Jack Ramsay

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate and to the hon. member's comments. I would like to make a short statement and ask him to respond to it. If reducing or eliminating smuggling is simply the job of passing laws and enforcing those laws, why was that not done to stop the smuggling of cigarettes?

I asked the hon. justice minister during a meeting with him if he would introduce stricter laws to prevent the smuggling of guns into the country and how he was making out with the cocaine and the drug problem. That is illegal in Canada as well. Yet we can buy it anywhere in any of the major cities across the country.

The smuggling problem is be eliminated by reducing taxes. The children in the schools will now have the money to buy cheaper cigarettes. We are creating an internal smuggling problem. There will be people supplying cigarettes to kids in the school yard.

I would like him to comment on the principle that underlies the whole area of smuggling and people seeking products that the law has prohibited.

[Young Offenders Act, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 12 of this year members on this side of the House presented an opposition day motion. The purpose of that motion was to call upon the government for positive and immediate action with regard to the Young Offenders Act. I commend the government for bringing forward so quickly some amendments which are a step in the right direction.

I rise today however to demonstrate my lack of enthusiasm for this bill. I believe that although measures were taken they certainly are far from enough.

In an attempt to help calm the fears of Canadians we proposed three basic amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The first was to have the age limits changed from 12 to 17 to 10 to 15. This was in recognition of the fact that there are offenders under 12 years of age who currently slip through the system and go on to be full-fledged youth criminals because police are unable to charge them or to deal with them in any way. As for older offenders, we believe that youths aged 16 and 17 are old enough to assume full responsibility for their crimes and should therefore in serious cases be tried as adults.

Under Bill C-37 the justice minister has proposed that 16 and 17-year old youths who are charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault be tried in adult court unless an application is granted for the youth cases to be heard in youth court. The onus is now on the young offender to demonstrate why he or she should not be

tried in adult court and the court will have the discretion to accept or reject the application.

Although this amendment will be somewhat positive in nature it misses the point that we tried to raise some weeks ago. Sixteen and 17-year olds, given today's society and the rate at which our youth are maturing, according them the same degree of respons

The Reform Party had proposed increasing sentencing. I am therefore pleased to see that the minister has recommended increased sentences for first degree murder from five to ten years. We also recommended that amendments to the Young Offenders Act include a permit to publish the names of young offenders who have been convicted of any offence involving the use of violence, who have contravened any Narcotic Control Act or Food and Drug Act or who have been convicted previously of two offences.

Unfortunately Bill C-37 has failed to provide this amendment and it is this topic I wish to elaborate on today. I firmly believe that the publication of the names of young offenders is essential for the protection of Canada's innocent children. For example, a school principal may not know that one of his students had been convicted numerous times for drug trafficking. A parent may not know that his child is associating with an offender convicted of a series of rapes. The young man next door whom you have entrusted to babysit your children could be another Jason Gaumache.

Who should we be protecting, the vast majority of Canadians who are law abiding, hard working and caring people who will continue to be the building blocks for a productive society or the local high school's drug dealer or an unknown rapist in the neighbourhood? I do not think that is a hard question to answer. Undoubtedly it is these offenders who must be made known to our society.

We are not talking about the youth who makes a small mistake and comes in contact with the justice system on a single occasion wherein the best interest of the public may not be served by publishing the details. However, we do propose and firmly believe that in order to make community protection the number one priority, the publishing of violent youth offenders' names must not be prevented by law as it is today and is continued in Bill C-37.

The first penalty paid for committing a criminal offence against society ought to be full disclosure of who you are, where you come from and what you have done. This is completely exempted from this act and from the amendment.

The names of victims and the horrific details of the crimes perpetrated on them are open to public scrutiny but the names of the offenders remain a state secret. The young faces in Canada's courts and jails are like masks. They hide society's ugliest scars, scars that will fester if they are not exposed.

The Reform Party on behalf of our many constituents had asked the government to establish a registry of child sex abusers. The government has provided its typical response to a request of this nature. It knows there is a problem. It knows Canadians want something done about it. Therefore it has promised to study the issue and consult the proper authorities. In other words, the government is dragging its feet and in the meantime children will continue to be sexually abused and violently attacked by repeat offenders that the government is guilty of protecting by refusing the public the information they need to protect their children and society in general.

