John Duncan

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 44, the Reform amendment to the bill deleting the section which would prevent textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature from use within an education institution in a course of instruction to be imported in the used book category.

I did hear the intervention by the member for Ottawa-Vanier. I do not think it clarified anything. It certainly did not clarify anything to me. I find it to be a very cute clause that has the effect of preventing reimportation of Canadian textbooks.

When there is a government that whispers the concerns of the three r s, reduce, reuse, recycle, this certainly flies in the face of that. I also listened to the intervention from the Bloc member, who seemed quite concerned that we would not support the bill as it is. The Bloc has also put forth amendments. This is part of the democratic process, so I think it is quite in order for us to be talking about these clauses.

I listened closely to what the member for Prince George-Peace River had to say about used books. His intervention was very timely. I do know something about textbook publishing. My family has an educational background. My father has authored portions of textbooks. My brother is an academic and writes for internationally published journals. I know that the textbook industry is a very special industry. It is a very profitable industry and we all know that the setting of curriculum determines very often which textbooks are going to be used.

There is a lot of attention paid by the publishers in trying to bring curriculum setters on board and influence decisions as to which textbooks become the preferred textbooks of the day and so on.

I do not think we need to add another layer of exemption or special circumstance through this clause dealing with importation exemptions to this piece of business. I left university 25 years ago but during my time in that institution I certainly did use used textbooks. There was a thriving trade in used textbooks. Students, of all people, are very aware of the value from the day they purchase their books to the day they take them back and try to get reimbursement. They try very hard to keep the value up. A used book in good condition is obviously worth more than a used book in poor condition.

I had many advantages when I went to university from the standpoint that I was able to work my way through. I left university without indebtedness. That is very difficult to do these days. It is much more difficult for a student to obtain employment that will pay enough for them to pay all of their expenses for the year as well as for their education.

Therefore I recognize that any advantage we can bring to the student body is important, particularly on this financial end. If we restrict the supply of used textbooks in any way, what that will do is drive up the price of the remaining used textbooks. That will hurt the pocketbooks of our students.

I do not see anything redeeming about this clause. Our amendment would delete that exemption and I believe that is the way to go. The clause, as it currently reads, is counterproductive. The textbook publishing industry is already profitable.

The environmental concerns, reducing, reusing, recycling, are met by any encouragement we can have to keep those textbooks reusable and in free flow position.

Those are the points I wanted to make on that clause. I will be quite happy to speak to some further clauses when we arrive there.

[Endangered Species, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all walks of life and persuasions agree on a vision which includes protecting endangered species.

When the government first proposed endangered species legislation last year it entered into consultations and a committee process. The consultative process excluded rural Canada and Canada east of Ontario.

The way the bill has been amended in the most recent version has changed the thrust of the legislation so significantly that original supporters are now in open revolt.

A grand coalition including business, workers and communities in British Columbia is appealing for the bill to be scrapped and replaced with responsible endangered species legislation. It feels strongly that species protection must be designed both by scientists and democratically accountable officials and not in the courts.

We do not want to obtain the same results that were obtained south of us where there has been massive social and economic hardship and 25 years of ongoing litigation.

I ask the minister to scrap the bill.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the proposed amendment by the Bloc is a bit complicated. It amends a current amendment to the bill which amends subsection 13(2) of the act.

I have read the amendment several times. I have consulted with other people. I do not know if it is anything but what can be described as nebulous. The amendment is amending an amendment which is nebulous, to begin with.

I will try to explain what I mean. We are talking about engravings, photographs, portraits, plates and originals. The wording of the unamended amendment indicates that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary the person by whom the plate or original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.

The question comes down to the "by whom". Is it the artist or the person ordering from the artist? Legal counsel would only be able to say that is unclear. It could be interpreted either way.

As a consequence we cannot build a concrete foundation on a sand foundation. It will not work. It is not that I wanted to compare the Bloc amendment to concrete necessarily, but I had a duty to point that out.

I assume that the intent of the Bloc's amendment is to empower the artist. However, we may already be empowering the artist with the original amendment. If it is an attempt to overturn that amendment, that is one thing. If it is an attempt to strengthen it, that is another thing. I am not at all clear in which direction we are going.

