Gordon Kirkby

[Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few quick words dealing with the concerns in the amendments brought forward by members from the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

The answer as to why the issue of custody and access as raised by the Reform Party is not being dealt with at this time is very quick and simple. Maintenance and enforcement of maintenance orders is a separate and distinct issue from that of custody and access. There are no experts within the land who would suggest a linkage of the two issues.

The work done on maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance has been completed and legislation has been drafted. The legislation has been brought forward. At this time work is ongoing on the issue of custody and access. When the work is completed, when our provincial counterparts have been consulted and the consultations are complete and the legislation dealing with custody and access is drafted, it will be brought forward.

With respect to the amendments that have been brought forward by the Reform Party, we must consider the problems the government was seeking to deal with and to cure by bringing forward this bill. We are dealing with a system of maintenance enforcement that is in excess of 50 years old. Certainly after that time and the amount of experience we have had with these provisions, we should be able to see what the problems are with the type of legislation that has existed.

It does not take very much observation to note that real problems exist with the present legislation. For instance, saying that people ask for their day in court is not really accurate. When people are dealing with divorce proceedings, they may be asking for their years in court.

Part of the problem the government is seeking to solve is to bring forward legislation that will reduce the amount of conflict through the court system by creating a system that brings greater certainty as a result, that is, by introducing tables. When there are tables there are fewer things for the litigant parties to be fighting over. It will reduce some of the litigation and tension that goes along with divorce. That is one of the things we seek to reduce.

In addition, if we look at the court decisions within provincial jurisdictions themselves and across the nation, support payments are varied. There is little consistency to them. That is another thing. By bringing forward the guidelines and asking the courts to look at the guidelines first and foremost, we would seek to reduce this disparity of award.

What is very important in this is that over the years we have seen who suffers when divorce happens. It is the custodial parent and the children. In many cases it is usually the mother and the children who are forced to live in poverty. The government and the Minister of Justice believe that women and children should not be forced to live in poverty.

The children should be the last parties who suffer when divorce unfortunately occurs. We must do our best to ensure that this country's children, our future, our hope for a brighter future, do not live in poverty and suffer the indignities, misfortunes and

unfair results of poverty that they have in the past. This is another thing the government is doing to alleviate those problems.

What does the Reform Party seek to do by its amendments? It seeks to put all this uncertainty back into the system. All of their amendments seek to reintroduce the concept of the needs of the child and the ability of the payer to pay. It is opening up the whole range of present options.

We have seen what the problems are with the present range of options, the inconsistency of the awards, the low quantum of awards which forces many of our young people and custodial parents, mostly women, to live in poverty. This is not acceptable in this country. That is why the federal government is bringing forward these guidelines to alleviate that problem.

I will deal with the concerns brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois. We hear the usual rhetoric about the paternalistic federal government imposing its will. Let us look at the facts. This is an area of federal jurisdiction from beginning to end. It is not an area of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government certainly not only has the right but the obligation to put forward legislation within its areas of jurisdiction.

This federal government in general and the Minister of Justice in particular are very concerned about ensuring that this legislation shows great regional sensitivity. If we look at the guidelines, they vary from province to province based on certain differences that exist within the provinces. That in and of itself shows the sensitivity and understanding of the central government to ensure that regional variations are taken into account.

In addition to that, under certain circumstances and in certain cases the provincial guidelines may be accepted. Where there is an area of federal jurisdiction there does need to be by law a degree of federal control over the ultimate applicability of the provisions. Again the Minister of Justice has gone a step further in acknowledging that where appropriate, provincial guidelines may be allowed in the field.

The government has made progress in many, many areas allowing the provincial governments to assume their rightful jurisdiction in many instances, to involve greater consultation even in areas of complete federal jurisdiction. The government has ensured that when it enacts legislation, its provincial partners are consulted. This legislation is no different. First, it very distinctly recognizes regional differences and second, in appropriate cases allows the possibility that regional guidelines may be accepted.

That is very important and it is what this country is all about. It is all about working together and doing things that make sense. It is not about saying that one party whether it is a province or the federal government just because one or the other is doing it makes sense. That road leads absolutely nowhere.

Ideology about who can do the job better is not helpful. Each of these issues must be decided on a case by case basis in dealing with a particular issue and particular circumstances which could be brought to bear on it. The government is doing an excellent job to ensure that we do have regional sensitivity.

In wrapping up, I would say that those issues brought forward by the Reform Party only lead once again to the possibility that the children of this nation and the custodial parents, mostly women, will be left in a state of poverty. Those are the very problems this legislation seeks to cure.

[The Late Mervin Goodeagle, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a young man. Nineteen year old Mervin Goodeagle committed suicide in a community in my riding. Mr. Goodeagle touched the hearts of many Canadians as Joey on the popular CBC series "North of 60".

Many will feel the pain of this tragedy; the death of a person so young and with such potential is hard to accept. This type of occurrence is not unusual in my riding. It occurs all too often.

This tragedy compels us all, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to work together to heal the hurt within our society that results in such tragic consequences for our young people. In all that we say and all that we do, let us bring dignity and self-respect to all people. Our words and actions can help or hurt. Let us always make the choice for reconciliation and compassion.

