1986-07-24

RECONVENING OF PARLIAMENT

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I inform the House that in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 5, having been satisfied after consultations with the Government that the public interest required that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, I caused to be published in an extra edition of The Canada Gazette dated July 23, 1986, a notice calling the House to meet this day. In addition, on the same date I sent telegrams and electronic mail to each Member of the House containing the substance of that notice.
I now lay upon the table the letter dated July 22, 1986 from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in relation to that notice.



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, with an amendment, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
Also a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code, without amendment.
The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, while thanking my hon. colleagues for that warm reception, I am under no illusion that the honeymoon will last very long.
There have been discussions with the opposition House Leaders, and I think Your Honour would find that there would
be a willingness to allow the following motion to be put without debate or without amendment. The draft order which has been agreed to by my opposition counterparts reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House when the House reaches "Government Orders" this day, it shall proceed to the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act;
That the provisions of Standing Orders 9(2), 19(4) in relation to Statements by Members and the Oral Question Period, and 55(1) shall be in force for the purposes of this Order;
That at 3 o'clock p.m. the House shall continue with consideration of the said Senate amendment to Bill C-67 until it has completed its consideration of the said amendment provided that Standing Order 9(1) shall be suspended for the purposes of this Order;
That when the House has completed its consideration of the said amendment the Speaker shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair for the purpose of witnessing the Royal Assent or for considering any subsequent proceeding in relation to the said Bill or amendment and that when the Royal Assent has been completed the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 11 o'clock a.m., Monday, September 8, 1986;
Provided, that at any time a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion to adjourn the H3use to a specific date, but in any case not later than September 8, 1986 and that the question on the same motion shall be put to the House without debate or amendment; and that, if necessary, on the request of a Minister of the Crown, the sitting may be resumed for this purpose.
I might also point out that it was generally agreed that we were here for the specific purpose of dealing with this particular piece of legislation and that no other matters would be considered.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to say that we are willing to give our consent to this Order. However, I also want to say that in giving our consent I make clear that the taking of this step is not considered by the Official Opposition to be any kind of precedent. Especially, we do not consider to be a precedent for a government, which is not able to complete its program within the time set by the House under its rules, to have the House meet during the period set for adjournment. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I think it was clear that when the House adopted these rules in the spirit of reform it was intended that the House sit within fixed periods. However, the rules do provide that when the House is adjourned, if the Speaker, after consultation, agrees with the Government that it is in the public interest to do so, he can issue a proclamation recalling the House. The intention, I think, was clear by the House when it adopted these rules that this authority was to be used very rarely, very sparingly and in very unusual circumstances.

July 24, 1986
Committee Reports
[DOT] (mo)
We have not opposed the recalling of the House for the Bill that will be before us today, but I want to stress that in not opposing this step we do not consider that we are creating a precedent. Above all, the rules in the spirit of reform must prevail. I want to make that very clear on behalf of the Official Opposition.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, first on behalf of our House Leader, who cannot be here today, I want to congratulate the new Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and House Leader of the Government.
Second, I want to say that we also give our consent for the House Order today which basically says we are going to consider the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67, have Oral Question Period and Statements by Members. If our understanding is correct, at three o'clock, if the debate is continuing, it will continue until completed, whatever hour that may be.
I want to say, as did the House Leader for the Official Opposition, that we do not consider the recall of Parliament at this time to be necessary. We do have a fixed parliamentary calendar, a fixed parliamentary schedule, and Standing Order 5 was there for an emergency. We now find ourselves back in the House because the Government did not complete its legislative agenda at the end of June in spite of the fact that we sat extended hours for a couple of weeks to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, this recall of Parliament should not constitute a precedent, especially within the context of our parliamentary reform. This recall of Parliament must not be allowed to become a precedent, because Members need the summer recess to do their work in their ridings.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we agree to the House order. [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the understandable absence of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights-and I am sorry he is not here to present this report as his last parliamentary act-it gives me pleasure and an honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights in both official languages to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the Committee requests a comprehensive response-

Mr. Speaker, the report refers to sanctions and asks the Government, if no progress has been made on the question of Namibia and South Africa between now and September 30, to consider imposing total sanctions against South Africa.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by 52 residents of my riding and some from the National Capital Region who continue to express their opposition to the National Capital Commission's plan to destroy a piece of parkland in our region for the purpose of creating embassy sites.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of the Orleans area of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell asking for the Government of Canada to intervene in the arbitrary and unfair decision of the Canada Post Corporation not to have full door-to-door mail delivery service in new subdivisions in my riding and elsewhere.

