locked up indefinitely.

This extremely severe sentence is justified not only by the past actions of the offender, but also by an observation made at a special hearing that the offender poses a constant threat to the community.

I would also point out that a recent study revealed that 90 per cent of the successful dangerous offender applications involve sex offenders, those who prey on women and children. The dangerous offender law certainly is severe but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld it as a well crafted, legitimate form of sentencing. Bill C-55 does not tamper with the core concepts of the dangerous offender procedure but it does strengthen it with a few strategic amendments.

As the law presently stands, a judge who finds the offender to be a dangerous offender would normally hand down an indeterminate sentence, in effect indefinite confinement, but he can in exceptional circumstances impose a sentence for a definite term. A federal-provincial task force which reviewed the law concluded that it makes little sense for the crown and the court to go through the special lengthy dangerous offender process only to obtain the same kind of sentence that would have resulted from a normal prosecution.

Bill C-55 will require the court to impose an indeterminate sentence in every instance. This will ensure that these very serious, high risk offenders are detained indefinitely.

Although these offenders fall into a high risk category, it is still important that they receive periodic parole reviews. The current law provides for the initial parole review of a dangerous offender to occur at the three year point of the sentence with subsequent reviews every two years thereafter.

Bill C-55 will change that initial period review to the seventh year. An offender who is sentenced to indeterminate detention because of his ongoing dangerousness is unlikely to achieve parole after only three years. In fact, the average parole release date for dangerous offenders is closer to 14 years.

The new provision regarding long term offenders and the improvements to the dangerous offenders legislation will provide invaluable tools against violent offenders. We also introduced a provision dealing with sexual offenders, as victims rights groups had been demanding for a long time.

I should point out that the expression "dangerous or violent offender" includes those who commit crimes of a sexual nature. Indeed, sexual crimes are among the crimes for which someone may be designated as a violent or dangerous offender. Bill C-55 provides not only that a person convicted of a sexual crime may be designated as a dangerous or violent offender, but also that, if there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender, the court may still designate that person as a long term offender.

What do victims rights groups have to say about Bill C-55? During consideration of Bill C-55 by the Standing Committee on Justice, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime commended the government for its initiatives.

As for Victims of Violence, it was pleased by the proposed amendments to the legislation on dangerous offenders. This group also commended the minister and the government for their proposed changes.

Jim and Anna Stephenson, whose son was murdered, are well aware of the needs of victims' families. They stated that the amendments to the existing provisions on dangerous offenders and the creation of a long term offender category, as proposed in Bill C-55, are major government initiatives. According to them, these initiatives will fill significant gaps in the current legislation, thus reducing the potential threat posed by violent sexual offenders.

These are examples of what the government has been doing. I reiterate that there is certainly no reason for the government to apologize for its crime policies.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that point in my speech. The number of people who are unemployed is still roughly the same because more people have come into the workforce. Some people have graduated from school. Other people have obtained training and are now in the workforce. Other people have realized that there is a possibility of getting a job now and that is why they have returned to the workforce.

The government cannot control the number of people who enter the workforce. It can encourage people to enter the workforce, but it certainly cannot control who wants to be in the StatsCan figure and who does not.