I am sure hon. members will join with me in extending heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mervin Goodeagle. Our thoughts and our prayers will be with them during this difficult time.

[An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-297 to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel.

In discussing the merits of this bill, there is one thing to which we can all agree, and that is the important contribution made by Louis Riel to the building of this great nation.

Louis Riel played a key role and was an important contributor to Confederation. Louis Riel had a vision for this country over 100 years ago. He was a man of action, a man who looked to the future. If Mr. Riel were with us today he would say: "Let us look to the future. Let us build a society where the Metis people can take their rightful place in society, standing shoulder to shoulder with all

others". He would be urging us to focus our energies on finding solutions to our present day problems and building for a better future.

With that in mind, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about what the federal government is doing today to advance the interests of Metis and off reserve aboriginal people. As many members are aware, the Minister of Natural Resources fulfils the role of federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status Indians in addition to her other ministerial duties. In that role the minister acts as a point of first contact and where necessary as a facilitator between Metis and non-status Indians and the appropriate federal ministers and departments.

In addition to that role, she oversees the federal government's participation in the tripartite self-government process, which is the forum being used to negotiate self-government with Metis and off reserve aboriginal groups within the context of the Canadian Constitution.

As many members are aware, on August 10, 1995 the federal government announced its approach to the implementation of the inherent right and the negotiation of self-government for aboriginal people, including Metis and off reserve aboriginal people. The federal approach contemplates various practical ways of implementing self-government for Metis and off reserve aboriginal people, including the development of self-government institutions providing services, the devolution of programs and services and forms of public government all responsive to the needs of the Metis and of off reserve aboriginal people.

The federal approach has provided a stronger mandate for the tripartite self-government process which will allow for progress to be made on the implementation of self-government.

In that regard, I note that self-government processes are currently under way in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. There have also been some preliminary discussions on the possibility of beginning an urban self-government process in Winnipeg.

As part of the self-government framework announced last August, the federal government also committed to cost share with the provinces the enumeration of Metis and the identification of Indian people living off a land base or off reserve. Since the announcement of the federal approach the federal government has participated in and cost shared the development of a proposal for a Metis enumeration along with the province of Saskatchewan and the Metis Society of Saskatchewan.

I understand the federal government is prepared to cost share this enumeration. Enumeration is very important as the information provided by an enumeration would prove very valuable in the implementation of self-government for Metis and off reserve aboriginal people.

Before closing, I would like to mention one more important program through which the federal government works with Metis groups in an effort to meet their objectives. For the past several years the federal government has participated in bilateral processes respectively with the Metis National Council and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Like the tripartite self-government process, the bilateral process is also managed from the federal perspective by the Minister for Natural Resources.

The bilateral processes provide a forum for the congress and the council to discuss issues of utmost importance to them in their relationship with federal departments. The bilateral processes generally focus on issues such as self-government, access to program funding and the devolution of programs and services.

In closing, I would like to return to my initial comments about Louis Riel, about the kind of man he was and what he would do in our situation. I believe he would urge us to keep our focus on the future and to continue to build on these self-government initiatives which I have just described.

Louis Riel was a builder, within his community, within his province, within the nation of Canada. Indeed, Louis Riel was a member of Parliament, a man publicly commended by the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba for his assistance to Canada in repelling an American invasion. He was working to build a society where his people could contribute to the important decisions that confront us all in building a better future.

The federal approach to self-government, which I outlined earlier in my speech, of working together with the Metis people and off reserve aboriginal people will finally begin to finish the task that Riel began many years ago.

For many years within society walls have divided the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. When we look back in history we see the efforts of Louis Riel and others to tear down those walls and create a society where all people, regardless of race, religion or language worked together to build a great nation.

Today we must remember that legacy and take that message to heart as we continue to build this nation. We must continue with the Canadian values of tolerance, justice, fairness, working together, sharing and generosity to all people. Canada is big enough for all people regardless of the differences. By working together and seeking to understand the tragedies of the past, the divisions that exist will be avoided. We will be able to begin the process of

tearing down the walls and building an inclusive society where all people can feel fully and properly a part of that society.

The federal and provincial governments together with all people within the nation working together will be able to build this great society, a society that Louis Riel had in mind, the society that he fought hard to protect, a society that he wanted to see, a society where all of us could live in shared dignity and mutual respect.

Let us not forget the work of Louis Riel. Let us not forget his vision. Let us not forget the work he did to bring this about. Let us never let go of the dream of a country where Canadian values will be first and foremost in all of our minds. Let us, in all we say and do, honour the memory of a very courageous man, a leader and a true Canadian.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1996 the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing questioned the Minister of Justice in the House about the section 690 of the Criminal Code application of Mr. Patrick Kelly.

Section 690 of the Criminal Code provides a person convicted of an indictable offence with a last chance to correct a wrongful conviction. It authorizes the minister to grant a new trial or if circumstances warrant, the ordering of an appeal if the circumstances warrant.

