Bryon Wilfert

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present in both official languages the report of the Canada-Taiwan Friendship Group delegation, January 1999.

[Volunteer Sector, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

This week is National Volunteer Week. The volunteer sector in this country is an indispensable part of Canadian life. It deserves the gratitude of all Canadians, but it also deserves recognition from the government for the important role it plays.

What specifically is the Government of Canada doing to encourage and support this most valuable element of Canadian society?

[Health, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last budget invested in the health of Canadians and in the health care system.

We know that drugs are an increasingly important element of health care and that drug policies should ensure the right drug for the right patient at the right cost.

How is the federal government helping to ensure that Canadians get access to drug therapies prescribed by their doctors?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the signals for a negotiated settlement must come from Belgrade. My colleague talks about having no conditions at all. NATO has clearly indicated certain conditions. The difficulty of having breathing space is that it is often a time for parties to regroup.

What we have here is a two-pronged approach. We have the current military operations that are going on in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. I agree with my colleague that we need to involve the Russians. Yesterday, the German foreign minister was talking about involving the Russians more.

There are discussions going on behind the scenes, but in order to have discussions we have to have a position for which people are prepared to stand up and say “yes, we are prepared to stop the ethnic cleansing that is going on”.

What is happening is that there seems to be no signal from Milosevic that he is prepared, under any circumstances at the moment, to do the kind of things that my colleague is asking for. I would suggest to my colleague that diplomacy is always the better route. The difficulty, however, is that in order to have diplomacy we need to have people of goodwill who are prepared to sit down and negotiate.

It is not like this has just happened. The road to the conflict has been simmering for many years, but more so within the last year. I think Milosevic has received enough signals to know that at some point what is going on now was going to happen if he was not prepared to sit down reasonably. There were arguments on both sides, but the negotiations in Rambouillet, France indicated that they rejected all of the proposals and conditions. We cannot have a starting point if one side refuses to accept any conditions at all.

In conclusion, I hope that the discussions going on behind the scenes will move more to the forefront. In the meantime, I do not think we can relinquish our resolve in dealing with this situation.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. Conflict comes about when alternatives to peace are either exhausted or abandoned by reasonable people. The current crisis in the Balkans has deep roots in history dating back even beyond the 14th century.

In the international community nations are sovereign. The nation state is the highest authority. Even then the nation state is tempered by the fact that we have international organizations such as the United Nations. Whether it be the UN, OPEC or others, the fact is that states limit some of their sovereignty.

Sovereignty therefore is not unlimited. States cannot act with impunity. When the lives and the safety of individuals or populations are victimized by governments, I believe it is the responsibility, indeed the duty, of the international community to respond.

We are witnessing a crisis in Kosovo of epic proportions. By any standards the conflict there cannot be tolerated. In the past when governments and the international community did not respond, we witnessed the forced expulsions of Asians from Uganda, the atrocities in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and recently in Central Africa and Rwanda in 1994.

The philosopher Monescue reminds us of the fact that governments are not infinite. The power of governments must be tempered by common sense. Clearly the actions which we are seeing in the Balkans, the actions which we are seeing in Kosovo, force nations to respond in a way which says that we will not allow, will not tolerate this kind of atrocity.

The government of Milosevic in Yugoslavia clearly has gone beyond, by any definition, the norms of international behaviour. The formation of NATO in 1949 came about as a defensive alliance to stop aggression. There is no one in the House and certainly no one I know who likes to see the kind of bloodshed, the kind of forced expulsion of ethnic Albanians that is currently going on.

Clearly the road to peace does not lie in Ottawa. The road to peace does not lie in Washington. The road to peace lies in Belgrade.

The events which have unfolded over the last few weeks have developed because in 1989 the limited autonomy which 90% of Kosovar Albanians enjoyed was stripped away by the Milosevic government. The seeds of destruction have started to escalate since 1989.

We have a responsibility as a government and as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to take action when we see these kinds of rights stripped away. We have to take action when we see that the type of ethnic cleansing we witnessed in Bosnia in 1992 through 1996 is escalating.

There is no question that our involvement is part of the obligations that we have as a member of NATO. We cannot say that we want to be a member of this organization but when push comes to shove that we do not want to participate because that is not our role.

There are obligations and there are duties as a member of an alliance. Although our contribution may be small by other state standards, we are signifying that as a member of the international community we are prepared to act. We are prepared to stand up for rights and we are prepared to say enough is enough.

