Peter MacKay

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to expropriating provincial land in Nanoose, B.C. resembles that of a dictatorship. It is giving the appearance of negotiating in good faith only to use a sledgehammer to enforce its will when negotiations fail. This approach can only be viewed as threatening to all provinces that dare oppose the government.

The minister of fisheries said two weeks ago that he wanted to give B.C. every opportunity to reach an agreement yet two days later the government moved to expropriate.

My question to the Prime Minister is what took place in those two days after the negotiations that caused the breakdown? Why is the government exercising extreme measures in the imposition of its will on this matter?

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Reasons, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for the brevity of his remarks so that I might participate. I say at the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party agrees with comments which have been made with respect to Motion No. 381 put forward by the member for Rosemont. This is an issue of compassion.

A very important comment was made by a previous speaker regarding the government's tendency to borrow opposition motions and previous governments' initiatives. Although no one has a patent on good ideas, Canadians have witnessed a government that has established a record of policy plagiarism.

The hon. member for Rosemont brought forward a motion which calls upon the government to bring about change in our health care system, our medical practice, that would allow for the medical prescription of marijuana in pain control. The most important point to keep in mind about the issue is that the motion is aimed at those who are affected and are currently suffering from very serious illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, MS and glaucoma. These individuals are suffering every day and it appears very little can be done with current medical procedures to ease the pain and ease the mind, particularly knowing that many of these diseases are fatal.

Forcing people to acquire a painkiller like the currently illegal marijuana certainly adds to the mental anguish. We are on the horns of a classic dilemma. We have a legally restricted activity, a social wrong that was created by law, yet a humane need to ease suffering.

I want to be clear. My position or that of the Conservative Party should not be mistaken as advocating drug use for any non-medical purpose. In fact it is quite the contrary. We are advocating a shift in the approach taken to the enforcement of drug use, particularly marijuana that is used for a very limited purpose, that being the medical tranquillity of suffering.

The key words here are health and medical purposes. We are talking about the compassionate use of a substance which is presently illegal in all circumstances. A number of substances are currently being used in the practice of medicine which are prescribed by doctors quite often to control pain, substances such as codeine, morphine and heroin which are perfect examples of drugs that in other circumstances would certainly be deemed illegal. Heroin, for example, has been used with a doctor's prescription since 1985 to ease the pain and suffering of Canadians fighting side effects of illnesses.

We can separate crime from medicine with very definitive, decisive laws. Further research may lead to a chemical production of a byproduct of marijuana which might be taken in a different form, that is taken orally through a pill. The use of a drug to relieve pain in those suffering from terminal illnesses, not for recreational use, is the aim of this motion. Delay in bringing this about will cause further pain and suffering for those afflicted.

On May 6 Jim Wakeford, a Toronto man suffering from advanced AIDS, applied for and finally received permission from Health Canada to use marijuana after fighting in the courts for years. Courts have recognized the humane need. Legislators like the Parliament of Canada should lead, not follow, on an issue such as this one. We cannot make criminals out of those needing our compassion or those who are trying to ease suffering.

The Compassion Club of Vancouver, also mentioned in the debate, supplies marijuana at no cost, free, solely to ease the pain of sick people on the lower mainland. This club is illegal but receives referrals from agencies of individuals suffering from AIDS or multiple sclerosis. It is a secure environment with a very good quality of marijuana, unlike that often found on the streets which might be laced with another substance.

The health minister promised in March that he would take steps toward helping seriously ill Canadians who require medical access to marijuana. The guidance document makes no reference to the severity of illness. It does not distinguish between terminal and non-terminal cases. There is a number of ambiguities.

The health minister is simply taking too long. Hilary Black, the Compassion Club founder, has stated that the slow speed of the minister's initiative means that more people will have to come into her clinic. Those individuals will continue to suffer until legislation is passed.

A fast response and a strict guide or criteria are needed, as is a clear definition that doctors' prescriptions will be granted therefore avoiding litigation, confusion and further delay.