The section 690 procedure allows for ministerial review of cases where, for example, new evidence or information provides a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred in the conviction of the applicant. This section gives the Minister of Justice important powers so that each application is reviewed very conscientiously and thoroughly.

The hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has expressed concern at the department's handling of this application. Mr. Kelly's application has some extraordinary features. One of them relates to the request by the applicant's counsel for all the information gathered during the investigation and not merely a summary of it. An investigation brief only provides a summary of the relevant information and in this case, indeed, the department acceded to the counsel's request and provided the relevant information. Therefore there is no need to provide a summary of the same information.

On July 16, 1996 Mr. Kelly, by his counsel, submitted comments and additional materials which exceeded 500 pages. These submissions have been reviewed by department officials who have recently referred the application and the submissions to the Minister of Justice for his review.

In the circumstances, since the applicant has received the relevant information that was gathered, there is no need to provide a summary of the same information.

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that will make an important contribution to the safety of our communities. The high risk offender bill responds to a problem that Canadians have told us is their priority concern in the criminal justice area, namely the threat they perceive from sex offenders and other violent offenders.

In effect, Bill C-55 lays out a new sentencing regime for the worst categories of offenders. It changes and fortifies several parts of the Criminal Code and I invite members to give close attention to these amendments, particularly to the amendments that have potential to help the police, the prosecutors, judges and correctional authorities to do their jobs better.

These amendments improve the dangerous offender procedure of part XXIV of the Criminal Code, create a new long term offender sentencing category targeted at sex offenders, and establish a new form of judicial restraint order that will place controls on persons who clearly pose a threat to the security of our communities.

The Minister of Justice has held the portfolio for three years. He recognizes the passions and fears that the issue of crime inspires in many Canadians. The government has acknowledged the challenge of violent crime in the first speech from the throne. Since then the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have worked steadily to develop effective anti-crime legislation.

The government has sought the views of all Canadians in this process. The Minister of Justice has tried to meet as many Canadians as possible to obtain their insights into community safety and how to ensure it. He has frequently met with victims groups, police groups and crime prevention committees.

He has discovered that Canadians want the justice system to be more focused as far as violent crime is concerned. They want to see tough measures applied to high risk offenders but the more he consults, the more he hears that people do not want simplistic solutions.

Whether talking about crime prevention, policing, sentencing or parole, Canadians expect governments to devise well crafted well focused laws that really home in on the categories or sub-categories of offenders who commit serious crimes of personal violence.

Let me turn to the proposal for a long term offender sentencing category because it is central to the package and exemplifies what I believe is a well tailored and well focused strategy.

The new long term offender procedure would be created in the Criminal Code to help us in the sentencing of repeat sex offenders. I am referring to pedophiles, the various levels of sexual assault, sexual touching, sexual exploitation, exposure and sexual interference. These are offences which may involved children or adults as victims. These are offenders who, unfortunately, frequently show a long pattern of offending.

Under the new procedure, when the prosecution identifies such repeat offending, it can make an application for a special hearing into the risks posed by the persons found guilty under these sections of the Criminal Code. Where the court finds that there is a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a likelihood of the offender causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage, it can declare him or her to be a long term offender.

The judge will then impose a penitentiary sentence-in effect the normal sentence for the sex crime in question-but also make an order which can add up to 10 years of intensive community supervision. This long term supervision period begins only when the long term offender has finished the full prison sentence, including parole and any other period of conditional release.

Thus, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault might receive a sentence of eight years imprisonment with an added ten years of supervision. Eight years from now, after completing the full sentence of imprisonment and any parole time, the offender would begin 10 years of supervision. The National Parole Board would set whatever conditions were necessary. These could involve very intensive rules for the offender, controlling his conduct, his use of alcohol, his access to places where children congregate and so forth. A requirement to report to a Correctional Service of Canada supervisor as often as is deemed necessary could also be made a condition.

We are giving teeth to this supervision system. We propose a new Criminal Code offence of breach of an order of long term supervision. This is an indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. A charge can be laid whenever a long term offender without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to comply with the order. These new sentencing tools will extend the authority of the criminal justice system to monitor and control sex offenders.

I want to take a moment to clarify the relationship between the long term offender category and the dangerous offender procedure. The question will be raised, should not the dangerous offender procedure, which carries an indeterminate sentence, be applied to all these sex offenders? The short answer is that it often will be. Most of the sex offences in the long term offender category, such as sexual assault, can equally support a dangerous offender application.

The solicitor general, a colleague of the Minister of Justice, released a research study in May which showed that 92 per cent of the successful dangerous offender applications involved sex offences. Dangerous offender and long term offender sentencing are complementary but they are not necessarily redundant.

Over the past 20 years dangerous offender rulings averaged 13 to 15 offenders annually. However, several hundred sex offenders are admitted to federal penitentiaries each year. Some may be potential dangerous offender candidates but many more, though certainly not all, could be candidates for the long term offender application. The difference is, in the assessment of risk in a long term offender case, the court must find not only that there is a substantial risk of reoffending but at the same time there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of that risk through community supervision.