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER Mr. Speaker: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 24, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act.
Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to express my appreciation for the co-operation of my fellow Members of Parliament in returning to Ottawa for the special sitting of the House of Commons. I know that many Members have had to rearrange holiday and work schedules, and I want everyone to know that I appreciate the opportunity to proceed with the discussion of Bill C-67 today.


Mr. Benjamin:: My wife is mad at you.


James Francis Kelleher: I am not going to get into domestic problems this morning, Mr. Speaker, I intend to stick to the Bill!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: Let me also say that I very much regret the necessity to recall the House. We are here today because Canada's appointed Senate acted at the last moment-indeed, after this House had risen for the summer-to impede a vital piece of legislation, Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act.
Bill C-67 had received a full and careful examination by the Members of this House and, of course, was accorded their final approval. A lot of time and effort went into the scrutiny of the Bill over the past year, and comments, suggestions and amendments by members of both Houses of Parliament were reflected in it by the time it received third and final reading.
The urgency of this Bill has been emphasized time and time again. No one pretends that its passage will end all senseless violence by released offenders. No one can guarantee that. There is only one guarantee I can offer, and that is that every further day of delay jeopardizes safety of law-abiding Canadians.
Critics have charged that the measures in this Bill will not increase the public safety, that extended detention will simply postpone the problem. If that argument is carried to its logical extention, Mr. Speaker, then offenders should never be incarcerated since continued incarceration of any length only postpones the problem.
For many offenders, their return to society is best achieved by serving the latter part of their sentence in the community under supervision. However, for a small number of offenders a six year sentence of imprisonment must mean six years of imprisonment and not four years; an eight year sentence in custody must mean eight years, not five and a half. The Correctional Service and the Parole Board must have at their
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
disposal the extra measure of time to intervene with the few dangerous offenders and attempt to reduce the risk that they pose to society.
A lot of attention has been focused on how many inmates will be affected by these measures, Mr. Speaker. The number according to the best estimates of the correctional authorities, is between 100 and 150 inmates a year, and 40 within the next three months. But this is not a numbers game. Each of these inmates would pose a very real and very immediate threat to society if prematurely released. How real and how immediate? On the basis of past experience, more than half of them would be behind bars again within three months for committing new crimes of violence.
The House of Commons has accepted the measures that were put forward in Bill C-67 to address this problem. The Bill was before the parliamentary legislative committee for four months, between September 26 of last year and January 23 of this year. The former Solicitor General appeared before the committee five times and the Government received and considered dozens of amendments and suggestions, some of which were incorporated into the Bill and some of which were not.
In addition, we delayed action on the Bill to allow the Senate to conduct and complete a pre-study of the Bill so that their suggestions could also be considered prior to third reading. The chonology runs like this. The Senate authorized the pre-study December 17 of last year. The Senate Committee charged with the task, however, did not get started on it until February 23 of this year. It did not submit its first interim report until May 14, and it filed its second interim report on June 12. The Senate never did get around to submitting a final report on the Bill, despite the personal pleas of my predecessor, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), who appeared before them on two occasions to plead with them to get on with the Bill and their completion of the study. Because we wished to pass this Bill in this past session, it was necessary for us to go to third reading, which was accomplished on June 17, June 18 and June 26.
Let us look for a moment at the action the Senate finally took. Their amendment was not contained in either of their interim reports and no reference was made to it when I appeared as the newly appointed Solicitor General to give testimony before them.
The general question of using the courts rather than the National Parole Board to conduct the detention review process was raised in the interim Senate report and has been raised before in the House of Commons. It has been carefully studied by my Department and it has been firmly rejected by the Government and by this House.
All the Senate amendment did was to revive the issue from a different angle. Not a new angle, I should add, but an angle that had already been considered and rejected by this House.