A number of facts about marijuana have been touched upon already. One matter to keep in mind is that when it comes to glaucoma it reduces eye pressure, which reduces pain. It reduces spasms in victims who are suffering from multiple sclerosis. It reduces nausea in the treatment of cancer patients. It helps alleviate depression and regain appetite in those suffering from AIDS. There are no real side effects, aside from some dulling of the senses. As we know, some of the side effects from the horrific treatments which are undergone, in particular I am thinking of radiation, are sometimes worse than the actual symptoms of the illness the patient is suffering.

The Canadian Medical Association since 1981 has advocated the decriminalization of the possession of marijuana. It is encouraging to see that we in this place and in other parts of the country are finally catching up. The Canadian Police Association has taken a very positive view of this step. There are certainly noble reasons to permit the medical use of marijuana.

The Canadian Medical Association however recommends that the federal government, with respect to the jurisdictional aspect, move toward changes in our Narcotics Control Act and our Food and Drugs Act to keep up with this current trend. This position raises concerns about the herbal medicine aspect and the fact that it cannot be patented. The association states that there is a possibility that there will be exploitation of research if guidelines are not put in place. The government can address these problems and make changes to other legislation which will have to be amended.

There is also concern, I might add, on a number of levels, one being the chemical content that may come into play. These plants vary from plant to plant with respect to dosage. There is also concern about the standardization and the reproductability of clinical trials which will be problematic when it comes to putting the medical use forward. It would be almost impossible to conduct blind trials without having some consistency in the approach. There is also concern about the delivery of the drug and it not being reliable from patient to patient as the dose depends on the delivery technique.

These are obviously scientific matters that will have to be addressed in order for there to be consistency and in order for there to be safety, one of the underlying elements which always has to be kept in mind.

There is concern as well about research in this area. Quality research, random control trials and a guide to decision making are very appropriate when it comes to the needed standardized approach. There is no consistency in terms of the product available at this time. The dosage, the length of use and the possibility of addiction are areas that will have to be further researched.

Different drugs will have a different effect on individuals. There is also the aspect of the synergistic effect that marijuana might have when taken in conjunction with other chemicals and in consideration of a person's bodily make-up.

The patient's perspective is something that has to be emphasized. A person who requires marijuana and feels the physical need to use it to reduce suffering even with the mental effect it has certainly legitimizes the efforts to move toward the decriminalization of marijuana for this very limited purpose.

We cannot ignore that drugs are a consistent problem in today's society, but this is not a step toward legalizing marijuana in its entirety. I do not advocate that position at all. With the checks and balances that are needed there seems to be an opportunity before us. If the government is diligent and forward looking in its approach I am sure we can move this matter forward.

We support this initiative cautiously and encourage the government to move swiftly and decisively. I congratulate the member for Rosemont for taking this initiative and we look forward to further debate on the issue before the House.

[Criminal Records Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the question period break, what is needed in all cases involving justice where there is a balance to be reached between the individual and the right of society to be protected, a very delicate balance must be reached.

When it comes to the protection of children, who are least able to protect themselves, I would suggest that in most, if not all cases, we must tip that balance in favour of doing all that is possible to protect children.

I mentioned earlier the case that arose in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens. We are also aware from news reports of the case of Graham James who was the former head coach of the Swift Current Broncos. It was a much publicized case involving the position of trust that a coach would hold and his ability to act in a predatory way toward vulnerable young men, in this instance hockey players. We know as well that there are numerous instances when this occurs and a position of trust is abused.

This reinforces the importance of Bill C-69 and the ability of agencies, coaches, teachers, volunteers, counsellors and individuals involved in the delivery of services to children to access information that would disclose this type of background. One would be quick to acknowledge that it is a very sick and twisted background.

Does Bill C-69 go far enough? The names of convicted sex offenders in this case belong to the solicitor general and his records. The solicitor general would have the discretion as to whether that name and the record itself would be disclosed. The RCMP, due to recent amendments to this bill, do not have that discretion and I believe that is a good thing because there is an opportunity in some instances for individual police officers to be placed in a very uncomfortable position about whether they should in fact release this information. They need the support of their department, and in this case we are talking about the solicitor general's department.