Canada has a long and proud tradition as a peacekeeping nation. Canada also has a long and proud tradition of responding in times of conflict when the call has gone out, whether it be in the great war, the second world war, Korea or the many peacekeeping operations which developed as a result of the work by former Prime Minister Pearson. This nation has never shrunk, never stepped aside when called upon by the international community. This tradition of involvement, this tradition of participating and doing the right thing, is reflected in the current situation in Kosovo.

We are acting because of humanitarian concerns. We are not acting to attack and say that this side is right or this side is wrong. We are saying that morally we know that what is happening is indefensible and that we have the responsibility to participate. I would hope that genuine peace will come quickly.

As I said before, I believe that the decision for peace lies in Belgrade. It does not lie in Ottawa. It does not lie in other NATO capitals. The fact is that there have been resolutions before the United Nations. There have been in the past statements made under resolution 1160 which called for all parties in March 1998 to find a peaceful settlement to the crisis.

Then we had resolution 1199 in September of last year. It demanded that both sides end the hostilities, not just one side but both sides. Clearly NATO was indicating that it did not want the conflict to continue to escalate. We know that the Balkans have always been known as the powder keg of Europe. In fact the start of the great war in 1914 occurred because of in part the assassination of Archduke France Ferdinand in June 1914 in Sarajevo in what is now Bosnia.

Knowing that history and knowing that we are looking at the ethnic Albanians not only in Kosovo but in Macedonia and Albania proper, this is a very volatile area. In October of last year NATO threatened to use air power if a peaceful solution was not agreed upon.

We then had the recent peace talks in France. At that time part of the proposed agreement was for the cessation of hostilities, for the bringing in of international monitors to look at a timeframe where people in that area would be able to vote on their future. The fact is that it takes two sides, two parties, to bring about a resolution of conflict. Regrettably that did not occur.

Canada has continued to work toward a negotiated settlement. Canada's involvement clearly has not only been on the military front but on the diplomatic front. We are committed to peace, a long lasting peace not just in Kosovo but in the entire region.

What are the objectives? The objectives, by NATO's actions, are to stop the killings and the ethnic cleansings. We have a mass migration of 500,000 people or more. Anyone watching television cannot help but be moved by the plight of those men, women and children.

We are very fortunate in this country that we only watch it on television or read about it. Although we have not experienced that, it does not mean we do not have the right and, indeed, the obligation to intervene when we know that things are wrong.

This is a humanitarian crisis. I believe, therefore, that if it takes the might of NATO to bring about an end to the conflict then so be it.

What we are looking for is an end to this violence and the withdrawal of Yugoslav and Serbian security forces. I would hope to see a disarmament on both sides of the conflict so that we can bring about genuine peace.

Even when peace is established and the monitors are hopefully in there, there is a massive rebuilding to go on and that, of course, is where the international community will have a very important role to play.

There has been talk in the House about the use or potential use of ground forces. It is certainly my fervent hope that we will not come to the point of having to discuss that. Given the history and the tenacity of the Serbs, which we saw during their heroic struggle against the Nazis in the 1940s, and given the terrain, I do not believe ground troops would be either advisable or logical given that we could wind up in a very long and protracted conflict. We want to shorten this conflict and hopefully the military air power will be enough.

Members have called for a debate on the deployment of ground troops. I would agree that if there is any contemplation by the government to look at ground forces that we debate it in the House and, indeed, look at voting on the issue.

In conclusion, I think we are all united in the fact that the actions we see currently in Kosovo defy description. We must be resolved as one, particularly when our fighting forces are engaged in dangerous combat over Yugoslavia. Our brave men and women are involved in a conflict and I believe it is the responsibility and duty of members to support our fighting forces.

I hope that the resolution to this conflict and true peace will come about because reasonable people will be sitting around the table discussing ways to develop a long and effective peace not just for Kosovo but for the region as a whole. I hope that in the future we will not have to see actions such as what has currently been undertaken in the name of peace and humanity.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the discussion has now moved back to the Tobin tax, but I was very interested and I did support that. It is a step in the right direction.

I listened to the member with some interest. Unfortunately, for me, the member paints a very gloomy picture of the state of the nation state as we move into the 21st century. If we look at the works of Joseph Frankel or Hans Morgenthau on the role of the nation state in the international system, what we have seen is that over the years the nation state has become more important particularly in terms of its relationship between the citizens and government.

