Jack Ramsay

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will first comment on the speech of my colleague from the NDP who has brought another issue to the House of great concern to all of us. It is beyond belief to accept for a moment that he, in an attempt to save his son from what could have been serious injury, would end up being subject to legal proceedings. It is beyond belief we have come to a state where we no longer have the right to protect our property or even our children from what seems to have amounted to a kidnapping and a threat against the well-being of a four year old child. It is abhorrent that we as parents or as citizens do not have the right in law to use reasonable force to protect our children and our property and are subjected to criminal proceedings. We as a parliament ought to take a look at that.

I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of my colleague's private member's bill. The hon. member has dedicated the last seven years of his life to changing the Young Offenders Act to rightfully hold youth more accountable for their criminal actions. Unfortunately the member for Surrey North had suffered an inconceivable tragedy, the loss of a child, which brought him to this point in his life. I empathize with him and his family for their terrible loss to the extent my understanding allows me. I commend his fortitude to redress the inadequacy of the Young Offenders Act in the face of such an event. I am confident my colleague's efforts, particularly in Bill C-260, will help prevent other Canadian parents from enduring a similar horrifying loss.

As pointed out by my colleague, section 7.1 of the YOA permits a youth court judge to allow an accused to be placed in the custody of a parent, guardian or responsible person. The designated person must sign an undertaking to take care and be responsible for the attendance of the youth in court and to abide by the conditions imposed by the judge.

As the law currently stands under section 7.2 of the YOA, if the person who signs the undertaking fails to provide proper and sufficient supervision he is possibly guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction but summary conviction only. Bill C-260 would change this to a dual procedure offence. Therefore a parent or guardian may be subject to imprisonment of up to two years or the normal summary conviction penalty for a violation.

As already pointed out today, the Minister of Justice has incorporated Bill C-260 within the new youth criminal justice act. This provision of the new act has received considerable attention and criticism since the minister's announcement last week. In my opinion this criticism is the result of a confusion and misunderstanding that must be clarified.

My colleague from Surrey North and others who have spoken in the House have addressed the issue, but all members speaking on the issue ought to clarify this misunderstanding and confusion for the benefit of the Canadian people and particularly for the news media upon which we depend to communicate in a clear, unmistakable and unconfused manner the laws that are being recommended and put forward by the Government of Canada.

Parents will not be jailed for their children's criminal behaviour. They may however, if Bill C-260 is passed, be subject to imprisonment if they fail to comply with a duly and willfully signed undertaking. That is in my opinion reasonable and responsible.

Two years ago this April, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled a comprehensive report containing 14 recommendations for amending the Young Offenders Act. This report was the result of six months of extensive consultations and travel throughout the country at an expense of almost half a million dollars. Over 300 people representing various sectors of the youth justice system and society in general testified before the committee. That testimony was incorporated into the committee's report.

On April 22, 1997 on behalf of the Reform Party I published a minority report containing 17 recommendations. It proposed a comprehensive three pronged approach to deal with the complexities of youth crime and the contributing factors including: one, early detection and intervention as an effective means of crime prevention; two, community based resolutions and sentences in cases of minor offences; and three, strengthening the Young Offenders Act through significant amendments.

Two years after the Reform Party proposed this plan the government has introduced its youth criminal justice act. I want to point out at this time that neither the committee's report nor my report caught the issue that is the centre of Bill C-260. It is all the more reason I am grateful to the member for Surrey North that we heard 300 or more witnesses testify. This deficiency within the Young Offenders Act was not pointed out by any of the witnesses.

I might add that the member, who was a private citizen at the time that our committee was in Vancouver, British Columbia, was to attend before the committee but for some reason or other he was not allowed to appear and testify before the committee. Had he done so, his testimony together with his recommendation that now forms the brunt of Bill C-260 I am sure would have been placed before the committee. Nevertheless, it was not placed before the committee. Again, I thank the member for his tenacity in coming to this place and going through what he had to go through to be here so that he could speak not only on the floor of the House of Commons but also to bring this bill forward by embracing and encompassing the legal process to do so within this House.

I know we will go into extended debate once the government's new bill to amend the YOA has been brought forward. However, I would like to point out that I have concerns that the government's own committee recommendations have been set aside with regard to lowering the age, including recommendations from many of the attorneys general and from experts in the business, such as Professor Nicholas Bala who was commissioned by the justice department to look at lowering the age from 12 to 10.

It seems that the government has abandoned these young people who by their criminal acts signal to society that they are in need of help and assistance. To leave it to the provinces is wrong. It is going to create a checkerboard approach to dealing with these young people. There is no standardization in the criminal law governing the administration of the law in the provinces by the attorneys general. I have some concerns in that area.

