Sarmite Bulte

[Women In The Workforce, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the message is clear. Women are gaining ground in the workforce. Statistics show that since 1980 the number of women in the workforce has increased, their job tenure is longer and their salaries have risen.

The main reason for this change is that women are becoming better educated. More than ever, education is a prerequisite for success in the workplace.

Recent statistics show that the gap between men and women is closing, even in the upper ranks of corporate Canada. While the glass ceiling is still there, it is more permeable than ever. It is not unusual to see women in executive roles. Today, over 700,000 businesses are owned by women.

Through education, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a change in society's attitude, women are aspiring to and achieving greater career heights.

To all young Canadian women, especially to my daughter, Lara Treiber, and her classmates from Bishop Strachan School, “I encourage you to make the most of your education and soar to great heights in whatever career path you may choose”.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-79, an act which amends the Criminal Code to enhance the protection and participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

As the Minister of Justice stated last week when she tabled the bill, these amendments will strengthen the voice of victims of crime in the criminal justice system and increase resources for provincial and territorial governments to provide services directly to the victims of crime.

It is also important to note that these amendments to the Criminal Code respond to the unanimous recommendations of the all-party report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I take this opportunity to commend the members of the standing committee for their work and their recommendations. The report is entitled “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. The title of the standing committee report is important as it embodies the spirit and intent of these amendments.

The victim of a crime has the right to be informed and to be heard. These amendments provide the victim with a stronger voice, but there is nothing in the legislation that limits the rights of the accused.

Victim advocacy groups have been encouraging the government to ensure that the views and concerns of victims are considered especially on decisions that will impact on their safety, security and privacy. The government's commitment to respond to the concerns of victims of crimes is embodied in this legislation.

The preamble to Bill C-79 is unequivocally clear on this commitment. The preamble is very comprehensive. It addresses why this legislation is necessary, how the government is improving the criminal justice system and encourages greater participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

I draw attention to two specific paragraphs of the preamble which embody the government's commitment to the victims of crimes and their concerns.

Paragraph 4 of the preamble states:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada supports the principle that victims of and witnesses to offences should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system, and should suffer the least amount of inconvenience necessary as a result of their involvement in the criminal justice system.

Paragraph 5 of the preamble goes on to state:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada, while recognizing that the Crown is responsible for the prosecution of offences, is of the opinion that the views and concerns of the victims should be considered in accordance with prevailing criminal law and procedure, particularly with respect to the decisions that may have an impact on their safety, security or privacy.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to state that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

It is clear from the preamble that the amendments proposed to the Criminal Code need to reconcile the rights of victims and witnesses with the rights of the accused but at the same time ensure that victims and witnesses are treated with courtesy, compassion and respect.

While there are a number of amendments included in Bill C-79 to enhance the protection and participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, I would specifically like to highlight two provisions. First, I will talk about the victim surcharge on offenders.

The amendments include changes to the victim surcharge imposed on offenders. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected by the provincial and territorial governments and used to provide programs, services and assistance to the victims of crimes within their jurisdiction.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-79 would: would make the victim surcharge automatic to ensure that it is applied consistently to all offenders; and change the amendments to the surcharge to provide mandatory minimum amounts. Under Bill C-79, the surcharge amounts will be: 15% of any fine imposed on the offender; if no fine is imposed, $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and $100 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment; or, an increased surcharge at the discretion of the judge in the appropriate circumstances.

The victim surcharge revenue will continue to remain in the jurisdiction within which it is collected. These amendments would significantly increase the revenue available for victim programs and services in all provinces and territories. It would be administered by the provinces and territories.

The constituents in my riding, led by a wonderful organization known as Parkdale Community Watch, have always urged me to support the passing of legislation that requires moneys to be reinvested into those communities and individuals affected by crime. This legislation is certainly an important step toward addressing their concerns.

The second amendment I will address is the victim impact statements. I highlight this because it is very important. Victim impact statements have an incredible role to play. A victim impact statement is a written statement prepared by the victim and considered by the court at the time of the sentencing of an offender. It allows victims to participate in the proceedings by describing the impact of the crime on them and on their families.

Proposed amendments under the legislation would ensure that the victim is permitted to read an impact statement at the time of sentencing if he or she wishes to do so. Under the present legislation, a judge is required to consider the written statement but allowing the victim to read it remains discretionary. Under the amendments, the judge will be required to ask before imposing the sentence whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare such a victim impact statement. The proposed amendments would authorize adjournment to permit a victim to prepare a statement or submit other evidence to the court about the impact of the crime on himself or herself and his or her family.