In listening to the member, the member gives me the impression, and hopefully it is a wrong impression, that we as parliamentarians and indeed as a government are losing our ability to act on the international stage. Certainly anything which would infringe on an issue, whether the issue is water—and I certainly concur with my colleague across the way about the export of water—one of the things we have to be very careful about in Canada is the loss of sovereignty both in economic and political terms.

I just want some clarification from the member with regard to the picture he was painting. Does he feel that we have lost our ability, again in dealing with this bill, to serve our citizens? Will we become not only slaves to the market but to other international organizations to the point that we might as well just close up shop, because at the end of the day it will be those international bodies, both in an economic and political sense, that really will be dictating our future?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham.

It is my pleasure to speak to the proposed youth crime justice act. I think all members are concerned about youth and certainly those who engage in criminal activities. Approaches may vary, but I believe that the fundamentals in the bill are sound and ones which deserve the support of all members of the House. The bill is not a panacea, but it does address the key issues that have been before the Canadian public for some time now.

After extensive consultations with the provinces and territories, with professionals and with community leaders, the government has introduced a strategy to protect the public from youth crime. As one who has advocated a scrapping of the Young Offenders Act I am pleased that the minister has taken significant steps to send out a strong message to young offenders that their actions will not be tolerated.

As a former educator I know that young people want and indeed need rules that will be enforced. The message for young people is that if they take certain actions which are not deemed appropriate by society there will be meaningful consequences for their actions.

In 1996-97 about one-third of convicted youths received sentences of custody. One-half were given probation and only one-sixth were ordered to do community service or to pay fines. Custodial sentences were given in approximately 25,000 cases of young offenders, usually for short periods of time. Over one-quarter received sentences of less than one month and about one-half of the sentences were from one to three months. Eight per cent were sentenced to more than six months.

I do not believe that sent out the right message. I do not think Canadians felt that sent out the right message. Therefore we have the introduction of the bill which I believe will address those concerns.

The goals of the bill are to prevent young people from turning to crime in the first place, to ensure both violent and non-violent youths are given meaningful consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes, and to effectively and safely rehabilitate young people so they will not reoffend. I believe these are the goals which all Canadians can and indeed will support. The legislation reflects accountability, respect and fairness.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to Moses and the Ten Commandments and suggested the minister was referring to the 10,000 commandments. I would suggest there are only three commandments in the bill: accountability, respect and fairness, which are values Canadians want to see enshrined in the new youth justice act.

Accepting responsibility, particularly placing the onus on the violator, is a key element of the legislation. Only a small number of youth are involved in serious and repeat criminal acts, particularly acts of violence. Statistics show 18% were involved in violent crimes. According to 1997 statistics over one-half of all violent crimes were minor non-sexual assaults and another one-quarter were more serious non-sexual assaults.

Criminal activity is an antisocial activity. Toughening the law to make it clear that such acts are unacceptable must and will be part of the message that the bill addresses.

Canadians have lost faith in the Young Offenders Act. The government has responded with a number of key initiatives which I believe will address these concerns and send out a tough message to those young people who engage in acts which are unacceptable to society. The bill reflects the protection of society. It reinforces strong social values and proportionality of sentencing. Recognition of the rights of victims is something I am particularly pleased to see enshrined in the legislation.

Canadians want a youth justice system which protects citizens and provides meaningful consequences for the actions of those who would disregard the law. Establishing tougher consequences for serious youth crime by expanding the offences for which a young person convicted of a serious violent offence can receive an adult sentence is an important change.

I support and applaud the lowering of the age of youth who could receive an adult sentence for serious violent crimes from 16 to 14. I support the publication of the names of all young offenders who receive adult sentences. Individuals who commit crimes should have their names published. It would be a warning and hopefully a deterrent to others. Meaningful consequences to unacceptable acts are critical if we are to maintain Canada as a nation with a relatively low crime rate compared to other nations such as the United States.

An important section of the bill is to establish an effective rehabilitation and reintegration process that would require all young people who have served a period of time in custody to also have a period of controlled supervision in the community. This is something Canadians have wanted and the government has responded to.

Committing a crime is not a lark. It is not something one does for fun. Having both meaningful sentences and appropriate supervision after the individual has left custody is something for which Canadians have been asking. Public protection is critical and the bill addresses that issue.