In their effort to understand the need for a child registry, Health Canada, Justice Canada and the Ministry of the Solicitor General commissioned a study. The federal ad hoc interdepartmental working group on information systems on child sex offenders prepared a discussion paper. Do you know what the conclusion of that study was, Mr. Speaker? We need another study and we need further consultation. However, contained in that paper is information which clearly indicates both the need for the child registry and for the publishing of young offenders' names.

I really have to wonder what purpose all these studies, reviews, consultations and more consultations serve. Are they to find viable solutions to problems we already know exist or are they a means to keep full the hands the taxpayers are feeding at the present time?

The ad hoc group reports that current research indicates that the development of sexually intrusive behaviour may begin as early as childhood and adolescence. The report goes on to say that statistics compiled on all violent crime committed against children in Canada indicate that young offenders, those aged 12 to 17, account for approximately 23 per cent of all accused offenders.

It is important to note that the same age group only represents 7.9 per cent of the Canadian population. Studies have repeatedly indicated, states the report, that sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group with an estimated 40 per cent reoffending within five years of release. Furthermore research examining the effectiveness of offender treatment programs has shown limited results.

I ask, does the right hand of the government know what the left hand is doing. Did the Minister of Justice not read the report of the federal ad hoc group? If he did, he would know that sex offenders reoffend. If he could do simple calculations he would know from the statistics that 23 per cent of sex offences in Canada are committed by young offenders. If 40 per cent of that 23 per cent reoffends, violent, sadistic acts will continue to be committed against the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society and the government could have prevented it. If it had read its own report and acted immediately on the findings of

that report, unspeakable acts and attacks upon our children could have been thwarted.

However I believe the government is in direct contravention of article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states: "States, parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse".

Bill C-37 does not undertake to protect our children from the Jason Gamaches of this world. It does not protect us from the faceless, nameless monsters who pose behind the masks of adolescence.

The government is in direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore the weight is still balanced in favour of the young offender. The protection of society, the protection of our children, is still outweighed by the so-called rights of violent and delinquent young Canadians.

All we are asking is that the scales be evened out, that the rights of the victims, and the rights of the potential victims, that is the rights of our children, be given priority and that the protection of society outweigh the protection of violent young offenders who have no respect for the lives and the rights of others.

I reiterate my opening remarks. Bill C-37 is a step in the right direction but the stride is not long enough for the people walking on my side of the street.

[Gun Control, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the former government that refused to listen to the people is now sitting with two people in behind us. I suggest that he should be listening to the people.

My supplementary question is this. In light of the shooting death of Toronto police constable, Todd Baylis, and in view of the consistent public demand for the return of capital punishment, would the minister be willing to support a binding referendum on capital punishment, tying it in with the next federal election to eliminate the cost?

[Gun Control, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is using public opinion polls to justify the imposition of harsher gun controls against law-abiding Canadians in his effort to reduce the criminal use of firearms. These same opinion polls support the return of capital punishment.

Is the minister consistent in his adherence to public demand or does he heed it only when it fits his own personal philosophy and that of the Liberal cabinet?

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my address to the assembly I would like to remind the Bloc member who spoke a while back of the incident of the recall that occurred in Arizona approximately eight years ago.

We do not have to go back to 1920 to see the power of recall in the state of Arizona where the governor of that state was recalled when the people would no longer accept his leadership.

I believe that the collective wisdom of the people is always greater and superior to that of a handful of politicians, regardless of how wise or intelligent they may appear to be. Therefore, whenever it is practical and possible we ought to be doing the business of the people by the voice of the people.

I know of a country with a population of less than seven million people with very few natural resources, a harsh climate and 25 per cent of its land area covered by mountains. It has four official language groups, many ethnic sub-groups and large regional economic disparities. You would think that this country would be riddled with economic and social strife but nothing could be further from the truth. This country has had the highest standard of living in the world for the past 50 years, never more than 1.5 per cent unemployment. Inflation is never higher than4 per cent and interest rates are always about 6 per cent.

It has the extensive high quality health and educational services, generous social services, which I might add are for the truly needy, especially the handicapped, and world class public transportation.