Victims of crime, individuals who have been directly affected, including their families, are those who would be most in favour of this bill.

The police of course were very supportive of the efforts that were made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. They spoke very favourably of his efforts and were very receptive to the government's position that it took in incorporating those suggestions into the bill which is before the House.

With respect to citizens in communities, I have seen instances where citizens have taken steps of their own. They have posted notices around the neighbourhood when they were aware of an individual who had been engaged in this despicable exploitation of children and yet the agencies were not able to make public that person's past.

We hope that this bill will, in some way, remedy that situation in terms of disclosure, public knowledge and, ultimately, protection. Knowledge will protect people affected by sex offenders living in their community.

One concern that a person might have is about the bureaucracy that often surrounds the implementation of an exercise such as this. The solicitor general could gain possession of records only through a written request to the prison commissioner if the subject of the records had already given written consent.

For police investigating a sex crime, the same type of rule would apply. They would have to rely on the commissioner to make a notation; in other words, to flag a certain record that would allow the police to then access the information. Yet a police force or other authorized body may also request the commissioner to provide the minister with any record of the conviction of that applicant and the commissioner may then transmit the record to the minister.

With more work now being placed in the hands of the already overworked and underfunded police forces around the country there is some concern as to how they will handle this additional workload.

We have seen similar government bills, such as the youth criminal justice act, where greater responsibility and emphasis will be placed on the police in the exercise of their front line authority, but there will be no additional resources. This is something about which we have to be sensitive. Hopefully the government will also be sensitive to it when it is looking at next year's budgets and the money that will be allotted to the police.

It is not enough to give them the tools, legislative initiatives, changes to the Criminal Code and changes to the Criminal Records Act without giving them the accompanying funding that will allow them to use effectively these law enforcement tools.

Others who might request the information that is covered by Bill C-69 would be members of organizations, possibly for the well-being of children. Examples might include a parent who would like to find out about a child's hockey coach, a teacher or a kindergarten supervisor. Associations like the Pictou County Minor Hockey Association, the Antigonish Minor Hockey Association, Big Brothers or Big Sisters would be able to access information about employees or volunteers who were in or were attempting to enter those organizations. This is relevant, prevalent information that should be in their hands.

There has been discussion about the rights of the sex offenders themselves. I will be the first to acknowledge that there has to be some degree of respect for any person who has very damaging information such as this on their record, particularly when it is extremely dated.

Once again we are into the argument of balance. I would suggest that any indication this information would be withheld or kept completely private would certainly be outweighed by the need to protect the public and the need to protect children in this instance.

I support the bill fully. I know the bill hinges upon passage quickly through this place. This is a process with which you are intimately familiar, Mr. Speaker. It often takes a long time. Bills coming through the justice department and the solicitor general's departments are coming in some instances in a very slow and grinding fashion. We saw that particularly with the youth criminal justice act. However, with the unanimous support we have seen for the bill and the importance that has been place upon it, there is hope of its speedy passage through the House.

The protection of the community has to be given the highest order when it comes to bills of this nature. There is ample support not only in this place but around the country for having the bill firmly ensconced in our Criminal Code and in our criminal justice act.

It is with pride that I lend support to the government's initiative. Again much of the impetus and credit for the bill is to be bestowed upon the member for Calgary Centre. He worked very diligently in bringing the matter forward to this point. He was very active in the justice committee in having it brought to fruition and is to be commended for it.

Bill C-69 will certainly lead to a more stringent offender registry. I have serious concerns, and the Progressive Conservative Party repeatedly expresses its concerns, about the already overburdened Canadian Police Information Centre and the computer system that houses the information such as the DNA databank, the criminal registry, the DNA registry and the ill-founded gun registry that is set up to fail. All these current computer information systems are embodied in one system that is extremely strapped at this time.

The minister has announced a $150 million addition in funding for the computer system, but conservative estimates from the police indicate that it is simply insufficient. It is not half of what is actually needed to make the system operate efficiently.