Expanding offences for which a youth is presumed to receive an adult sentence to include a pattern of convictions for serious violent offences and extending the group of offenders who are expected to receive an adult sentence to include 14 and 15 year olds will be welcomed by most Canadians.

There has been much public debate about the publishing of names of young offenders. I believe the publication provides transparency in the justice system which will further provide public confidence in our judicial system.

Ensuring that consequences for young people who commit crimes will be in proportion to the seriousness of the offence is a major change in the proposals before the House. Sentences that fit the nature of the crime, sentences that are meaningful and encourage accountability, is an important feature of the legislation.

Two elements of note are creating an intensive custody sentence for the most high risk youth who are repeat offenders, who have committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault and assault, and permitting victim impact statements to be introduced in youth court.

In terms of concerns and rights of victims, their concerns are recognized in the principles of the act. This is a first in federal legislation. Providing victims with the right to access youth records and to play formal and informal roles in community based measures is something I know residents in my riding of Oak Ridges welcome. They further welcome and applaud the right of victims to information on extrajudicial measures.

While the bill gets tough on youth crime it also recognizes that as a society we have a responsibility to make sure where possible we place a strong emphasis on rehabilitation in terms of the youth justice system. Throwing away the key is not the answer. At some point these individuals will be back on the street. How they are prepared to reintegrate into society is important not only for them but for society at large.

The long term protection of our citizens is best ensured by making sure that the youth are accountable for their actions and that they are supervised and supported, particularly during the period when they re-enter the mainstream of society.

I support the provision that requires every youth sentenced to a period of custody to also serving an additional period of strictly controlled and meaningful supervision in the community equal to half the period of custody. This period of supervision is subject to several mandatory conditions. The individual must keep the peace, participate in good behaviour and report to a youth worker.

Additional or optional conditions may be imposed on the offender. These include conditions to structure the individual's life such as finding or continuing employment, obeying a curfew or attending school, and conditions associated with the offending behaviour such as abstaining from drugs, alcohol and attending counselling, et cetera. If these conditions are not met then having the individual returned to custody will occur. The follow up is crucial if the program is to be successful.

Developing a reintegration plan where the individual and the youth worker develop a plan of action together will assist in successful reintegration into the community. Developing the strategy while the youth is in custody and continuing it during the period of supervision in the community help build a more successful and meaningful transition.

Developing community based programs in conjunction with a variety of organizations, individuals and parents is important. I am pleased that in the area of York region my colleagues and I are working together to establish a community crime prevention council, making sure that people are accountable and involved.

I welcome these changes and I look forward to further comments from members of the House.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, accessibility to many communities in Northern Quebec is difficult and often expensive due to reliance on air and sea transportation. The Cree of northern Quebec have particularly been affected by the situation.

Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell this House what the department is doing to respond to the challenges faced by Cree communities in the James Bay area?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55 today.

Who makes policy in Canada? Is it parliament or the U.S. congress? Shall we as a parliament govern our actions and our policies based on threats or perceived threats from political leaders south of the border?

The official opposition would have us move or not move based on the whims of Americans. Canadians have elected us to do the job. They have asked us to protect Canada's vital interests. Bill C-55 is about the survival of our magazine industry. The issue is about cultural differences.

Americans view culture as a commodity. Certainly our culture needs support from the entrepreneurial excesses of American capitalists. Canadian culture is something that needs to be promoted and enhanced.

Eighty per cent of our population lives within 150 kilometres of the U.S. border. We are subject to a barrage of American entertainment through films, magazines and television. American entertainment has become what the English language has become around the world. It has become universal. It has become the mode by which people listen and take American values.

Our culture is what defines us as a nation, but it is difficult being so close to a population which is 25 times our size. The Americans see culture simply as an entertainment commodity with a bottom line. Clearly they are trying to expand that bottom line in terms of their share of the international market.

Canada must and needs to create policies which maintain our cultural existence and in this regard the bill will assist in maintaining that objective.

We have over 1,000 publishers producing over 1,400 Canadian titles in Canada and 561 consumer magazines with a total circulation of over 47 million. We have 826 Canadian business publications with a total circulation of over 11 million. Twenty-four million Canadians over the age of 12 read one or more major Canadian consumer magazines annually. The industry employs 5,200 full time and 1,700 part time people. Twenty thousand additional jobs are dependent on magazine publishers. We are looking at a total annual revenue of over $1 billion.