In proportion to population this country has a smallest civil service in Europe, the lowest tax rates and the smallest national budget.

Why does this country enjoy such economic and social success which is currently such a contrast to the Canadian situation? Switzerland, has a recipe for success. It is called the devolution of power. The Swiss have government of the people, by the people and for the people. What a novel idea this country, Switzerland. It is a democracy. The power is literally in the hands of the people. I rise today in support of private member's Bill C-210 which seeks to move the power to where it belongs by providing the electorate with a higher degree of involvement and responsibility within the political process. I support what may be considered the first step toward the devolution of power

in a country where for too long we have had government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians.

What have we in Canada? We have top down rule. If the system worked, we would support it but this system has produced a debt of half a trillion dollars. We are promised another hundred billion in debt over the next three years. We have a criminal justice system that does not protect society and a parole system that turns murderers and rapists back on to the streets to conduct their criminal activities over and over again. The system is simply not working and it has to be reformed.

The tendency of previous governments has been to increase their own power by employing closed door policies. Only an exclusive few, the cabinet of the federal government, influenced by special interest and lobby groups, have formed the policy making functions. Canadian citizens have been excluded from participating in the forum which decides how their daily lives will be affected.

The effective communication between citizens and their representatives has been cut off. Politicians are not accountable to their electorate on a day to day basis and rather than seeking to gain public confidence through listening and accommodating public concerns, elected officials have spent their time selling the government's programs and legislation to the people. Ottawa spends millions of dollars on advertising to convince Canadians that the policies are good. The media blitz on the GST, the Charlottetown referendum and the little known Canada buy into it scheme never amounted to anything but another waste of taxpayers' money. This would never happen in Switzerland.

I am committed to changing this autocratic means of decision making by restoring power to its rightful owners, the people.

Recall, a procedure that allows the voters to call their representatives to account before the end of their normal term, is but one step in many to putting the power back in the hands of the electorate. I do not know of any other job in Canada where a person cannot be removed from their position for improper conduct or for not doing their job, except for the positions occupied by politicians. The people of Canada must have the right to fire their hired hands.

Elected officials cannot be fired by the very people who hired them to do the job except every four or five years at election time. This leaves the impression that politicians are above the rules and regulations that govern the average Canadian worker. Allowing an elected official immunity from misconduct or incompetence is an absurdity which has added to the current level of political apathy.

Recall offers voters the chance to compel their representatives to do their jobs and to account for their actions. It offers them the opportunity to remove elected officials from their positions if they fail to measure up. We believe in the people's right to govern themselves through truly representative and responsible institutions and that the duty of elected representatives to their constituents should supersede their obligation to their political parties.

When MPs vanish into the disciplinary maw of the parliamentary hierarchies, becoming indifferent to constituents' beliefs and preferences, the electorate becomes disillusioned about the prospect for democracy.

Author William Mishler says: "Political attitudes and behaviour are learned. The political apathy and inactivity characteristic of large segments of the Canadian public are not intrinsic to man's basic nature. They are neither inevitable or immutable. The decision to participate in or abstain from politics is to a substantial degree a conditioned response to the political environment".

Our political system has bred the attitude that the government does not care what people think and that those elected to Parliament have lost touch with the people. The political environment has produced a nation of cynics who hold politicians in contempt. The Tories learned this lesson all too well during the last election.

Recall will force elected representatives to open the doors of communication with their constituents, thereby enhancing the dialogue between them, a dialogue which lies at the core of the representative process. It will also help restore mutual respect between the electorate and the politicians.

Recall would put in place the checks and balances to remove the monopoly of power held by Parliament today. Recall will be the beginning of increased citizen participation whereby representatives become responsible and accountable to those who work for them on a day to day basis rather than every four of five years at election time.

The Swiss know that if democracy is to be meaningful, it has to be a bottom up system of popular government. They are not content with mere parliamentary sovereignty like ours in which all the power is delegated to their representatives. The Swiss can force a vote on all legislation and have the power to initiate legislation.

You would never have a situation in Switzerland where, as here, 80 per cent of the people want less government spending but Parliament increases it or the people do not want to dish out money to interest groups but the government does it anyway.