Bill C-69 will receive the support of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the hope of our party that those who prey upon children and have been caught and those whose names have been recorded in our criminal justice system will not now be able to point to a pardon as a means to protect themselves from having that information disclosed to those who need it most. Sadly, we will never be in a position to ensure that children are not vulnerable in certain instances, but the bill goes some distance to achieving that very laudable goal.

I commend all those involved in the production of the bill, those involved in the drafting, and particularly those who testified and had great input into the bill reaching this point. The PC Party will be supporting the bill. We look forward to its passage and seeing it become a legislative initiative.

[Airbus, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked the RCMP was under the ministry of the solicitor general. Canadians are tired of excuses and want action. It is a fact that the RCMP is suffering from a severe lack of funding due to Liberal budget cuts, yet as Bre-X gets swept under the rug the partisan obsession against Brian Mulroney continues to cost millions.

The National Post described it perfectly. It said that the government was intent on finding something to do with someone about a crime yet to be established in order to prove that it was not entirely wrong headed in its pursuit of Airbus rumours in the first place.

Letting this case fester and bumble on is not an option. The solicitor general should tell Canadians when he will put an end to this futile investigation.

[Airbus, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, now that the RCMP has abandoned the criminal investigation into Bre-X Minerals Ltd., perhaps it will reconsider the wisdom of its politically motivated airbus fiasco.

Bre-X is the biggest alleged market fraud in Canadian history, yet the RCMP gives up because Bre-X board members refuse to talk and it is costing millions.

With the encouragement of the Liberal government, the RCMP continues to waste taxpayers' dollars on the airbus investigation that today has found no evidence, not a shred.

When will the solicitor general take responsibility for the RCMP, put an end to this continuous embarrassment and focus on solving real crime, not settling Liberal vendettas?

[Criminal Records Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to take part in this debate. I can assure the hon. member who just spoke that it will be unanimous in terms of our support. The Conservative Party as well is very much in favour of this bill as we were of that of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. His Bill C-284 was the impetus to the government's adoption of this particular notion.

As outlined by previous speakers who referred to Bill C-69, this particular act that is to be amended will now incorporate and permit law enforcement agencies, and by virtue of their co-operation, agencies such as Big Brothers, Scouts Canada, kindergartens and those who seek to have persons in positions of trust in their employ, to inquire through the police and through the solicitor general's department about the appearance on a person's record of a prior sexual assault conviction. Prior to this amendment there was no ability to do so with any certainty.

As has been mentioned a balance always has to be struck when one is attempting to disclose information that was deemed to have been pardoned. This country's pardon system has often been questioned. This bill and the amendment to this type of information is very positive.

Along those lines, May 3 to May 7 was sexual awareness week. The city of Lethbridge promoted this week by bringing to the attention of Canadians the issue of sexual assault. It made this comment in its literature: “It is not an issue of sex; it is an issue of power and control”. That is very true when it comes to the disclosure of information to protect those in our society who are most vulnerable. I am talking here about children who are very vulnerable when exposed potentially to individuals who have been convicted of sexual assaults.

This bill, which will amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts as a consequence, will provide the necessary protection. It allows access to records of pardoned individuals which was previously unavailable. It will work in conjunction with another bill which is currently before the House of Commons, Bill C-79. That bill is aimed specifically at bringing victims more into the picture with respect to our criminal justice system. It is intended to allow access in particular by the police and agencies to this vital information which concerns sex offenders who had received a pardon previously.

The safeguards to protect the individual's rights exist within the legislation. The solicitor general has a degree of discretion where, as referred to, police officers are now mandated to make the disclosure when the request has occurred and the proper vetting has also occurred. There are safeguards and scrutiny will take place before the information will be disclosed.

We are all aware of high profile individual cases that have become very public, one of which rocked our national sport of hockey. I am referring to the Toronto Maple Leafs scandal involving an usher, John Roby whose case is now coming to a close. Mr. Roby was facing 35 charges of molesting children and showed very little remorse throughout the trial.