In any case, there is a flaw. It is an important flaw. We want to attempt to achieve clarity in our legislation. We have all been in circumstances in which we have seen draft legislation come forward, and the constructive readings of that draft legislation can come from the most unpredictable sources.

In one of the committees on which I sit a government bill was introduced that turned out to be so badly drafted when it got to committee that it was withdrawn and has yet to come back to committee. That was several months ago.

There are lots of precedents. We all know this can happen. It is important for us to look once again at this clause.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Thank you. Programs and program segments recorded without a public audience such as spots to promote Canadian musicians on CTV's "Canada AM" and so on state in this letter that because the exception tries to restrict itself to event programming and does so by requiring a public performance at the same time as a reproduction is made, this also constitutes lack of qualification for this kind of programming.

The broadcasters talk about some other absurdities, as they call them, in the bill. They are highlighted by a requirement that copies of these ephemeral reproductions can only be kept beyond 30 days if an official archive accepts their deposits on the basis of their exceptional documentary character.

Broadcasters really should be allowed to keep their own archival copies in house. I think this would be a great loss to Canadian society if we were to create this kind of concern. They would like to reuse them possibly in the future and they would be quite happy to pay a licence fee at that time. This would also of course create quite a burden for national archives should this kind of provision remain.

The bottom line of what the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is saying is that unless these flaws are corrected, programming would remain at risk because of the administrative burdens and the economic burdens through trying to clear this hurdle on rights clearance.

This would affect Canadian viewers who want to have a good look at programs about their local area. It would affect charities relying on broadcast based fund raising. It would have its impact on Canadian talent and there are other provisions that would be detrimental to French language music and programming. These would be the main people who would suffer the neighbouring rights provisions.

I find this whole episode this morning of most concern. I know this bill and these amendments are of great concern to many Canadians. Sometimes what goes on in this place ends up in the form of partisan gamesmanship or something quite non-productive. It is my hope and my wish that we can move forward, make the enlightened amendments that are required in order to make this a bill that Canadians will find progressive, productive and that will indeed assist Canadian broadcasting, Canadian artists, Canadian recorders and so on.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, this bill as it is currently constituted is of great concern to broadcasters. It is of great concern in respect to neighbouring rights.

There is a reduction in the neighbouring rights phase-in period. It removes the criteria that would require that the value of air play and volume of music use be factored into neighbouring future rights tariffs.

There is a rebalancing in light of the ephemeral exception. Particularly the radio end of it sees it as being too narrow a proposal. Many of us in this arena certainly use radio to a fair degree. I know it is probably the major media, other than the print media, in many of our experiences.

Many small radio stations in the country perform a very valuable service. Indeed, those radio stations need to transfer their medium on occasion. Many of them are using 30-year old technology. As a consequence, they are trapped into making these ephemeral changes. It is a major upgrade to get away from that. It is certainly not doing anyone any harm that they continue with this.

I have a letter from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that is worthwhile for me to operate from in this area.

Certainly these private radio broadcasters and some of the private television broadcasters wish to counter any suggestion that the proposed amendment meets broadcasters requirements as they have articulated them. This material has been conveyed to the government and there is still great concern about the present wording of the clause.

It was not very long ago when I was spending some time in my vehicle and heard an interview on CBC radio. Many Canadians enjoy CBC radio. I am one of them. The value of CBC radio to Canadian broadcasters in the development of Canadian recording artists and so on became readily apparent in the anecdotal evidence that was being presented by artists, by people doing the recordings, by promoters and by others.

Sometimes we lose sight of what is the key issue in levelling the playing field or developing Canadian artists. One of the other examples that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters talk about has to do with episodes of local talent or variety shows. These are

taped in clusters for broadcast throughout the season to make them economically viable.

This bill, as it currently reads, requires that these tapes be destroyed 30 days after taping rather than as it is in competing countries like the U.S. and the U.K. where time starts running after the first broadcast. This seems like a very legitimate concern.

Then the association gives some other specific examples. Very often, rather than talking in broad terms if we can actually look to examples, we can see the flaws in what is being proposed in legislative and other initiatives much better.