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
The Senate amendment is identical to one put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on June 17 and ruled out of order by the Speaker. If I may quote from page 14543 of Hansard of that date, Mr. Speaker, the ruling was as follows:
Motion No. 15 tried to introduce a new concept into the Bill. While an inmate already has the right to appeal on the basis of law, granting him the right to appeal on any ground of law or fact or mixed law or fact is a new concept and clearly beyond the scope of the Bill as passed by the House at second reading.
The Senate amendment is no more acceptable today than it was then.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the central question of using the courts rather than the Parole Board for detention decisions has been discussed on many occasions. The courts could obviously do the job if they had to, but the Government opted to leave the responsibility with the Parole Board because we believe the Board is better qualified to make detention decisions.
The reasoning is as follows. The length of a prisoner's sentence is clearly a decision for the courts. A detention decision on the other hand affects only the manner in which a sentence is served, whether all of it should be served in incarceration or the last part of it back out in society but under supervision. It is a decision based on risk assessment. It is, in other words, like a parole decision, and the National Parole Board makes thousands of these risk assessment decisions every year.
Moreover, the Bill provides for a comprehensive appeal structure, both within the Board itself and through the Federal Court. The internal appeal structure allows the inmate to request a re-examination of the facts on which the Board based its decision or, if warranted, a fresh examination of facts not known to the Board at the time of the hearing.
Paragraph 15.6 (l)(g) of Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the making of regulations and I quote:
(g) prescribing the time when and the manner in which an inmate may apply to the Board for a re-examination of the decision made in respect of the review of his case pursuant to Section 15.4, the manner in which the reexamination will be conducted and the time when and the manner in which the inmate will be informed of the decision rendered in connection therewith.
Regulations in this regard were prepared, Mr. Speaker, and are ready to be proclaimed in force at the same time as the measures contained in this Bill. These regulations will allow the inmate to appeal a detention order or a residency requirement within 30 days after it is imposed. The appeal shall be conducted by board members who did not participate in the original decision, and shall be conducted by way of a reexamination of the material in which the decision was rendered by the Board, together with any other relevant information that was not available at the time of that decision.
The inmate has the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review of this or any other Parole Board decision. Section 18 of the Federal Court Act provides that the Trial Division has
exclusive jurisdiction to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto or to grant declaratory relief against any federal board, commission or other tribunal. While the court will not second guess the tribunal with respect to the facts of the case, the court will closely examine the legal procedure that was followed and the exercise of the Board's jurisdiction. This is a right of appeal which exists now and which will continue to be available to those inmates subject to the detention process.
Inmates brought into the detention review process will be afforded the most thorough substantive and procedural safeguards possible at every stage of the process. The Government has listened to the suggestions of the many persons who have examined all provisions of this Bill, and the Government has given active consideration and thoughtful consideration to all of these suggestions. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it has adapted and adopted many of them.
This is not, in other words, a shotgun Bill. I am confident, and the Members of this House were confident when they approved the Bill on June 26, that the legislation presented to the Senate is reasonable, that it is well thought out, and that it balances the interests and concerns of the many divergent groups that will be affected by it. That includes the interests and concerns of Canadian society as a whole, the little guy, the man and woman in the street.
I urge my fellow Members of this House to continue their support for the much needed measures in this Bill. I urge their assistance in its passage without further delay. That is what we have come back to do. Let's do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, because this House believes that the National Parole Board is better structured and experienced to deal with all matters of fact relating to the prediction of violent behaviour and that public safety is properly preserved through decision-making being kept with the Board.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Might I inquire whether there may be unanimous consent to put some questions to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher)?


Mr. Speaker:: The Member is seeking a change in our procedures by unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has heard the answer to that request for a change in procedure. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Debate.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 24, 1986