As I have described, the judge will then structure the sentence with the appropriate combination of penitentiary time and the community supervision order. In effect, prosecutors will have flexibility in seeking a dangerous offender finding or a long term offender finding.

When a conviction for a serious sex offence occurs the crown can ask the court to remand the offender for a detailed assessment of the nature and degree of risk posed by that individual. The crown can then decide which way to go, dangerous offender application or a long term offender application.

Actually Bill C-55 provides that if the court does not find that the criteria for a dangerous offender finding are satisfied it can still make a long term offender finding and sentence the offender accordingly.

Some will ask why we are not simply increasing the prison periods for all sex offenders. We are calling this the high risk offender bill, not the throw away the key bill. The Criminal Code already provides for lengthy sentences for sex offences. For example, sexual assault causing bodily harm carries a maximum of 14 years.

Our goal is not simply to lock up every sex offender indefinitely although, as noted, an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence remains an option in some cases. Our goal is to reduce the risk posed by this special group of offenders. The reality is most offenders will eventually return to the community having served their time. Community safety is not assured by the sudden release of offenders from a prison environment.

We need to control sex offenders through a combination of jail time and managed reintegration. A long term supervision order

can result in an effective doubling of the period that a sex offender remains under the control of the state, the control of Correctional Service Canada.

I share the concern of Canadians about recidivism by pedophiles and other sex offenders. Now we will be able to structure the sentence, closely monitor the conduct of the long term offender and provide the support the offender needs to successfully readapt to the community.

I am sure figures will be thrown at me showing that pedophiles remain an ongoing risk, that the risk of reoffending is still there even after several years. Do not forget that long term offender procedure includes enforceable conditions. Any breach of the conditions of a long term supervision order can result in the offender's being immediately brought back into custody and if serious enough lead to the prosecution for a newly created offence of breach of an order.

On the other hand, it seems that full compliance over a 10 year period with the potentially stringent conditions of a long term supervision order will be a good indication of a reduced risk of reoffending.

I have mentioned the dangerous offender procedure several times. We are introducing amendments to improve part XXIV of the Criminal Code without changing the essential elements of the system which the Supreme Court of Canada has described as a valid form of sentencing. It will no longer be possible for the court to hand down a fixed sentence to a dangerous offender. An indeterminate sentence will be the only option. Of the 176 dangerous offenders to date only 7 have received a determinate or fixed sentence.

Nevertheless, we believe that it makes little sense for the courts and the prosecution to go through the extensive dangerous offender procedure only to obtain a fixed sentence that might be close to what the offender would have received in ordinary circumstances. The core of the dangerous offender finding is that the individuals represent an ongoing risk, the limits of which cannot easily be predicted.

An indeterminate sentence is the appropriate one. Currently a dangerous offender gets an initial parole review at the third year point; that is, three years after being taken into custody. We propose to move the initial parole review date from the third year to the seventh year. Subsequent parole reviews would occur every two years thereafter.

We feel this change is justified by the fact that dangerous offenders present a very high level of risk to the public and that risk is not likely to soon abate. In fact, no dangerous offender has obtained parole on the first review.

The Minister of Justice discussed the dangerous offender procedure on several occasions with the ministers of justice and attorneys general of the provinces. After all, it is the provinces that are to be making the prosecutorial decisions in these cases. The minister's provincial colleagues unanimously agree that part XXIV is a useful mechanism and there are signs that dangerous offender applications are being used more frequently across the country.

The dangerous offender procedure requires the prosecution to meet a high standard of proof, proof of a pattern of offending, of brutality and of risk. This is as it should be given that the sentence provided is the most serious of any in the Criminal Code with the exception of life sentences for murder.

The prosecution should be able to gather the necessary evidence at the time of trial and conviction. There may be rare exceptions, however, where the crown believes that additional information not available at the time of trial may exist to support a dangerous offender application.

Bill C-55 will allow the prosecution to bring an application within six months of conviction in respect of convictions for serious personal injury offences.

I would emphasize that this is a very limited window of opportunity for the crown. The prosecution must give notice at the time of conviction of its intention to apply and must actually do so within six months. Furthermore it must show that relevant evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the imposition of the sentence became available in the interim.

There is a third pillar to this legislation, one that I believe will strengthen the community policing capacity of our police forces across this nation. This bill proposes a new form of judicial restraint order in the Criminal Code to become section 810.2. This comes within the part of the code entitled "Sureties to Keep the Peace".

The Canadian legal system has always provided for various forms of restraining orders, both common law and within the Criminal Code. In 1993 this House adopted a special form of judicial restraint order contained in section 810.1. It allows the court to impose an order where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a person will commit a sex offence against someone under the age of 14 years. The order can last up to a year. Conditions can be attached to the order and a breach of conditions constitutes a distinct offence.

The potential victim need not be named, nor does the section explicitly require that the person be a convicted child sex offender. Police forces and provincial prosecutors report the law is proving useful. It is frequently used in Ontario and Manitoba, and successively used.

The proposed new judicial restraint order, let us call it a section 810.2 order, has been modelled on the existing section 810.1 which I have just described.