This letter talks about CKCO's Kitchener Octoberfest parade. This is recorded by a station and tape delayed for time zone purposes by corporate sister companies in the west, part of the Baton Broadcasting in this case. The exception only applies to stations in formal networks of which there are very few in Canada.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we dance around these questions a lot. We make presumptions about whether something will be acceptable under the charter or not.

I mentioned something very basic in my earlier response about whether prisoners have the right to vote or not. My memory is that was not challenged at the federal level. When the decision was made that prisoners have the right to vote, as a federal presence we chose not to appeal the decision. Why would we do that? Is it because we agreed that prisoners should have the right to vote? I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of the population does not think so.

When it comes to the constitutional difficulties the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned, yes there will be difficulties. Does that mean we create convoluted legislation that does not address the nub of the problem or do we go for the nub of the problem and then deal with the fallout on the constitutional end? We have mechanisms such as notwithstanding clauses.

Are we ever going to deal with the problems in some of these documents, particularly the charter of rights which has its own baggage? It has been in place for some time now and we know there are inherent problems in it. Are we ever going to deal with the problems if we continue to dance around them? I do not think so. I think we have to do the right thing and hope the right answer comes out of it.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have people in this House who find this all rather disgusting. I am not certain why I am getting that kind of reaction.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I do not want to put a fine point on some technical items. This victims bill of rights is there. The Liberals can do themselves a great favour by doing something with it.

In terms of being proactive on making our streets safe again, we have done a lot in this area. We would like to enact a victims bill of rights that puts their rights ahead of those of criminals. It is very basic. We want to reform the parole system so that violent offenders serve their full sentence. We would like to eliminate the Young Offenders Act and replace it with laws making juvenile offenders accountable for their actions.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of preliminary things here. We are not out to establish or re-establish capital punishment in this country. We are out to create a binding referendum whereby the public would decide whether that is appropriate for Canada in today's world. We think the public should be the determining factor on that very divisive question.

In terms of the broader question dealing with causes of criminality, I agree there are some very substantive things we can do to go after root causes of criminality. However, we do have to look at something under 10 per cent of our criminal population who are violent offenders. That is what we are dealing with in this bill. We want to deal very harshly with that small percentage of the criminal population which wreaks so much havoc in our society.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly generated some debate in the House. It occurs to me that some of the debate among members is quite different from what victims often look for when they look to the House. They are looking for a voice to represent their concerns. Today we are trying to offer our voices because victims feel that

very often the government does not represent their points of view, certainly not on a priority basis.

We had a good description this morning of Reform's concerns. The victims bill of rights went through the House and we have yet to see it come back as substantive legislation. It is unlikely to happen before an election despite a moral obligation on the part of government to do exactly that.

We are talking about section 745 today. A private member's bill was put before the House by a Liberal member who is now an Independent member of the House. That bill was to repeal section 745. It went through. Legal counsel of the day did not advise the member that the bill was somehow out of order because it would be unconstitutional. Nor did I hear much in the way of debate that the bill would be unconstitutional at the time. All this argument has come up because we put a motion before the House today. This is valuable debate.

If this is really the way members of the government feel, why did they not say so earlier? The reason is that the government does not believe the concerns of victims should overwhelm the concerns of an intellectual elite who believes it knows better what is good for the public.

I an not a lawyer but I understand legalese reasonably well. I am appalled by some of the comments I heard this morning from members of the House. An earlier comment was made about the rights of prisoners under section 745 and how they should not be taken away retroactively.

What are we talking about? It is the same type of thinking where prisoners were given the vote. The government does not have the jam to appeal the decision of the court on the rights of prisoners under the charter. If that is the case and the public does not buy it, there is an obligation on the part of the government to try to change it.

Then there is the argument that even if section 745 were repealed today somehow things would be different. What took the Liberals so long? Reform has been asking for this piece of legislation since 1994. Why did it take so long?

Other legislation has been brought forward in this Parliament. We had Bill C-55 concerning high risk offenders. The Reform Party warned that if conditional sentencing were allowed under dangerous offender legislation, which means they would not serve one day in jail, it could be a real door opener for violent offenders.