John Napier Turner: I would only suggest that if we were to take a vote right now, we would win it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today and that Your Honour accorded a special session to the House, for only the twelfth time since Confederation, has a good deal more to do with the attempt to salvage the reputation of the Government than to protect Canadians from violent criminals. The issue has a good deal more to do with the incompetence of the Government and the way it has handled this matter than it does with the constitutional and parliamentary role of the Senate.
The controversy over the Senate amendment to this Bill was created and fanned by the Government itself in inflammatory statements by the former Solicitor General, reinforced by the current Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) after his appointment, and then echoed and buttressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself.
At the outset I want to put some of these statements on the record because the rhetoric we have heard from the Government on this issue has been nothing short of extravagant, to say the least. Let us take the former Solicitor General, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), who is reported to have said in The Ottawa Citizen on July 4, presumably in Saskatoon:
It's dangerous because it means for the next 2 1/2 months at least we'll be having a situation where dangerous criminals will be allowed out of prison before the expiry of their sentences. This will put the safety of innocent law-abiding Canadians in jeopardy.
On July 5, in the same newspaper, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
We have criminals who will be out on the street when they ought not to be and that's the responsibility of those in the Senate who took this irresponsible action.
On July 3, before he had time to know better, the current Solicitor General said in the same newspaper:
Every further day of delay jeopardizes innocent, law-abiding citizens and Canadians across the country.
This is some of the most hypocritical, cynical and selfserving nonsense I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot of it from the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If the issue was so crucial, why was it not handled by the Government early in its term? The Government has now sat for one year and ten months. The issue was apparent before the Government took office. It was dealt with by my colleague, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The issue arose in 1981, after the Supreme Court held the so-called gating procedure unconstitutional. This issue has been before the country for a number of years, since the courts challenged the current legislation, and did not arise just over the summer period.
_______________________________________15015
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
The sole issue is whether a convict who has earned his remission under the current law is entitled to automatically get that remission and that freedom after two-thirds of his term being served, or whether it should be reviewed. The Government says it should be reviewed by the National Parole Board. The Opposition says it should be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. That is the issue. It does not prevent criminals from getting out of a penitentiary. In any event, when those convicts have served their time under the law they will again be free. The issue is whether there should be mandatory supervision and who should authorize the release under that remission. That is the issue.
The Government took office on September 17, 1984. The House began its sitting early in November, 1984. This Bill which had been thoroughly massaged by the previous Government and thoroughly discussed in the House and in the other place on other occasions, was only introduced on June 27, 1985. It languished in the committee until January 29, 1986. When the report was tabled in the House, concurrence was not asked for by the Government until five months later, on June 17, 1986. Third reading debate was not concluded until June 26, on the Thursday, and on the last sitting day it was sent to the other place. The only way it could have been passed was by unanimous consent, dissolving the usual rules of procedure that apply there and apply here, without due regard to the Senate's opportunity to look at the issue.
That is a course of conduct that does not show any concern for the safety of Canadian citizens or any concern that this issue be treated with its highest priority. Yet the Government, having allowed the whole matter to languish for a year and ten months, bringing it forward at the last possible opportunity and not allowing the Senate to discharge its obligations under its own rules, now claims that we have to be called back and tries to put the responsibility on the Opposition and the other place. We cannot accept that.
Let me be even more specific. The other place agreed on its own volition, after consulting with its members, to come back after we had risen. It came back for an extra week to deal with the issue. The new Solicitor General appeared before the Senate where he and the new Government Leader in the Senate, Senator Lowell Murray, were questioned by Senators. They said: "You know the House has to be called back in any event if this Bill is to pass because Royal Assent demands the presence of Members of the House of Commons." We had recessed. We had adjourned under our rules. You would have had to call us back, Your Honour, for Royal Assent if the Senate had passed the Bill, amendment or no amendment. The Senate asked the then Solicitor General and the Senate House Leader: "Do you intend to call the House back?" There was no undertaking given one way or the other. In those circumstances, Honourable Senators felt it perfectly in order to put their amendment because no delay could be occasioned. If the Government was not willing to call the House back for Royal Assent and was going to leave the Bill until September, putting an amendment by itself was not going to delay this issue at all.

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
The Solicitor General claims, of course, that he had to wait until the Senate report came down. But there is nothing under our rules forcing this House to slow down its judgment on an issue until the Senate has had a preview of a Bill. The House was free at all times to bring this matter forward as an issue of urgency. Nothing the other place did influenced the conduct of the Senate House Leader and the then Solicitor General in bringing this matter forward.
The position of the Senate and Senators on both sides of that House has been well known since 1983. In 1983 the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, made up of both Liberal and Conservative Senators, unanimously recommended that the courts, not the Parole Board, have the final say on the release of inmates, which is basically the position of the current amendment. That had been the position since 1983 of Senators on both sides of the House. The same recommendation was passed by the full Senate in Bill C-32 in June, 1983. As late as May 14 of this year the Senate Committee unanimously stated in an interim report:
It is the opinion of the committee that the legislation should reflect the principle approved by the Senate when it adopted Bill S-32 ... namely, that the courts, rather than the National Parole Board, should make decisions respecting the continued incarceration of inmates who would otherwise be eligible for release on mandatory supervision.
Even the Conservative spokesman in the Senate, Senator Nurgitz, agreed that judicial review was crucial in 1983 when he was commenting on amendments to Bill S-32. He seems now to have changed his mind. Therefore, the then Solicitor General and the Senate House Leader knew full well the position of Senators on all sides of that House on this issue.
The Government now contends that the issue is one of such paramount importance so as to persuade Your Honour to convene this House once again. But the then Solicitor General and the Senate House Leader knew the Senate's depth of concern on a very important issue affecting individual rights. Once a prisoner has earned his remission, who should review it? The Senate and this side of the House felt the court should review it. That is not a frivolous issue. It is an issue of substance which affects civil rights, and even our prisoners have civil rights. To withhold presentation of the Bill until a very late stage of the sitting of this House and to withhold its transmission to the other place until the last sitting day is a matter almost approaching contempt of the views sincerely held and widely broadcast for a number of years.