The order would apply for up to 12 months and would include conditions. It would be used where there are reasonable grounds to fear the commission of a serious personal injury offence. The focus therefore is on serious sex offences and other serious crimes of violence. The persons potentially at risk need not be under the age of 14, although they could be.

Section 810.2 allows the judge to set conditions with the overall objective of securing the good conduct of the defendant. In addition, Bill C-55 will specify that the judge can order the person to report to a provincial correctional authority, an appropriate police authority or to comply with a program of electronic monitoring provided that such a program is available in the place where the person resides.

I do not claim that this provision will be a panacea to the problem of individuals who pose a risk to neighbourhood safety. Rather, it is a crime prevention measure that will assist police and prosecutors to do their difficult jobs in a better fashion.

We are building on the initial promise of the existing section 810.1 provision by establishing a limited form of judicial restraint where it is clearly established that a risk of committing a serious personal injury offence is present.

I will not feel slighted if anyone characterizes this bill as a get tough package. It is that, but it is not a simplistic package. It does not climb on to the American bandwagon of simply adding prison time to every felony or, in our case, every indictable offence.

Some in this country regard the American experience as the model for us, following the American justice system down the road of three strikes and you are out or two strikes and you are out, whatever the flavour of the day happens to be, more imprisonments and massive prison construction.

I also watched the American experiment with grim fascination. There are now 1.6 million United States citizens in jail. The state of Texas now incarcerates more of its citizens than were imprisoned in the entire country several years ago.

California, with its constitutionally entrenched three strikes law, is spending more on new prisons than it is on higher education. Something is definitely wrong with that model. We are not interested in repeating that experience in this country.

I am not interested in amending the Criminal Code for the benefit of a new prison industry. There are some useful American approaches to criminal justice policy, but the facts show that too often prison is seen as the solution to every crime problem resulting in too many non-violent and low risk offenders being caught in the net.

It is too simplistic, too expensive and it simply does not work. The alternative is the one that this government has proposed, a targeted approach where we use imprisonment for serious offenders and use community based controls for others.

I want to briefly mention the federal-provincial co-operation that has gone into the development of this legislation. Unlike many other countries, our Constitution confers legislative authority over criminal law to the federal Parliament.

This division of power ensures a consistent criminal law nationwide. It also dictates that the federal government be sensitive to the role of the provinces which, for the most part, administer the law.

The Minister of Justice has received extensive help from the provincial attorneys and solicitors general in this instance. Most recently, in May 1996, they expressed strong support for the major components of this bill despite the recent comments by the Ontario solicitor general about our resolve in the area of high risk policy.

The federal Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have introduced a series of measures in the House over the past two years that keep the focus where it belongs: on the prediction and the management of risk. The punishment must match the crime. The overall sentence must match the risk.

I am very pleased that chapter 22, the sentencing legislation, is now in force. It sets out clearly the fundamental premises of sentencing in criminal cases. The bill being considered today is totally consistent with these principles in its strategic use of imprisonment, supervision and crime prevention, and its focus on risk management.

Our other legislation is equally consistent and focused. Bill C-45 for example tightens the rules and criteria for lifers who want to be considered for early parole. Bill C-104, which was proclaimed in July, improves the ability of police to investigate serious crime by allowing them to obtain DNA evidence. Bill C-17, now in committee, contains over 140 separate amendments to the Criminal Code that modernize the administration of justice and the criminal law.

To bring this full circle, let me reiterate that this bill, by improving sentencing options in regard to sex offenders and other high risk offenders, is consistent with our approach to the most serious kinds of crimes. It is consistent with a series of bills we have introduced in the area of sex offences, for example: Bill C-72, now in force, dealing with self-induced intoxication; Bill C-46,

addressing the question of evidence in sex offence cases; and Bill C-27, concerning child prostitution, child sex tourism and stalking.

Certainly there is more to be done, but I would urge the members to support this bill as an important step. I would urge members to support this bill as one of the many bills that have been introduced by this government to toughen up and improve the criminal law of this country.

This government continues to pursue its agenda, strategic, well targeted, tough minded, to ensure that all citizens of Canada can live secure in safe homes on safe streets.

[Return To Canada Of Karim Noah, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his persistent and thoughtful efforts at improving and toughening the criminal law across the land and for making representations on behalf of his constituents to ensure that our streets and homes are safe.

Bill C-55 is explicitly and unapologetically aimed at high risk adult offenders with long histories of violent behaviour. The government has listened to a public demand for Criminal Code amendments that will effectively target sex offenders, particularly pedophiles who present an ongoing risk to the community. The two improvements that are being made by Bill C-55 are the new long term offender sentencing option along with the dangerous offender improvements to that designation as well.

The concern with both these issues as with the long pattern of offending, unfortunately in both these categories pedophiles often have a very long track record of aberrant behaviour and conviction.

In both these types of procedures, long term and repetitive behaviour is required in order to bring them into question. The question therefore arises, are young offenders likely to be a target group for both these types of sentences?

It is possible, in answer to the hon. member's question, that young offenders who are transferred to adult court could be subject to these provisions. There is required to be a pattern of repetitive behaviour, a serious past record of violent offences for these types of designations to apply. It is possible that the new legislation would apply to young offenders.