The Swiss have had a system of initiative, referendum and recall since 1874 and the value of this process is seen in the results. The federal debt in Switzerland is 16.3 per cent of the GDP. Compare that to our federal debt and GDP ratio of 67.6 per cent. We have a debt of over half a trillion dollars, growing every minute of the day.

It appalls me even to mention what the overall GDP debt ratio is in this country. Our combined federal-provincial-territorial debt is 97.7 per cent of GDP. The overall Swiss debt is 36.6 per cent. Switzerland has very low taxes and an unemployment rate that never goes much above 1.5 per cent while we have one of the highest taxation rates in the world, and an unemployment rate of 10.6 per cent. If we want the same results, perhaps it is time we started giving the power back to the people.

Recall is but one step, the first step toward government of the people, by the people and for the people.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible. I would like to cover three points in the time I have left.

The intent of this bill is going in the right direction and we support the intent of this bill. There is not anyone in Canada who does not want to see the aboriginal people self-reliant and self-governing, but we believe this bill fails to bring us closer to that goal.

The first item I will deal with is the power this bill will grant the new aboriginal communities to create citizenship. A question that has not been answered in the bill or during the debate is, if they have the power to create citizenship do they not have the power to extinguish citizenship? How will that work? If they have the power to determine who will be a citizen of their new country or nation, then do they not also have the right to

extinguish citizenship? If it comes to that, how will that work? What kinds of problems will that create?

We have to look at their system of government that will be set up. What will that system of government be? Nothing in the bill indicates whether there will be an appeal process within their government. For people who believe they need to question a decision of their leaders, will there be an opportunity for them to do so through an appeal system? That question ought to be clarified in this bill so that members in this House and people across this country who support this bill will be satisfied that we are going to grant rights to these people equal to what we enjoy as Canadian citizens.

My second point has been touched upon a number of times. If this bill is going to be successful and acceptable, it must have the answer to the extinguishment of the dependency the aboriginal people have upon the taxpayers and the Government of Canada. There is no indication that there is any light at the end of the tunnel within this agreement. Contrary to that, it is very clear these new aboriginal nations will be able to continue to look to the federal government for funding. There is no indication this dependency will stop.

My last point is the one of equality of citizenship. Certainly the members of these new nations, the aboriginal people, will continue to remain citizens of Canada. This bill has created special rights and privileges in law based upon race and ethnic origin. While the rest of the world, including South Africa, is bringing barriers down between races and ethnic groups, we are in the process of erecting them. We saw this same kind of problem emerge within the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord and we are seeing it again in this umbrella agreement.

People are being granted special rights and privileges based upon race and ethnic origin. These rights and privileges are being paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, even though they do not know it, thanks to the speed at which this bill has emerged, been debated and, I venture to guess, will pass all stages of reading.

This formula of special rights cannot succeed in a multicultural society such as Canada. We must ensure that all Canadians stand equal before the law, regardless of race, language, culture or religion. This bill violates that principle. This may be the greatest failing of the Yukon First Nations agreement. It grants special rights based upon race and ethnic origin and destroys the principle of equality of citizenship in Canada.

[Petitions, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of 40 of my constituents, all from the town of Three Hills, Alberta, who wish to draw the following to the attention of members in this House. Whereas the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and whereas human life at the preborn stage is not protected in Canadian society, the petitioners ask that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings. I support this petition.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the very eloquent, warm and generous tone of the Bloc member who spoke a short time ago. I listened intently to what he had to say. As he spoke I could not help but compare what is happening in Yukon through this land agreement with what the situation would be if a similar occurrence were happening or the same situation were occurring in the province of Quebec.

I wonder what the member from the Bloc would say about that kind of an agreement if the James Bay Cree, if the Mohawks and the aboriginal people in northern Quebec had been granted huge blocks of land over which they would have complete control and an agreement that would give them the right to create their own constitution, to create their own legislative assemblies, to determine citizenship and the rights of citizens in that area, to determine laws that would deal with non-aboriginal people when they came on to that land, and the right to set up their own justice system and to administer the affairs of huge chunks of what is now the province of Quebec.

Would it be looked upon as fair to them if this agreement were centred in Quebec rather than in Yukon?