The amendments would further require that victim impact statements be considered by courts and review boards following a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Lastly, the amendments clarify that at proceedings to determine whether an offender sentenced to life in prison should have his or her parole eligibility reduced, the information provided by the victim may be oral or written. At present, the Criminal Code provides that any information provided by the victim will be considered. However, in practice some victims have actually been discouraged from making an oral statement.

Bill C-79 is just one of the proposals which is part of an overall government strategy to respond to the victims of crime.

Last month the Minister of Justice tabled the youth criminal justice act which also recognized in its principles the important role of victims in the youth justice system and their need for information. In addition, the youth criminal justice act acknowledged the important role played by communities toward combating crime in the community.

The creation of a policy centre for victims of crime announced in December by the Minister of Justice is a key element of the strategy to respond to the needs of victims of crime. The policy centre will ensure that all federal policies and legislation take into consideration the views of these victims of crime. The new victims policy centre will manage, co-ordinate and enhance all federal initiatives relating to victims and become a centre of expertise on emerging national and international trends in victim advocacy, legislation and services.

Last week when the minister tabled Bill C-79, she stated:

These measures are important steps forward to reform the way the criminal justice system treats victims. But our work is not over. Through our new victims policy centre, we will ensure that the victim's perspective will always be considered in the development of any future legislation.

While I certainly applaud the minister on the amendments to the Criminal Code embodied in Bill C-79, I must also comment on her statement that our work is not over and use this as an opportunity to present my constituents' concerns again, as voiced by Parkdale Community Watch, as to what we should examine in the future.

My constituents feel that in future we must continue to involve our communities to a greater degree, along with individual victims of crime. While Bill C-79 is the first step to ensuring that an individual victim is permitted to read an impact statement at the time of sentencing, I also believe that we should examine the possibility of giving communities the opportunity to read a community impact statement at the time of sentencing. The value of community impact statements must be acknowledged, particularly in cases of alleged victimless crimes such as drugs and prostitution where the impact on the community is significant.

I would like to confirm my support for Bill C-79. It is truly an important step in reforming the way the criminal justice system treats its victims, but most important, it shows that the government has not only listened to the victims and their advocacy groups but it has also proceeded to address their concerns.

[The Junction, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the city of Toronto, Toronto Hydro and the West Toronto Junction team, who, in partnership with Human Resources Development Canada, are working toward the revival of the area in my riding known as the Junction, which at one time was the heart of the West Toronto village.

In the largest underground project undertaken in its 88 year history, Toronto Hydro will invest $19 million to take down hydro poles, overhead wires and transformers and will replace them with new street lights, underground cable and transformers. Once completed, the West Toronto Junction team and the city of Toronto will undertake a major streetscape improvement program. The federal government has to date contributed $100,000 toward rebuilding the local labour partnerships.

On April 9th, the groundbreaking ceremony took place and we are now one step closer to the dream of restoring this neighbourhood, making it a vibrant, healthy and prosperous place to live and work.

I would congratulate the West Toronto Junction team, the city of Toronto and Toronto Hydro for their initiative in reviving this important historic neighbourhood.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the parliamentary visit of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which took place from February 14 to 20 in Barbados.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, before I start my speech this evening I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough.

I rise this evening at this late hour to support Canada's involvement in Kosovo to stop the systematic campaign of terror being perpetrated and led by Slobodan Milosevic against the innocent civilians of Kosovo.

First and foremost I thank our Canadian fighter pilots and the peacekeeping troops for putting their lives on the line to carry out their missions against Yugoslav military and security forces with skill and courage. All Canadians can be proud of their performance.

Almost three weeks ago NATO commenced its operation allied force. I submit that it had no further option when it did so. As Canadians and members of the international community we could no longer stand by and tolerate the actions of a government which denied the most basic rights to its people, sending tanks, troops and artillery to destroy villages, barbarically taking the lives of innocent civilians, and forcing hundreds of thousands of people including women and children out of their homes.

We have witnessed the pillage and agony too vividly for almost a decade. The actions of President Milosevic and his authorities constitute the last horrendous crime of this century. The crimes continue to be perpetrated. This weekend we again heard of reports of alleged rapes. We have seen aerial views of alleged massive grave sites.

Enough is enough. Genocide and ethnic cleansing cannot and will not be tolerated any longer.

That is the message that operation allied force is sending to President Milosevic, the Serbian government and the people who stand up and support those policies and, in some instances, carry them out. That is also the message that we, as Canadians and members of NATO, must unanimously reaffirm tonight. I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to do so.