Our words had no effect in this place. They certainly had an effect in the courts of the land. The message sent to a rapist in Abbotsford, British Columbia, because of that bill was that the first one was free and there would be no jail time.

We also heard the solicitor general blame the Bloc this morning for the loss of retroactivity on the bill as it affects Clifford Olson. First there is an argument about retroactivity. To blame it on the Bloc is nothing less than intellectually cute. The minister waited too long and did not make it retroactive.

It is a moot point to talk about closure in the House of Commons. I do not believe this type of hearing in the Clifford Olson case will not happen again. There are other applicants in the pipeline and there will be for some time.

Some of the tinkering done by Bill C-45 that amended section 745 made things worse than they previously were. Under the rule changes, at the preliminary stage a supreme justice or his or her designate decides whether an application can proceed to a jury based on expectation of success. What message does that send to the families if it goes to a jury? The expectation is even greater that it will succeed. What a travesty.

We would not be dealing with this despicable section if in 1976 the Liberal government and an out-of-touch solicitor general had listened to reason when they were told of the havoc it would wreak on the families of victims. The Liberal government then did not care and the Liberal government now does not really care about all this. Their track record on high risk offenders, as I described, is testimony to their bizarre view of compassion and fairness.

On the eve of the processing of the application for early release of Canada's most horrendous dirt bag, Clifford Robert Olson, the families of the innocent victims he savaged are sick to their stomachs. Mr. Olson, from his condo at Prince Albert penitentiary, is having another laugh at the expense of the victims and their families. It is a constant reminder of the naivety of Canada when it comes to rights of prisoners.

The Reform Party, the Canadian Police Association, parents, victims and millions of Canadians have begged this complacent and insensitive Liberal government to repeal section 745. It is as simple as that. The minister's response has been insulting.

Over the next decade and a half we will have 600 similar killers who will presumably be eligible for judicial review which will once again expose their victims to the horrors they try to forget.

The Reform Party and sensitive, fair-minded Canadians are not mute. We will fight for the repeal of section 745 for as long as it takes. It not only applies to Olson. It also applies to all of Canada's worst killers, no matter whom they killed, how they killed or how many times they killed.

As of 1994 there were 60 hearings of the kind that will take place tomorrow at the Vancouver court house. With the rules of evidence set up as they are now, 43 of the 60 hearings have given killers a chance to get out early. That is a 72 per cent success rate from the killers' point of view. The rules of evidence at these hearings are

harebrained. Do we really think that Clifford Olson is not laughing?

As hard as this is to believe, at these 15-year review hearings victims are not allowed to give evidence. Correctional Service Canada is selective about information it gives the crown and the jury about the inmate. Unlike the trial, the verdict at the hearing only needs to be two-thirds in favour and the Clifford Olsons of the world win and walk.

We have heard a lot of talk about unanimity, that unanimity is talking about the future. Mr. Olson is still two-thirds as are others in the pipeline. Only in Canada they say. According to the Canadian Police Association, to date the experience of these hearings indicates that Correctional Service Canada is not exactly forthcoming about what evidence it hands over, especially if it is negative toward the killer. It is double jeopardy. This has the effect of ganging up on the families of victims one more time. Will it never end?

The Canadian Police Association confirms the unbalanced nature of the hearings to date, pointing out four major unfair elements. First, there is no oral testimony evidence of the offence. Instead it is done by agreed on facts. Yet the offender is allowed oral testimony regarding his or her rehabilitation. Which kind of testimony has a greater impact?

Second, no victim or surviving family evidence is allowed. It is deemed irrelevant. Are we getting the picture?

Third, Correctional Service of Canada supplies one person of its choosing to present what it chooses to release to the crown and to highlight for the jury. In the experience of the Canadian Police Association in one case this produced grossly unreliable, unjustified and on occasion wrong factual conclusions on the part of the Correctional Service of Canada.

Fourth, if the list were not already stacked enough, Correctional Service of Canada currently invokes the federal Privacy Act to disallow crown access to what it deems to be privacy matters. As the Canadian Police Association indicates in one case the originally concealed material turned out to contain information that this "model prisoner" inmate was a member of a lifer's group in prison known as the controllers that ran drugs, muscle and extortion in prison. This only came out when the judge ordered it released and admitted into evidence.