Canada has maintained policy measures designed to provide Canadians with distinctive vehicles for cultural expression. Although we welcome foreign publications, we have maintained a policy to promote our own cultural industries. With the adoption of Bill C-55, U.S. magazines will continue to be welcomed into this country. They account for 80% of newsstand sales presently.

Bill C-55 is about regulating foreign access to the Canadian advertising services market. This issue is very different from wheat or coal or steel. It is about being Canadian. It is about providing a sustainable and visibly Canadian periodical industry by ensuring the advertising revenues needed to create content is available. One page of advertising equals one page of content.

Some would argue that the bill would cause a trade war. Canada is obliged by trade treaties to allow free trade in goods, but we have never agreed and will never agree to give foreigners free access to the Canadian advertising services market. As Canadians we must and will defend our rights as an independent and sovereign state to develop policies which support our domestic cultural expression. We will and are defending those rights.

Bill C-55 maintains a Canadian policy that has been in place for three decades. It aims to ensure the environment in which our Canadian identity can be maintained. What is at stake is the future of over 450 or so smaller and more specialized Canadian periodicals that fill an essential niche in the country's culture. So-called editions would kill the prospect for young publishers, for young editors who might want to set up their own magazine.

Fundamental to this policy has been the belief that Canadians must continue to have the opportunity to read about their own stories, their values and their interests. In order for this to continue Canadian publishers must be able to operate in a fair and competitive environment. The bill will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have fair access to Canadian advertising services revenues. Without those revenues they would be unable to provide readers with the broad range of Canadian publications currently available.

This is not a NAFTA issue. The bill does not violate NAFTA or other international trade obligations. It has never been challenged before the World Trade Organization or any other dispute settlement body, for that matter. Comments about trade war are not well founded. Canada and the United States have the most successful trading relationship with more than 95% of our goods and services moving freely across the border. If the Americans do not like the provisions of the bill, they can always turn to international dispute settlement provisions.

Early this year the Prime Minister stated:

It is very important to maintain a Canadian identity. We have a good case and we will win it.

I certainly concur with that view. We should not be surprised with the American sabre rattling. Again the Americans are reacting, trying to have us back down. Back down we will not do. Americans claim that U.S. companies will loose by being excluded from the Canadian market. There have been claims that they would loose up to $300 million, a figure based on the improbable scenario of every U.S. magazine launching a Canadian split-run edition. This type of sabre rattling is what we are hearing.

It seems clear that despite the success of Canadian publishers in meeting the demands of Canadians for stories about themselves, the loss of advertising revenues to unfair competition in the advertising services market would have a very negative impact on the industry. Canadian content would be lost but not replaced by split-run advertising editions of U.S. magazines.

Canadians would loose the choice of reading their own stories. Canadians could not expect American publishers to incur the cost of adding Canadian stories to their split-run advertising editions. Nor should they. We need to promote our own stories written by and for Canadians.

The bill does not limit competition in the Canadian magazine industry. In fact, Bill C-55 ensures the economic viability of the Canadian magazine industry and the preservation of thousands of jobs of Canadian writers, artists, editors, photographers and art directors. Canadians need to be able to express themselves through their own medium. The legislation ensures that Canadians continue to have that freedom.

I urge all members of the House to support the legislation to send a message that our Canadian cultural institutions are worth preserving. We will not be swayed from doing the right thing to ensure that the values, interests and stories that make our country so unique are heard now and in the future. We must stand up for our own interests.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the way. Chicken Little obviously is alive and well and the sky is falling.

When we listen to the opposition we hear that there have been no tax cuts. One of the things I find very disturbing in this House is that clearly the acoustics on that side are not very good. That side is not listening to the fact that we have been reducing taxes.

I indicated earlier in the day that when we talked about the $11.5 billion in terms of health care, it was not borrowed money. Those guys are into the borrowed money scheme. We are not into borrowed money. We are going to pay as we go.

If the member would read the tax information with regard to the budget, he would clearly see that in order to have sustainable tax cuts, we have to be in the black. We have to have the money. Clearly we are not prepared to finance tax cuts that are not doable. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing over $16.7 billion in terms of tax cuts in the last two budgets alone. Listen to the information.