This type of predatory violence is something we must do everything possible about in this House and certainly in our law enforcement. We must do everything within our means to ensure the proper information is disseminated to society so people will know and can identify those persons who are preying on our most vulnerable the children.

Prior access to criminal records may not have helped in that case. This is a situation where this is not retroactive for cases that have already been heard. But in similar future situations where there is a high rate of recidivism, which is the case when it comes to sexual assault complainants, they need to know that individuals have in the past engaged in this type of despicable behaviour. These records will be flagged.

Individuals who have engaged in that activity and who have been for whatever reason granted a pardon will have their records flagged. Agencies will be permitted to gain access to that information and then make informed decisions as to whether they would put a person with that type of record in a position of working in close contact with children.

Another tragic case which has garnered much public attention is the case of Alison Parrot, an 11 year old who was raped and murdered by Francis Carl Roy in 1989. Alison's mother tried to seek justice in the death of her daughter yet there was a further tragedy. Mr. Roy should not have been on the streets. He had two prior convictions for the rapes of teenage girls and had assaulted another woman only days before Alison Parrot was raped and murdered. The judge decided to protect Mr. Roy's right to presumption of innocence and agreed to the defence motion not to disclose to the jury the prior convictions in the other cases.

This will be an issue for another day, but I suggest again that when it comes to the protection of children, information is power. It is power in the hands of those who need it most, mainly the police and agencies that oversee children through their education or caregiving.

Bill C-69 will set up a sex offender registry which will be accessed over the Canadian Police Information Centre, the CPIC system. That information will be quickly available to police officers who can then pass it on to those who make the inquiries. This again is important. Speed of access is very important. When a person applies for a job or volunteers for an organization, the information needed for the decision to hire or not to hire is required in a very expeditious way.

Another measure that would enable people to notify these agencies like CPIC is by making direct inquiries through the solicitor general's department. Again this is a welcome change.

If we continue to enact legislation such as Bill C-69, we may some day reach a point where the Canadian public will again begin to believe in our justice system and have greater faith in the ability of our law enforcement agencies to protect them from sexual predators.

There is always talk in situations such as this one of the charter of rights and the individual's rights to be protected. We know that a pardon is an extraordinary remedy when a person has already been convicted and has gone through the proper legal channels. However there are some instances, and obviously the protection of children is one, that outweigh that individual's rights to keep this information private.

I suggest that there is a recognition of this by the government and the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and all participants of the justice committee. I would commend the witnesses who also came forward and spoke in favour of this legislative initiative.

Criminal records concerning a pardoned offence will only be released by the solicitor general or the RCMP after there is written notification given to the affected offender. There will also be an element of vetting as to the appropriateness of this decision.

Community rights in most instances should prevail. Statistics have shown that since 1994, 700 pardoned individuals have reoffended. This is somewhat disturbing, particularly when it again bears on the protection of children.

I believe in democracy. Therefore, I believe in rights for everyone, including former sexual offenders. I can understand the minister's dilemma: she must always try to ensure that the rights of all Canadians are protected.

With Bill C-69 the minister tried to come up with a bill that will protect all Canadians. In a democracy we must debate bills, to allow elected representatives to suggest possible changes. Normally, these changes will improve the legislation. However, a balance is necessary.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the main motion. The amendment keeps in mind that Bill C-68 has borrowed from and incorporated much of the intent the hon. member for Surrey North had in mind when the bill was originally brought forward.

I acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the member for Surrey North in this regard. Through no fault of his own and through no desire of his own, he joined a very exclusive group in the country, and that is being the survivor of a murdered victim. As a parent I think the bill and the incorporation of the bill into the Criminal Code serves as a tribute to his son Jesse.

This a very commendable focus of what in most circumstances would be a very bitter and negative energy. He has put forward what is a very positive motion which will hopefully help to prevent, perhaps in some way, matters such as this where a parent is not being held accountable and not making significant efforts to supervise a young person who is bound by a court order.

There has been much discussion throughout the debate on Bill C-260 about the new youth criminal justice act that has also been debated in the Chamber. We in the Progressive Conservative Party like all Canadians were looking forward to the changes that were coming about as a result of deliberations and as a result of the long delay endured on the issue of changes to the Young Offenders Act.