I also have some concerns about the restrictions placed on what otherwise seems to be a fairly progressive move to allow for the publicizing of names of young offenders, particularly violent and repeat violent offenders.

I have concerns in those two areas. We will be addressing them as the bill goes further through the process and certainly before the committee.

In closing, in view of the comments made by my colleague who sponsored this bill and the fact that it may be a long time before the amendment to the Young Offenders Act produced by the government comes into effect, I would like to move a motion. I ask for unanimous consent to proceed with all stages of Bill C-260 now.

[Member For Edmonton North, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton North. I first met her in 1989 during the Beaver River byelection.

As we greeted the voters on the streets of Glenden I was amazed at the warm and positive response that came from complete strangers to this pleasant, gracious and outgoing lady. On election night I watched the voters' choice come in from poll after poll, amassing a landslide victory for Canada's first Reform Party member of Parliament.

For five years she alone represented the Reform Party in this place. I have heard her speak of that exciting period, marked by feelings of loneliness at times as she dealt with the barbs thrown at her by some members in the House.

I remember as well her speaking of the friendships she developed here and her deep appreciation to these members. And you, Mr. Speaker, stand out in this category.

For ten years this member has been one of Canada's finest ambassadors to this place, serving Canadians with great distinction. To the hon. member who now represents the good people of Edmonton North I say, on her 10th anniversary, congratulations, thank you and keep on marching.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in some of the comments made with regard to Bill C-65. I would like to read from the Constitution, section 36(2) which states:

Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

The principle of helping each other through difficult times is an integral aspect of being Canadian. It is something to be proud of. That is the way in which the country was built. Neighbour helped neighbour. We are now at the point where provinces help provinces.

I return to a comment made by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood with regard to his passion about the federal government intervening.

We have a rule book when it comes to relationships between the federal and provincial governments. That rule book is called the Constitution of Canada. It is wrong to intervene and violate the provisions of sections 91 or 92. That is where intervention ought to halt. It has not halted there. The government, through the use of its spending power, has intervened into the jurisdictions of the provinces of this country.

Our job as members of parliament above all else is to protect the Constitution of this country, the constitutional rights of every citizen and the constitutional rights of the federal and provincial governments as set out in sections 91 and 92.

Recently the appeal court of Alberta rendered a decision on the federal government's Bill C-68. Four of the five judges admitted that that federal piece of legislation encroached upon the provincial jurisdiction. Three out of the five said it was all right. What was their rationale to come to that conclusion?

If we read the judgment, they have accepted the doctrine that is enunciated by people like the renowned Mr. Peter Hogg who is a constitutional lawyer. What does he say that justifies that the only institution of this country that can protect the constitutional rights of anyone, including the provinces, is the courts? He said that if the federal government introduces a scheme under one of its authority heads such as peace, order and good government, and if it should overlap and encroach upon the provincial governments, it is okay.

With the greatest of respect to Mr. Hogg and to those who support that ideology, I completely disagree, particularly when the provinces do not give their consent for that type of encroachment.

When we look at the interventionist attitude of members on the other side, we ask where in the world did it come from. What they are saying, and I believe this is my understanding of what the member for Broadview—Greenwood was implying, is that if the federal government feels that a provincial government is not doing the best thing for its people in an area of pure provincial jurisdiction as provided for under section 92 of the Constitution of this country, it can intervene without the consent of the province.

The national energy program that practically destroyed the energy sector in Alberta was an encroachment upon the provincial jurisdiction of that province. The member is saying that that is all right.

One of the problems in this country is this thing called unity. We have problems because when the premiers and the federal authorities come together, they throw the rule book, the Constitution of this country, out the window. When we begin to accept and when our premiers begin to accept the encroachment of the federal government into the jurisdiction of the provinces without their consent, it creates tensions which develop feelings of alienation which lead to feelings and expressions of separation.

Members of parliament should be standing in this place to defend the constitutional rights of all citizens in this country and the components of Confederation, which are the federal government as well as the provincial governments.

The federal government sticks its nose into provincial areas unrequested. Yet it ignores those areas that fall under section 91, which is its jurisdiction.

What about interprovincial trade barriers? What about the fact that it costs the consumers of this country, our children and their moms and dads, $5 billion to $6 billion a year because the government allows interprovincial trade barriers to be set up and maintained. Under section 91 it is the federal government's jurisdiction to deal with that and it allows that kind of thing to go on. Why does the government not stay in its area of authority and let the provinces look after their areas? If this would happen, then the tensions that lead to disunity across this country would be eased.