On more than one occasion privacy information has turned out to be ongoing criminal activity of the inmate while in prison. While CSC is no doubt embarrassed by this it does not justify concealing the truth, especially considering what is at stake.

The son of one of my constituents, Marjean Fichtenberg, was killed by Paul Butler. Paul Butler was on parole although he had committed 40 wrongdoings in prison which included a stabbing. That is the record of our parole board. The principle of section 745 may be out of touch but the process is an outright sham.

Let me add further insult to injury. In 1981 Clifford Olson pleaded guilty to the murder of 11 children. He received one life sentence for 11 murders. However a life sentence does not mean that a person will spend the rest of his or her life in jail as it would imply. A life sentence equals 25 years in prison, but 25 years in prison does not really mean that the offender will spend 25 years in prison. It means that he or she might only spend 15 years in prison. It is very confusing and misleading to say that a person receives a life sentence when it might only be a 15-year sentence. That is how the Canadian legal system works. Fifteen years for the taking of a human life, is that justice? In the end if Olson did get out in 15 years, which is unlikely but not impossible, he would have served 1.1 years for every child he was convicted of murdering. The only change in this travesty known as section 745 was the September 1996 amendment which excludes first and second degree murderers who are multiple murderers, but only for those who commit after the amendment was enacted in January. That still leaves the group of 600 on the path to parole.

In 1976 the then solicitor general for the Liberal government of day, Warren Allmand, felt that keeping an offender in prison for 25 years was the waste of a person's life and that it cost the taxpayers too much. Really, what about the 11 plus lives Olson took? Since when have Liberals become so conscious of taxpayer dollars?

The same solicitor general, Warren Allmand, argued in the same year that a person who commits a crime in the heat of the moment would not have to spend 25 years in jail because they probably would not commit another crime again. As of April 1994, 43 murderers had applied for early release under this section. Fifteen received immediate parole, 18 had their minimum terms reduced and 7 were denied early release. The rest are able to reapply in three or four years.

Over 70 per cent of these killers have been successful in obtaining early release at their hearings. Hearings in Quebec have had a high rate of release; in B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan, moderate release rates; in Alberta and Ontario, low release rates.

A report put out in 1991 by Correctional Services Canada surveyed 495 offenders entitled to judicial reviews. It said that those offenders with sentences of 15 years or more committed crimes that "involved extreme violence and were of a rather gruesome character". So much for Allmand's concern over crimes of passion. The report went further, saying that the treatment participation level as a whole for these kinds of offenders was low. More than 68 per cent never took part in any treatment programs.

Less than 5 per cent participated in a program that specifically dealt with violent personalities. Over 65 per cent did not take part in any professional training while in prison.

Yet despite the fact that very few violent offenders get any treatment, over 70 per cent have been successful so far at their judicial reviews.

In Ontario over the next five years over 211 murderers will apply for early release. In Canada between 500 and 600 murderers could get early release and be walking Canada's streets.

The Canadian Police Association has spearheaded debate on section 745 with the Reform Party and calls for its repeal. The association calls for this repeal based on five elements. The original sentence requires a discretionary parole system after a number of years set by a court, so why add a new discretionary step at all? Fifteen years is an insufficient specific or general deterrent for those most serious crimes. Fifteen years does not adequately express the principle of denunciation which these crimes merit. It is wrong to revictimize a victim's family by allowing these hearings where killers seek up to 40 per cent discounts off their court sentences. The preparation and hearing process is expensive and these dollars could be better put to use for public safety.

I remember well remarks I made in October 1996 during debate on the high risk offenders bill surrounding a constituent of mine. I referred earlier to Mrs. Marjean Fichtenberg who lost her son Dennis to a career criminal. I would like the justice minister to face her, see her grief and explain why he sees this high risk offender and section 745 foolishness as being fair, responsible and compassionate to the victims and their families. Tell her the deck is not stacked and have her believe he is out to prevent crime.

Since we struck down capital punishment, Canadians believed life imprisonment meant a minimum of 25 years at the state country club. They were deceived. A human life is worth more than 15 years. There is no parole or judicial review for murder victims and their families.