As has been stated time and time again in the House, in the media, in the coffee shops and in general debate throughout the country, the Young Offenders Act was not serving its purpose, not serving our criminal justice system, and not serving Canadians at large.

Unfortunately the new bill is a disappointment. There was an opportunity, which the minister chose not to exercise, to make changes that would have had a more significant effect. That is not to say that commendable changes have not come about. Certainly there is an element through some effort on the part of the member for Surrey North to bring in some form of parental responsibility. It is a positive measure to have the ability now to identify certain dangerous young offenders and the ability to transfer certain types of offences. That would be seen in a positive light.

However other offences have been excluded for some reason from consideration. Although we are not through the final stages of the bill, there will be an opportunity to propose amendments. At least there will be an opportunity to fix some of the glaring omissions on the part of the Department of Justice. Time will tell.

The introduction of the new bill was given a great deal of focus in the media. There was a great deal of hype and much discussion outside the Chamber by the minister. It is with sort of a heavy heart that we are facing a situation where this change to the Young Offenders Act does not exactly hit the mark.

Some of the areas where obviously there is a downturn or a failing is the inability to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10. There is also an omission in the area of focusing on the use of weapons in the commission of a criminal offence and making mandatory minimum sentences for young offenders in situations where weapons have been used.

The focus of the bill was to be on violent versus non-violent offences. There was much discussion and acrimony about the fact that young people should be given an opportunity and should be treated differently under our criminal justice system. That is the philosophy of the old bill, of the juvenile delinquents act, and of the bill before the House.

There is difficulty in saying that we have to be more pro-active and pre-emptive when it comes to treating young people under our criminal justice system. There has to be an acknowledgement that the resources also have to be allotted.

The enforcement and administration of the legislation have to acknowledge that currently there is a funding shortage and that currently the federal government is not holding up its end of the bargain. The original intent of the old legislation, the Young Offenders Act, was that the federal government would pick up 50% of the cost of administration. Similarly the new legislation would have the same fiscal or monetary attachment. That is not the case.

We also know that the present social services are in many cases the first line of defence, that is child welfare offices, offices that have to deal with the protection of children. These offices are drastically underfunded, yet at the same time the bill will put a greater emphasis on those agencies.

I would be reticent not to mention the fact that the police are given greater powers of discretion under the new bill. It is a very laudable intention that police officers be allowed to exercise greater discretion in the field and perhaps on occasion, rather than formally charging a young person, be permitted to take the young person to his or her parents or back to the station and administer a tongue lashing, for lack of a better word. Sometimes that will have a better impact on the young person than having them go through the very formal and very sterile court process.

With all of that in mind, if the intent of the new legislation is to have this proactive attempt by police to circumvent more formal processes, there also has to be an acknowledgement that it will be a very onerous task for police in terms of taxing their time, their effort and their current resources.

They simply do not have those resources. We know that because time and time again we hear it from the policing community and from the chiefs of police. We know that the RCMP is drastically underfunded at this time. We know that its budgets have been cut time and time again. In general terms we have seen billions cut out of transfer payments to provinces that go to the administration of justice in individual provinces.

It is nothing short of lip service. It is very lame for the government to suggest that it will give more responsibility to the police and the frontline agencies which will be tasked with administering the new bill and at the same time tell them not only that they will not get more money to do so but that they will not get the same amount they used to have to administer the Young Offenders Act. There is an absolutely hypocritical nature to the bill.

With respect to what some other justice ministers in the provinces have said, I will quote from the Alberta Minister of Justice, Jon Havelock, who said in relation to contemplating the tougher spin which has been put on the legislation that to increase penalties, increase the jail time and ensure that those who were repeatedly committing offences are dealt with more appropriately under the act, the money will have to be in place.

New Brunswick justice minister, Greg Byrne, said that he could not remain partisan when speaking about the new bill. He said that it should be tougher on violent offenders. This creates an interesting dilemma for the Minister of Justice because she has cautioned Canadians that the provinces will have to come on side and enforce the provisions of the bill which will become law before the year 2000.