I thank the hon. member for his question and will take his representations to the minister.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak in favour of the act to amend the Divorce Act and other acts. Before I get into the details of the amendments I would first like to provide a broader context for the changes.

There is a yearning in Canada today to focus on what we have in common and to return to basic values. Canadians do have values in common. We have not prevailed for 130 years and produced one of the world's most prosperous and successful nations without a foundation of shared principles and beliefs. When we set aside the quarrels about jurisdiction and the forms of the federation, and when we focus on the features that define us as a nation, we will find that what is common to every province and to every region of Canada is our shared values.

We are a society that is compassionate, tolerant and civil. We take pride in social programs that are intended to protect the most vulnerable. We care deeply about our commitment to sharing. These values are reflected in the way we treat our children.

Canadians understand the importance of early intervention of safe and secure childhoods if we are to enable all individuals to

reach their full potential. Canadians also place a strong emphasis on the importance of individual responsibility while governments have a role in helping the most vulnerable. We also believe in people taking responsibility for themselves.

How do these values relate to our strategy for child support? They require laws and policies that produce adequate and consistent child support levels, that respect fathers and mothers who make their payments and ensure that those who are obligated to pay actually do so. Viewed from that perspective, I suggest that the measures we have proposed in our child support strategy very much reflect the fundamental values that unite us.

The starting point is that the nature of the Canadian family is changing. There are more single parent families today than ever. When families divide, there are two households to support and fewer resources to go around and too often the children suffer. Over the past 20 years families headed by an individual parent have doubled in number. There are almost one million such families in Canada. In 1990, 61 per cent of single parent families headed by women lived below the poverty line. This compares to just 10 per cent of two parent families with children.

The steps we are taking to strengthen and improve Canada's child support system will not end child poverty, but we believe these steps will help. These measures derive their value from the shared principles on which they are based.

The principle that children should be first in line. These reforms will put them there and keep them there. Child support is the first and most important obligation for parents.

The principle that a child's standard of living, both before and after divorce, should reflect the means of both parents. These reforms make sure that it does. Children are a shared responsibility and a divorce does not change that.

The principle that people in like circumstances should be treated in a like fashion. These reforms will ensure that they are. Both parents have an obligation to support their children based on their ability to pay.

The strategy we have adopted has four interdependent elements. One, we are introducing child support guidelines to establish appropriate and consistent support levels, and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents. Two, we are changing the way child support payments are taxed to make things fairer and simpler. Three, we are enhancing federal and provincial enforcement measures targeting the wilful defaulters to ensure that payments are made in time and in full. Four, we are helping working poor families by doubling the level of the working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit over the next two years. I would like to describe each of these initiatives in more detail.

At the heart of this approach are the guidelines that will be used across Canada by the courts, by lawyers and by parents to establish appropriate levels of support payments for children. At present, courts determine child support levels on a case by case basis. The issue prolongs litigation and adds to the anguish of the parents. Some suggest that the system is based on the principle that every person deserves his or her decade in court. Not all judges take the same approach or have the same philosophy. As a result, levels vary greatly not just across Canada but even within provincial jurisdictions and even from family to family.

The amount that is available to pay for a child's needs should not depend on which province one lives in, to which courtroom the case is assigned or which party has the more persuasive lawyer. The guidelines will establish without the need for trial the levels of child support to be paid according to the income of the person paying. The amounts are calculated by a formula that takes into account average expenditures on children at various income levels. As income levels increase or decrease so will the parents' contributions to the needs of the children, just as they would if the family had remained together.

The guidelines are standard but they are also flexible. No two families are exactly alike. Exceptional expenses for children can be added, such as uninsured medical expenses and child care costs for preschoolers. A court can also change the amounts if undue hardship can be established.

This approach has tremendous strengths. It is simple and it is standard. It ensures that support paying parents with the same level of income pay the same level of child support as other parents. It is also easy to use and in the end it is easy to understand. There will be less reasons for parents to argue about what is and what is not an appropriate level of support. This means less conflict, lower legal bills, reduced legal aid and diminished court costs. The result is that a lot of money which would be spent on lawyers in courts can be kept in the hands of the parents for the benefit of the children.

The second pillar of our child support strategy is a change in the way child support payments are taxed. Currently child support payments are tax deductible for the payer and taxable to the recipient. That rule was put in place 54 years ago. After carefully considering all of the circumstances we have concluded that this approach is unfair and indeed outdated.

To begin with in the present age it is understood that parents do not need an incentive or a reward in the tax system to encourage them to pay support for their children or that a general subsidy by

all taxpayers toward families that are separated and divorced is not appropriate.

In any event the subsidy works best where there is a large income spread between the mother and father which is less and less common. Shifting income patterns have brought their earnings closer together. Where a mother earns the same as or more than the support paying father, the present system actually penalizes her. That is the case in over one-third of all separated couples and that proportion is growing. Even when the incomes are different the subsidy only works if the court takes care in each case to make complex calculations to gross up the amount awarded to take tax into account. This does not always happen in every case. The result is the tax liability eats into the support award and the losers are the children.