Over the last week questions have arisen in the media as to why Canada, which has an international reputation for peacekeeping, is so deeply involved in the attack on Milosevic's forces. Why is Canada dropping bombs instead of pursuing peace?

Let it be absolutely clear that Canada's strongest preference remains a negotiated settlement to the crisis based on the Rambouillet agreement.

I also believe that Canada's participation in NATO is not a brand new direction in Canada's foreign policy. Our participation in the NATO air strikes is based on furthering Canada's human security issues agenda, the very same agenda on which Canada campaigned for a seat on the United Nations security council.

Human security is a concept which responds to the changing nature of conflict in the late 20th century where wars are increasingly fought within, not between states. New strategies are needed for addressing today's civil conflicts not only because of the threat that they pose to international peace and security, but because of the toll in civilian suffering that they extract.

Human security extends beyond the traditional security paradigm centred on conflict resolution between states by addressing such issues as poverty, refugees, human rights, governance and the rule of law, and other cross-cutting issues such as transnational crime, terrorism and environmental degradation. The land mines campaign and the follow up is an example of successful international action to tackle a key human security concern.

Last week our Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered an address to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Relations at Princeton, New Jersey, wherein he confirmed that our government's decision to send Canadian pilots to war was based on our policy of furthering and protecting human security. In his speech he stated:

If Kosovo symbolizes how human security has become a focus of attention and concern for the international community, NATO's response demonstrates how the defence of human security has become a force for global action.

NATO is engaged in Kosovo to restore human security to the Kosovars. It was and is the humanitarian imperative that has galvanized the alliance to act.

Critics state that the proper way to resolve this issue was through the United Nations and that Canada with a seat at the security council had a duty to ensure that the resolution to this crisis took place at the security council.

The fact is that the United Nations security council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN charter, issued crucial resolutions that identified the conflict in Kosovo as a threat to peace and security in the regions. In fact, Resolutions 1199 and 1203 and the October agreements between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and NATO imposed a clear obligation on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to respect a ceasefire, protect the civilian population and limit the deployment of its security forces in Kosovo. Yet the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia breached all of its obligations under the United Nations security council resolutions and under the Belgrade agreements of October 1998.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was intransigent and all efforts to reach a negotiated settlement were rendered futile.

There is no doubt that Canada would have preferred the United Nations security council to explicitly authorize NATO's mission and Canada worked hard to encourage the council to pass such a resolution. However, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated last week, “certain members of the council would not reconcile yesterday's assumptions about sovereignty with today's imperatives of human emergency”.

I believe as the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that the notion of human security has transcended classic notions of the nation state and sovereignty.

Critics who believe that NATO has no legal right to attack a sovereign state are overly simplistic in their analysis. While Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on April 4, 1949 defined the case of the alliance as a collective defence against armed attack, the nationalisms of the Balkans and the Caucuses that helped spark World War I became resurgent.

This produced non-Article 5 missions such as the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. As Craig R. Whitney wrote in Sunday's New York Times , “the war is teaching NATO what its role is”. Mr. Whitney noted:

Like it or not, the role of NATO is being defined in practice in Kosovo, not on paper in Washington.

The role right now is that of a bulwark against the consequences of ethnic instability in Europe's southeastern rim. For that, much more than Russian nuclear bombs, is today the biggest threat to European security as it was a century ago.

Mr. Whitney goes on to note:

—if NATO cannot defeat the effort of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia to drive the ethnic Albanian population out of the ancient Serbian province of Kosovo, the alliance risks going the way of the League of Nations and other failed 20th century attempts to deal with the same ethnic instability.

As Canada and other leaders of NATO meet in Washington next week to celebrate NATO's 50th anniversary, it will also be a time to discuss and chart a new strategic concept as it defines its role in the 21st century.

I hope the concept of the missions of human rights and human security are first and foremost on the NATO leaders' agenda. This is also an issue in which Canada can play a lead role at the United Nations security council; by working toward a universal set of conditions and limits for actions in favour of human security.

Last week, when addressing the criticism about Canada's role in NATO and its unprecedented interference with state sovereignty, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated as follows:

It is curious that far from weakening state sovereignty, action to support human security—to the extent that it supports democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights—can serve to reinforce stability. Similarly, the very same countries that argue against humanitarian intervention on the basis of sovereignty are the most anxious to join trade and commercial organizations, which by their nature involve creating a certain amount of international control. It is hard to understand why it is acceptable to sacrifice sovereignty for economic interests, but not in the human interest.