For years, the Senate's position on the subject has been exactly the same as ours in the House, but the former Solicitor General and his successor have chosen to ignore this. The Government knew or at least should have known that the Bill could not be adopted in the Senate on the last sitting day of Parliament, and nor could it, as a result, receive royal assent before September. And I may remind the House that the Senate is only two steps away from this House.

It took the former Minister of Employment and Immigration about 90 days to receive a memorandum from her Deputy Minister and it took the Department of External Affairs a number of weeks to advise the Prime Minister that part of his expenses in Paris had been covered by the French Government, so I suppose it should not surprise us that there is very little communication among Government Members, particularly between the former House Leader and the former Solicitor General, the now Solicitor General and their leadership in the Senate. The views of the Senate were eminently well known to the Government. The new Solicitor General in assuming his very important responsibilities should have immediately been apprised of them. He was given an opportunity to have the Bill adopted in the Senate. He could have said: "The House will be called back. We consider it important enough". Perhaps the Solicitor General did not know Royal Assent was needed for the Bill to receive the sanction of the Crown. Perhaps he did not know that the House had to be called back in order to proceed with that Royal Assent and that regal sanction. If he did not, he was badly advised. The Bill could not have passed unless the House were called back. The Senate asked him in courtesy to his Bill if it could be advised. If the House were to be called back, the amendment could be dealt with. If the House were not going to be called back, the Bill would not have been delayed in any event. So this is an absolute sham, subterfuge and hypocrisy.
On the matter of substance of the amendment now before Your Honour, it was also indicated to the Senate committee and in other places by legal experts that the legislation as it now stands could be challenged under the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard particularly to its retroactive application and possibly on other grounds. It is still conceivable that the law could be struck down as unconstitutional if it is challenged. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the practice of "gating", that is the practice whereby offenders are immediately rearrested and put back into prison by the Parole Board, which practice this legislation in effect seeks to legalize, is unconstitutional. There is the question of what we are now doing eventually receiving the approbation of judicial review. We may today be involved in an emergency debate which will create an even greater emergency at some future point if the whole law were struck down, perhaps in the middle of next summer or at any other time when this House is not sitting.

Whether the Government agrees with the measure or not, the Parliament of Canada has given inmates the right to serve up to one third of their sentence under mandatory supervision. That is the law. It is part of our penal system. It is not a rule. It is part of our legislation and as such was introduced mainly to improve discipline and behaviour in our prisons and to provide an incentive for inmates to behave well, and generally speaking, it has been effective.
July 24, 1986

Since this particular legislation concerns human rights, the persons concerned must have access to the judicial system for protection of those rights. We should not leave the implementation of this legislation up to a board that does not observe the same rules of procedure and evidence as the courts that handed down the sentence in the first place.

Neither myself, members of our caucus, our Party, our Members in the Senate, nor anyone else, for that matter, is advocating or contemplating the abrupt release of dangerous and violent offenders into society. We deplore as much as anyone the fact that innocent people are injured or killed by wanton acts of violence.
It is argued by some that by denying mandatory supervision under the current law whereby it is automatic after two thirds of the term has been served, and holding certain prisoners for their full sentence, makes them a greater threat to society, largely because the individual goes abruptly from prison back into the world without supervision, without control and without a reporting procedure. The mandated supervision allows an easier re-entrance into society and gives the person released a better opportunity to adjust. It is felt that while mandatory supervision is not perfect, society is better protected with at least some control over the individual for that crucial initial period following release. Our argument is not about prisoners being released. Prisoners will be released when their term expires in any event no matter what crime they committed. We are talking about the earning of remission after serving two thirds of their sentence. Can that be reviewed? And if it should be reviewed, then who should do so, the Parole Board or the Court? We do not want to interrupt the regular procedure of our criminal justice.