Furthermore custodial parents do not want to have to administer the tax system. They are the ones who now have to calculate the amount due and pay it on April 30 of each year whether the support payments arrive late during the year.

More fundamentally, child support is not income for the parent but it is money intended for the children. It therefore should not be taxed in the hands of the recipient.

The reforms will change the system. We are adopting what is known as a no deduction, no inclusion system. That means support paying parents will not be able to deduct their payments from their total income and custodial parents will not be required to include it in theirs. This no deduction, no inclusion approach will not come into effect until May 1, 1997 and it will apply to all new awards made after that date. It will not apply after that date to existing awards unless the parties agree or unless the court directs that the change be made.

We are waiting 14 months before making this change effective for very practical reasons. We want the tax change and the guidelines to become effective at the same time. That way if parties to existing orders want to change their tax treatment the new child support levels can be taken directly from the tables without the need for individual assessment in each case.

We anticipate that the provinces will create complementary guidelines to cover child support levels in cases under provincial jurisdiction so that the systems are uniform. The 14 months will enable them to do that.

Finally, the time will be used in planning for the transition. Ottawa has budgeted $50 million to help the provinces develop simple and effective systems for dealing with the many requests that may be made to varied existing orders once the changes become effective.

In the coming months governments, courts, professionals and other stakeholders will work together so that these cases are dealt with quickly and effectively. The current tax system has been in place for 50 years. I do not think it is unreasonable that we take 14 months to achieve a complete reversal.

Let me address the concerns that have been expressed by some fathers about these changes. First, parents who now have child support orders or agreements will not be forced into a new tax system. Both parents may decide for a number of reasons that their support agreement is working reasonably well and should be left alone.

Second, let me encourage parents to examine the guidelines that we have now published and consider how they may apply to their situations. They are the result of many years of consultations across Canada and they take into account tax levels and average expenses for raising children. The guidelines have been tested not only with family lawyers but with fathers and mothers, both custodial and non-custodial parents.

Third, there may be situations of undue hardship in which the payment in accordance with the guidelines would simply be unrealistic or unworkable. We recognize that cases of hardship do exist and the new process can accommodate those situations.

Finally, we are committed to monitoring these guidelines and if necessary they will be adjusted. Let me restate that in evaluating amounts our eye will remain fixed on the welfare and needs of the children. I think we can all agree on this objective. Of course a fair child support system is more than just setting levels evenly and taxing them fairly. It is also a matter of ensuring that payments are made in full and on time. Enforcement is crucial.

Let me make it clear that a great many parents who make their payments on time and in full deserve our continued respect. They take their responsibilities seriously and they follow through. There are some who cannot pay because of misfortune: they have lost their job, they have fallen ill. They must ask the court to relieve them of their responsibility that they cannot meet. However, there are also too many who are in wilful default.

As of last September almost half of the cases registered with the Ontario family support plan involved child support orders where absolutely no money had been paid. On the remaining half, only one in four was fully paid.

Wilful and chronic default by people who can pay but refuse to pay child support is simply unacceptable in this country. These are not just people who turn their backs on their sons and daughters, they are also walking away from their responsibility as citizens and because they cheat their children all other Canadians are obligated to take up the slack.

The prime responsibility for enforcement of child support orders currently rests with the provinces. A lot has already been done by the provincial agencies but the Canadian government also has a role to play, a role of leadership in co-ordinating, encouraging and complementing the provincial efforts.

The measures we are proposing will support and enhance the strategies of provincial and territorial governments. We want to work with them in a common cause. There is a list of measures that we will now take. Let me mention just a few of them.

Federal legislation will authorize the suspension of federal licences and certificates such as passports in the cases of persistent default. It will allow access by the provinces to the database of Revenue Canada to help trace persistent defaulters. It will invest money and effort in upgrading computer systems to share information among provinces to co-ordinate their efforts.

The fourth pillar in the child support strategy involves a measure that is intended to help working poor families whether they are separated or still living together. The Canadian government contributes to basic income security for children through a child tax benefit.

One component of that benefit is the working income supplement which provides a non-taxable benefit to supplement the employment earnings of families with net incomes below $25,900. At present, the maximum amount that is payable under the working income supplement is $500 per family each year. Over the next two years the Canadian government will double that supplement to $1,000 per family each year.

The revenue derived from ending the deduction on child support payments will be used to fund the increase in the working income supplement. The result will be that over the next five years over $1 billion of additional revenue will be put into the hands of about 700,000 low income families in the labour force. About one-third of them will be lone parent families.

The advantages of this strategy are obvious. The increased working income supplement is tax free and will go right to the bottom line for families that need dollars for their children. This supplement is distributed fairly, benefiting children of separated families and families that remain intact. And the working income supplement is targeted to those most in need.

What will make these reforms work well is that they will work together. Guidelines will ensure consistent awards at appropriate levels with diminished conflict and expense.