During the minister's year long consultation process with many of the provinces she stated continually that they were being properly consulted. Consulted is one thing but being actually listened to is another. It has become patently obvious that the ministers of justice of many of provinces, including Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and even New Brunswick, are sorrily disappointed with the outcome and the final draft of the bill.

It demonstrates to me that it is another example of broken promises. If this is the consultation that takes place, and yet at the end of the day the provinces are ignored, it is not something that will further good relations.

The federal government and the provincial governments agreed a long time ago that they would divide the cost of administering the Young Offenders Act. This is certainly the intention of the provinces today. They are still asking the federal government to pick up its fair share of the cost of the administration. No where have we ever seen the commitment of the federal government to do so.

The minister's attempt to please all of the provinces by taking bits and pieces of the suggestions and implementing them into the bill will eventually please no one, and I would suggest that includes the hon. member for Surrey North.

With the introduction of Bill C-68 we saw a lot of bells and whistles and a lot of publicity about what it is going to accomplish, but at the end of the day we saw a very cumbersome bill that will be extremely difficult to administer. The bill is twice as lengthy and includes twice as many clauses as the old Young Offenders Act. We know that the old Young Offenders Act was a very cumbersome piece of legislation. This will be a field day for lawyers, a nightmare for judges, and it will not accomplish for Canadians what we had hoped it would.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Motion No. 528. I am always honoured to follow the lead of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who I think has added, in his very articulate and vastly insightful way, to the debate today.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the motion which defends section 43 of the Criminal Code and invokes the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when necessary. I suppose that when necessary clause defines the issue to some degree.

Is there a need? Is there a pressing concern that would require this to happen? That in and of itself is something that could be debated for some time. I am not questioning the merits of what the hon. member has done by bringing the issue forward. It is my feeling and the feeling of my party that this debate is useful to clarify and perhaps reinforce section 43, in particular for the sake of many parents and teachers who deal with the challenges of raising and educating today's youth.

Parliament has in its wisdom enacted such a section of the Criminal Code. I would go further and say that it has been consistently upheld by our courts at the provincial supreme court and Supreme Court of Canada levels. Consistently case law suggests that it has been upheld.

There are instances of which hon. members have been made aware or perhaps personally encountered where the degree of force has been brought into question as to how much or how far a parent or person acting in the stead of a parent can go in correcting a misbehaving child or youth.

Again I do not mean to trivialize the issue in any way by saying that this is not a wildfire epidemic which is sweeping the country. I am not aware at least of any issue of spanking taking place throughout the country that has resulted in a major court challenge or in repeated community disruption.

The wording in the section defines the issue, and that is reasonableness and community standard. These words are encompassed in the Criminal Code. They define how far a parent or a person in a parent's place can go in disciplining a child in response to a misbehaviour or perhaps an action taken by a child. I do not feel that section 43 is in any jeopardy at this time.

The hon. member also brought forward certain studies and psychological and methodological evidence which is also helpful in the debate to define just how far a parent can go and the reaction or the response of that child to physical correction.

As well it helps to define the fact that this is not a situation where we are talking about child abuse. I do not believe the line is that grey at the present time. There are instances where quite clearly the corrective methods undertaken are disproportionate and very injurious to a child.

The hon. member referenced the fact that there were instances that one can envision when harsh words and a berating attitude or a barrage of language can be perhaps even more painful and have more deleterious and lasting effects on a child than, for lack of a better word, a simple physical corrective measure where a child is stopped physically, for example, from picking on a younger sibling or partaking in what is deemed to be a dangerous activity; a teacher takes a child firmly by the arm and marches him or her down to the principal's office; or one simply removes something from the child's possession if it poses a danger to himself or herself or another child.

These types of physical corrective measures are envisioned by section 43 of the Criminal Code and certainly the type of measures to which my hon. colleague refers in his remarks. All of that to say that I do not see the line as being that blurred when one applies the reasonableness and the community standard test in place currently in the Criminal Code.