I have already in the early debate on Bill C-34 mentioned my concern in the particular area that all of these rights and entitlements contained within this document are based upon race.

Like the Indian Act that was based upon race, and they were discriminated against based upon race as the Indian Act discriminated against them and the interpretations of that act discriminated against them, this document as well is based upon race. I wonder about that. I wonder if that is wise.

They are going to have rights on the land that is designated to them. Are they going to be Canadians? I would hope they would remain Canadians. That would mean they would have rights. They would be Canadians plus.

They would have all the special rights that they would enjoy on the land area they are granted. If they moved off that land which they would be entitled to they would enjoy all the rights they and we as Canadians enjoy.

What about the rights of the non-aboriginal people who move on to those lands, whether it is to go fishing, as the hon. member from the Bloc suggested, or to set up a business or simply move in and establishing a home, a living quarters on that land? What would be their rights?

I see this bill creating a two tier system of laws within this country to the benefit of the aboriginal people or one sector of Canadian society based upon race.

I have the deepest feeling for our aboriginal people. This is going to go through. There is no question. When the treaties were signed so many years ago there was no real record, no real fleshing out of the spirit and the intent of those treaties. All we have on the one hand is what the white man recorded in the treaty and the notes and the remembrance by the aboriginal people of the intent and the spirit of those treaties.

We have been arguing about that for almost 100 years. This time around because it has been brought into this House, certainly the aspects that we have had time to examine are going to be placed upon the record. As this program goes forward and as this agreement takes effect we are going to be able to then judge whether it is has been a wise deal or not and whether the wisdom of the people of this country on both sides of the issue has been applied to this agreement. We will be able to judge the fruits born by this agreement.

Therefore, if it is a good deal it will have the support of all of us. If it fails we will be able to go back on the record and see those concerns raised by elected representatives of this country in this House.

In summing up, I say to the aboriginal people who are going to benefit from this program, God bless you and the very best to you. Surely if they take over that part of Canada they cannot do a worse job than the governments of this country have done to this country when we look at our debt, our justice system and other matters where this country has really run amok as a result of the direction of the people we have elected to this House.

I wish them the very best. I have reservations but I say God bless them and the very best to them.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could you advise me of the time that I have left?

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we had been debating prior to the break, Bill C-34, I was pointing out that the department of Indian affairs has spent $50 million creating a cottage industry around the negotiations on land claims and, of course, the inherent right to self-government. This has simply benefited the lawyers and the political leaders, while at the same time the deplorable living conditions of the individual aboriginal person have not changed one iota as a result of the expenditure of these funds.

Fifty million dollars later and the introduction of Bill C-34, we still have so many unanswered questions. Topping the list is the question: What is aboriginal self-government going to look like? Does it mean a transfer of power, or just a transfer of administrative responsibilities? Will it mean that 30, 40, 50 or 100 nations will each have their own governments, and power to pass their own constitutions, their own laws and their own citizenship status?

It is simply going to add a new layer of government to what we have now, and it is going to result in more duplication, taxes and debt.

Will the federal and provincial governments be overwhelmed by the demands of many small and inefficient governments?

How will the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply? Will they have their own constitution, their own system of justice and education? These are all things that are promised within this document. I would like to just touch for a moment on the area of the Constitution.

They are granted the right to create their own constitution. The very definition or the very words "inherent right to self-government" would indicate that the laws passed by either the federal or provincial governments will not apply to them. How in the world can we expect them to create a constitution that will direct their inherent right to self-government if that constitution is not independent of the Constitution of Canada including the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That question has not been answered by the creators of this bill.

Will non-aboriginal peoples be subjected to the powers of governments that are beyond their control? What kind of self-government rights will aboriginal people have when they are not on an aboriginal land base? Will I need a passport when entering these new territories? The questions go on and on.

I feel that I cannot support this bill, although I support, as many of my colleagues do, the direction in which this bill goes. However the questions that we have raised in this debate so far have not been addressed. Before this bill can be supported we must make sure that we know exactly where we are going with the bill, the rights and obligations attached to this bill and the responsibilities of not only the two senior levels of government but also the responsibilities of this new form of government that we will be forming.