A tax rule that reflects the social conditions and values of 1942 will be changed to conform to current needs and trends. Effective tools will enhance enforcement so that good people who make their payments will know that those in wilful default will be pursued. Every dollar of increased revenue that Ottawa derives from the tax change will be ploughed directly back into a system for the benefit of children in low income working families.

I invite the support of members of the House and their involvement in making this strategy succeed. Working together, Canadians can put children first. The government will put children first. It will put responsibility fairly on the shoulders of parents and and make our system of child support one of which we can all be proud.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

You're third in the polls in Saskatchewan.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

This is typical of the Reform Party. Mistakes happen when you are dealing with criminal law and I do not believe that the Reform Party is taking that issue very seriously.

Reinstating capital punishment in the Criminal Code is offered as a panacea by the Reform Party but it is hardly that. To focus on capital punishment as an optional sentence for first degree murder and to hold a national referendum on this issue really avoids grappling with the larger fundamental issue of how to promote the protection of society.

I want to turn my attention to the referendum issue. The bill proposed that a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty for first degree murder be held concurrently with the general election that next follows the coming into force of these proposals.

Federal elections are extremely important opportunities for Canadians to choose and elect their representatives and their Prime Minister. Holding a referendum concurrently with the general election could detract from the importance of the federal election. It is therefore not a practice in Canada. As a matter of fact, there is no procedure in place in the Canadian electoral system for holding a referendum concurrently with a federal election.

The government was elected on a platform which did not include the introduction of referenda concurrently with general elections, nor did it include a further consideration of the issue of capital punishment. While referenda are an important part of Reform policy, our platform focused on augmenting the role of MPs as decision makers on questions of public policy.

The question of participatory democracy, including referenda, was addressed by a Commons committee not long ago. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was mandated by the House of Commons to study various procedural matters, including the examination of measures to achieve more direct participation by citizens including binding referenda.

However, according to Mr. Patrick Boyer, former MP and author of several books on referenda who appeared before the committee, the referendum process should not be considered for every issue that comes before Parliament. Although he argued that referenda should be expanded to allow referenda on non-constitutional issues, Mr. Boyer was of the view that some transcending national issue which is greater than Parliament's current mandate and has never been discussed in previous elections should be subject to referendum.

What is the real reason for the referendum? Reformers say that the polls tell them that Canadians want the death penalty. Therefore, why would they ask for a referendum if they are so convinced that Canadians want the death penalty? I will tell you what the reason is. They are not prepared to be accountable for the decisions taken, to stand up on their own and say I am in favour of the death penalty. The reason they are not prepared to do that is because when a mistake happens they want to sit back and blame the Canadian public, play Pontius Pilate, wash their hands and say you asked for Barabbas. They want to sit here and say: "You voted for it, Canadian public. The mistake, the innocent person who has just had his life shortened is not our responsibility". We on this side of the House are prepared to take our responsibilities seriously. I would suggest that they not hide behind this sham of a referendum they are putting forward. If they want to change in the Criminal Code to include the death penalty, let them have the guts to stand up here and do it in this House.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-261 which is sponsored by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

As Canadians, we regard as abhorrent and feel the pain and suffering that the victims' families are forced to endure. While we are rightly revolted by murder, the case has not been made effectively to demonstrate that the public interest would be served by restoring capital punishment for murder.

The public policy reality is clear. Since the abolition of the death penalty for murder, the murder rate has gone done and not up. In 1975 before capital punishment for murder was abolished, the homicide rate was at a certain level. In the years following from 1975 until 1994, the homicide rate never rose above that base rate in 1975. In 1994 the homicide rate was two-thirds what it was in 1975.

The issue of capital punishment has been thoroughly explored at the national level. In many debates in this House after extensively debating the question of capital punishment between 1966 and 1976, the House of Commons on a free vote adopted a bill abolishing capital punishment for murder in 1976.

The most recent debate in this House took place in 1987 when the government of the day honoured an election commitment to debate the reinstatement of capital punishment. After debating the question at length in the House of Commons, it was decided on a free vote that capital punishment should not be restored.

The arguments for and against are really no different today than they were in 1987. Effective arguments can easily be mounted to oppose the death penalty. Such arguments have been made in this House over the years and I do not intend to repeat many of them here today.

Perhaps one of the most effective arguments however is the concern about the possibility of wrongful convictions. Anyone who would choose to deride this concern, to put it down, to put it to the side, need only be reminded of two relatively recent cases of significance, namely the wrongful convictions for murder of Donald Marshall, Jr. and Guy Paul Morin.

Our justice system is designed by human beings, operated by human beings and human beings, as we know, are prone to mistakes and mistakes happen. Innocent people could be convicted and sentenced to death.

We have these brave Reformers suggesting that we have the death penalty. Is one of them ready to be the first mistake? Are they ready to have one of their children or their spouse be the first mistake? I know I am not ready for that and if I am not ready for it I am not about to impose it on others. When you make a mistake, oops just does not cut it. I am sorry is not good enough.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan indicated that if you have any doubt about whether somebody committed the murder then do not execute them. This just shows a profound ignorance of the criminal law because if you have doubt that the person committed the murder you would not convict him in the first place.