When physical injury results, when marks are left on a child because of the overreaction of a parent or a person in authority, that would cross the line. When that occurs and matters, through the natural course, wind up before the courts, and there is an opportunity for a judge to review the evidence and the circumstances, this section is put to the test.

It is understandable that there is concern about this. However, I would suggest once more that this is not a matter which is in need, at least at this point, of taking what I would suggest in the context of the greater debate would be a disproportionate response, that being the use of the notwithstanding clause.

By invoking the notwithstanding clause, as was referred to by the hon. member opposite from Vancouver Quadra, the pith and the substance of doing that would be tantamount to a parent overreacting and responding in a very disproportionate way and using a far too extreme form of response or violence to what a child has done.

I do not mean to diminish what the hon. member is trying to accomplish, but even the reference of the notwithstanding clause in relation to this section, I suggest with all respect, diminishes the importance of what this section is really intended to do in the context of our Constitution and in the context of the application of it to our criminal law.

We have seen cases that have come forward quite recently, such as the case of the Queen and Sharpe and the Queen and Feeney, in which there is perhaps a need for discussion in the context of what those cases dealt with. When it comes to the protection of children from exploitation through pornography, when it comes to the rules and the laws of search and seizure that empower police officers in pursuit of criminals that have engaged in very violent activity, those are recent examples for which one might envision the invoking of the notwithstanding clause.

For those not intimately familiar with this, what it would do is essentially strike down a judge's decision and delay or put into abeyance the significance of the ruling for a period of five years.

In the greater context, I reiterate with all respect that using this type of constitutional power in the context of this section would be extremely ill-founded and ill-timed.

Turning back to the substantive debate, what is being discussed is the use of corrective proportionate response in the disciplining of a child. It is fair to say that in these very trying and troubling times, for youth who are in need of an early start and proper direction in their lives, there are occasions. Mr. Speaker, you may have been subjected to a spanking at some point in your life, as well as other members present. I am sure that it made an impression, but not the type of impression that would leave a mark on one's physical person. We are talking about the type of impression that leaves a person with the feeling that perhaps they have done something wrong and that they should not engage in that type of activity.

When we talk about this type of physical corrective measure we have to be very prudent in encouraging people to do it on the one hand, but at the same time we do not want to exaggerate the impact this would have on a child.

When we talk about this section of the Criminal Code, we want to be careful not to dismiss the issue of child abuse because that is something that is not sanctioned by section 43 of the Criminal Code. It is there to ensure that children are protected, but that parents and those acting in the place of a parent are permitted in certain very specific instances and factual circumstances to exercise discretion and the implicit responsibility that they have to physically correct a child, and often to do so for the protection of that child.

I am very supportive of the efforts the hon. member has made in bringing this matter to the floor of the House of Commons. I am very pleased to take part in the debate, but I would again suggest that this is not a Criminal Code section that is in jeopardy currently. It is not a Criminal Code section that is in danger at this time of being struck down by any current litigation of which I am aware. The issue itself bears discussion and it will continue to be respected by our judiciary and by those in the country who hope to and who will uphold the laws of the land.

[Correctional Service Canada, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is evidence to the contrary when it comes to public safety.

Will the solicitor general confirm that he or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, are in receipt of a letter allegedly sent by Tyrone Conn, the inmate who was serving 47 years for armed robbery, who escaped from Kingston Penitentiary last Thursday? In the letter Mr. Conn mocks the liberal penal system, its wardens, its lax security and gun registry.

Will the solicitor general advise whether he is in possession of the letter, its authenticity and the status of Mr. Conn?

[Correctional Service Canada, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, despite the denials of CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup, the 50:50 prison quota is still in effect.

Canadians continually hear of prisoners walking away from correctional institutions, being given unescorted bus tickets to freedom and using grappling hooks to scale prison walls. It is obvious that the commissioner will quickly see the release of 50% of all prisoners in Canada.

Will the solicitor general admit that there are growing indicators, including the scathing comments of the auditor general, that CSC is facing a crisis that will put Canadians at risk?