When we want to set standards, let us do it in a co-operative way. Let the federal government negotiate and use the power of persuasion and common sense to say to the provinces that it is in everyone's best interests if we have a standardized health care system, or a standardized measuring system, or a standardized criminal justice system.

This bill opens the door for that kind of debate and intervention. I say to the government, to the people of this country and certainly to members of parliament that it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that we are not led down the garden path by ideologies put forward by extremely passionate interventionists, if I can use the term used by the member for Broadview—Greenwood.

The federal government can intervene in provincial jurisdiction with the authority of the provinces. However, we have had four provinces and two territories oppose Bill C-68 and other bills and the only institutions of government that can protect the constitutional rights of our provinces are the courts of this land. We, as members of parliament, cannot do it.

That was evident when Bill C-68 was debated and the aboriginal rights of the James Bay Cree and the Yukon Indians were being violated. The evidence was very clear that their constitutional rights were being violated and members of this House could not protect them. The only protection they had was from the courts of this land.

With the greatest respect to the Alberta court of appeal, we now have members on that appeal sitting on the bench saying “Yes, Bill C-68 intervenes into provincial jurisdiction, but that is all right”. If the government introduces a scheme under one of its authority heads and it overlaps into provincial jurisdiction that is too bad.

What I am suggesting is that when that begins to occur without the consent of the provinces and the other partners in Confederation then we are contributing to the disunity of this country. We are also contributing to the feelings of alienation that are all too high in some parts of the country. We feel it every time we hold a public meeting in western Canada.

[Justice, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to a very honourable group of men and women who have dedicated their lives to serve and protect Canadians. They have come to Ottawa from all across Canada. They are our frontline police officers.

Members of the Canadian Police Association are meeting with members of parliament and they are here in the gallery today. Their message is simple. We need to restore balance to Canada's ailing justice system. The Liberal government has failed to listen to these credible spokespersons who have gained their valuable insights from working the streets of this country.

Canada's police officers want appropriate penalties for crimes committed which means consecutive, not concurrent, sentences. They want section 745 of the Criminal Code scrapped. They want a properly funded DNA databank to eliminate the 600 cases backlogged and they want the legislation amended so samples can be taken at the time of arrest or charge. They need adequate budgets. Cash strapped police forces cannot adequately combat crime. Hopefully the government will listen to the real law and order experts, our frontline police officers.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in addition I present today the concerns of a number of my Crowfoot constituents who petition parliament to reduce all taxation by at least 20% and abolish the GST.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I also present petitions from 150 concerned citizens who request that parliament repeal Bill C-68 and redirect funds allotted for the gun registry toward more cost effective crime fighting initiatives such as increased police presence, crime prevention programs and more suicide prevention and women's crisis centres.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of petitions to the House today.

Nearly 200 petitioners appeal to this House to protect the institution of marriage by enacting legislation defining marriage as the voluntary union of a single male and a single female.

[Privilege, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee experienced the same kind of situation.

I respect the suggestion of the hon. member who sits on the justice committee that perhaps the committee should be looking at this, but there is no process by which we can do that.

The chairs of the committees perhaps should take this seriously. If a motion were put by a committee member to the committee to look into and investigate to the best of its ability how a leak occurred, that would be different. But I do not know whether the hon. member was suggesting that chairs of committees are prepared to accept and move on that kind of motion or whether those kinds of motions would simply be voted down by the government side. If what I am hearing is a suggestion that we could do that, then that signal must come from the government side whose members control all the committees. If that is the case, then perhaps these kinds of things will not be brought to the House.

I did not even bring that issue to the House at the time it occurred because I knew how useless it would be. I did not have a name to present in conjunction with that complaint. But I did speak to the reporter and I did, in a very diplomatic way, suggest he had been used by the government to leak a government report prematurely and he admitted that is exactly what happened. But when I asked him who was his contact person, he just threw his hands in the air and laughed. I understand he cannot reveal and he would not reveal his contacts.

The point is if there is a suggestion that the government side of these committees will look into these leaks, I think we will get to the bottom of it. I think we will stop at least the usage of House time in airing these things and having Mr. Speaker make the only decision that you can make when we cannot bring forward a name of a member of parliament responsible for the leak.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with real intent and interest to my colleague who just spoke. He referred to clauses of Bill C-49 with regard to accountability which is very reassuring.

However, we all know that the requirements for accountability in every facet of expenditures of money in the interests of Indian people have always been there. Those requirements for accountability have always been there yet we hear from the grassroots people, Indian people, some of whom I have spoken to this afternoon.