Last but not least, let us send a very strong message today from the House of commons to President Milosevic and his authorities that Canada, along with its NATO allies, is determined that Kosovo's two million people should be left in peace to govern themselves under international protection.

If we do not prevail more atrocities will undoubtedly unfold. As we approach the next millennium, we in the international community have a duty to ensure that the human atrocities that we have watched over the last 10 years cease and desist immediately. As we enter the new millennium we must also ensure that these atrocities never happen again.

[Toronto Lodge 1600, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 19, I had the honour of attending the grand opening of Toronto Lodge No. 1600 of the Loyal Order of Moose. Toronto Lodge 1600 has been in existence for 84 years but this occasion marked the first time that the lodge has owned its own building.

During the evening's festivities, certificates were presented to those members of the community who helped make this grand opening possible. The following people and organizations were honoured for their contributions: Torbram Electric, Lawrence Cohen, Tom Campagnolo Construction, Trevor Gabb, Canada Cartage, Mike Mastrotucci, Al McWhirter, Larry Huard, Ken McCalla, Innovative Securities, Vera-Ann Kalbol and Dennis Packer of Unistar Communications.

Organizations such as the Toronto lodge have made community service a cornerstore of their every day life. They are hard at work giving their time and effort to make our community a better place to live by supporting both local and international charitable organizations and programs.

I offer my congratulations to all members of the Toronto Lodge No. 1600 of the Loyal Order of Moose. I welcome them to the riding of Parkdale—High Park.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would submit it is trite to say that I believe in democracy. I believe that the atrocities that are happening in the Balkans must stop.

As a private citizen, for years I watched on TV what was happening in Bosnia. I would ask my children, my friends and my family why the government was not doing anything to stop the atrocities. I wondered why had we not stopped them before.

I am proud to be sitting in this House and to be a member of a government that has decided to be part of an alliance to do everything possible, based on the tools and resources available, to safeguard the lives of the Canadian peacekeepers who are over there and to stand up to a monster like Milosevic.

I will stand in here and defend the government for whatever it feels it has to do to stop monsters like Milosevic from doing what they are doing in the Balkans and anywhere else in the world.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I am not an expert in international law. I thank him for quoting the preamble to the charter for the United Nations.

Before I answer his last question, it is imperative to remember that the United Nations did pass two resolutions, especially 1199, which stated that Kosovo was in a state of crisis. I believe it was the hon. member who told me why we are not using the United Nations. It was because of the veto powers of both China and Russia that we could not use the United Nations fully.

In answer to the member, yes, we absolutely should use the international war crimes court. I am not an authority on who should be brought to justice at this time, but if war atrocities are committed, Canada, as a leader in the international community of peacekeepers and as defenders of human security issues, should do whatever is possible and right to bring these people to justice as soon as possible. We have seen these atrocities on television and over the last 10 years in the Balkans. We should make sure these atrocities never occur either in the Balkans or anywhere else in the world.

[Canadian Women In Communications, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Women in Communications, a national organization supporting the progress of women in the communications and telecommunications industries, recently held their annual awards gala in Ottawa.

Today I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate three individuals who were honoured at this year's gala.

The CWC employer of the year award went to Rogers Broadcasting Limited. The CWC woman of the year is Phyllis Yaffe, president and CEO of Showcase and History Television. Mentor of the year honours went to Suzanne Boyce, senior vice-president of programming at CTV Inc.

Finally, congratulations to Dr. Veena Rawat, Deputy Director General, Spectrum Engineering, Industry Canada, who was awarded the CWC Trailblazer of the year award.

I would like to congratulate the CWC for its exceptional work in advancing the role of women and recognizing these great achievers. Canada's entire communications industry continues to benefit from their efforts.

[Bell United Way, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate three students from my riding of Parkdale—High Park who have been chosen to participate as allocation and advisory panellists for the 1998-99 Bell United Way program.

Aidan Black-Allen, a grade 8 student at Runnymede Junior/Senior Public School, Kit Fairgrieve, a grade 12 student at Humberside Collegiate, and Ailen Pavumo, an OAC student at Parkdale Collegiate, have been selected to serve as advisers on program operations, reviews and the allocating of funds for project applications as well as assisting with program promotion and public relations.

These three students serve as role models for their peers as they give their time to worthy causes and agencies. Their involvement with the United Way has enabled them to gain solid experience in teamwork, decision making, leadership, organizational and communication skills.

The devotion, support and participation demonstrated by Aidan, Kit and Ailen are very much appreciated by both the United Way and our community. Congratulations and keep up the good work.