When I ask them about Indian self-government and what they think about it, they tell me they are concerned about it. I ask why they would be concerned about. They tell me very clearly that they are concerned about granting their leaders greater powers and authorities over them. When I ask what the problem is now, they go on and on at length to explain the problems. My colleague from Wild Rose and my colleague from Skeena have given examples of the problems the grassroots people have.

I do not think there is anyone in Canada who would not be willing to continue the direction of resources into the aboriginal community for the benefit of their standard of living, education and so on. But if it is not reaching them, as the word is coming to us over and over again from all points on the compass, then we have to look at the whole area of accountability.

Bill C-49 will pass, but it is the duty and the responsibility of members in opposition to warn about the defects of the bill as we see them. The whole area of accountability is of very serious concern to us and to all members who have talked to Indian people at the grassroots level.

The unfortunate problem is that there are aboriginal people at the grassroots who cannot take their concerns to their chief and council for whatever reason. They cannot take their concerns to the minister because the minister will be criticized and attacked by the chief and council if she begins to meet with the grassroots. She will be accused of going around the local elected representatives. The minister is caught in a bind in this regard.

I do not know what the answer is other than to insist on accountability for 25% of those bands that are not acting responsibly even though there are guidelines for accountability in terms of the expenditure of money for the welfare of Indian children and in terms of schooling, education, health care and their standard of living. There is a lack of accountability for the expenditure of funds at the band level. There is a concern.

We are putting our warning voice on record in this regard. No one in the House does not want to see aboriginal self-government. However it has not been defined yet. Why has the government not defined it? Why do we not have a model upon which to base it and allow the aboriginal people to take greater charge over their own lives and their own affairs? It must be done on the basis of accountability to their own grassroots people.

I do not know what the answers are to many of the problems I have heard about. They are not unlike those of the larger Canadian society. We as the Reform Party are asking for populist principles which allow for the people to hold their elected representatives more accountable for the manner in which they run the affairs of the country, including plunging us into debt and having many of the children living in poverty after taxing us at the highest rate of the G-7 countries, after borrowing and spending $585 billion over the last 25 or 30 years. Still one child in every five is reported to be living in poverty.

There must be greater accountability in this place. We want more free votes in the House. We want the right of the people to recall us if we do not honestly and faithfully represent their views and concerns. That is the kind of mechanism within any level of government which the people must have. Perhaps it is the answer for aboriginal people and those answers must come from them.

The degree of accountability in the bill looks good. There are policies and regulations demanding and calling for accountability in the way moneys are expended, yet we still hear the cry from the grassroots. Until that cry is listened to and the problems are addressed, the bill may be simply adding to the problems of the grassroots, not to the problems of the Reform, Bloc, NDP, PC or the Liberal members of the House. It may be adding to the problems we hear coming from the grassroots in that it will grant greater power and authority over local government. That is where there seems to be a lack of the accountability these people are requesting.

Our duty is to place our concerns on record. We hope everything works out well, as everyone does, but it has not so far. We are saying that the bill is placing a greater degree of power and authority in the hands of the very same people the grassroots are concerned and complaining about.

I will give an example. Laura Deedza lives in my community but she is from one of the northern Alberta reserves. She has been trying to get financial statements from her band. For months she has had nothing but a fight on her hands as she has been trying to get even parts of those financial statements for the present year and for years past. She has nowhere to go except to the minister. She is continually complaining to my office that she meets a brick wall at that level. The procedures for access to these kinds of documents are clearly outlined in the bill. They are outlined as well for financial statements to which every band member is supposed to have access. Laura is just one of many. She is continually asking us for help.

The meeting which will allow for grassroots people to express their concerns further to members of parliament on Saturday in Edmonton ought to be attended by every concerned member of parliament to hear what they have to say and to bring that message back to the House. I wish members of the government would attend that meeting as well so that they can hear directly from the grassroots people and take their concerns back to the minister and back to cabinet.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, RCMP Staff Sgt. Fraser Fiegenweld took the fall for the botched Airbus investigation. The extent of Fiegenweld's responsibility was never fully determined as he was allowed to retire from the force before his disciplinary hearing. As a result, Canadians do not know who is responsible for the Airbus fiasco.

It appears that history is about to repeat itself. Once again an RCMP officer has been singled out as a possible scapegoat. This time “Hughie” will take the fall.

If this is true, RCMP officer Hugh Stewart will shoulder the full blame for the pepper spraying of students at last fall's APEC summit, while any role the Prime Minister played may never be revealed.

For the sake of justice and the reputation of our beleaguered RCMP, I implore the Prime Minister to establish an independent judicial inquiry to ensure the complete truth is revealed and the integrity of the RCMP is maintained.