In my opinion, if the Government really wanted to solve this problem and help reduce the danger of violent crime, it should take a more serious look at the whole area of how these crimes are dealt with instead of leaving it up to the courts, to the Parole Board and to various volunteer organizations. It should also look at how victims of violent crimes are treated. It is one thing to proclaim, as the Government has done, that it is against crime, and another thing altogether to sabotage the very measures which, according to that Government, were aimed at preventing violent crime, and to do so in such a clumsy, careless and arrogant manner.
[DOT] (M50)

In saying that the Opposition and the Senate are responsible for letting dangerous offenders out on to the streets over the summer, the Prime Minister, the current Solicitor General and his predecessor gave Canadians the distinct impression that the passing of this legislation would be some sort of guarantee that dangerous offenders would not be put out on the streets this summer. That is simply not the case. They know very well that
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
the Bill gives that responsibility and that discretion to the Parole Board.
The Solicitor General was quite right when he said that this is not a numbers game. No matter how many inmates may be eligible, a review of the situation shows that a lesser number might in fact obtain their liberty. There is no automatic formula for keeping people in jail. We have accepted, and the Bill does not deny, the principle of earning remission for good conduct within prison walls. The Board is obliged to consider past violence and the potential for future violence. It does not automatically keep all inmates in jail. The question is who should review the situation.
In terms of violent offenders, various numbers have been bandied about by the former Minister and by the present Minister. The former Minister has said that 30 dangerous offenders will be let out if the Bill is not passed. How does he know? The current Minister has previously put the figure at somewhere between 54 and 75; yet he gave a more precise number this morning. This confusion raises two important issues. The first is why they do not know exactly. After all, do they not know how many of these people there are who will threaten our lives? Do they not know where they are going and what the conditions of their release might be?
The other question which is raised is that by selecting these individuals in this way, has the Minister not prejudged the outcome of any hearings that the Parole Board might hold concerning the suitability of certain individuals to be released or detained? By reciting these numbers has the Solicitor General not placed in jeopardy a right, probably reinforced by a constitutional obligation, for the Parole Board to look at these matters in a judicial way? Because we are so concerned about the issue and because it interferes with rights that have been earned under a statute of Canada, we believe that the courts should review it.
Let us not kid ourselves. The real reason we are here has nothing to do with the constitutional prerogative of the Senate. Senators did not retard the passage of this Bill since, in any event, Royal Assent would have required our return. The Government missed the boat because it did not bring this legislation in soon enough. The Government missed the boat because it allowed the Bill to languish on the Order Paper. It also allowed the report to languish. The Government brought the third reading process before Your Honour at a time that left the other place in a corner. Under the rules of the Senate it had not time to properly review the matter, the views of Senators having been well known by Members of this House and by members of the Government. Thus the real issue is the incompetence of the Government to handle legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have known the present Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) for a long time. In fact, I have known him since 1962. He is a person for whom I have high regard. He is quite right when he says that his honeymoon will be a short one. However, I know him well

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
enough to suspect that there may be a diversionary tactic before us as well. The Government will do anything to try to divert the attention of the country away from what is going on, as reported on the front pages of our newspapers which reflect two major judicial inquiries.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) smiles. He knows that I have touched an extremely sore point. We intend to deal with this matter with proper dispatch. We will deal with it with all the seriousness it merits, despite the incompetence, the tardiness and the absolute sloppiness of the Government. We will exercise our responsibilities. I am sure the the Government House Leader would have enjoyed a filibuster with respect to this issue-anything to get some other topic on to the front pages of the newspapers of the country. I am sure that he would have done anything to get another scapegoat. He would just as soon turn on the Senate and the Opposition again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is convoluted logic and you know it.


John Napier Turner: Convoluted logic! Knowing the House Leader that is the type of logic that may have resulted in his decision to bring us back.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Any one of us who has had the honour to be elected to this place knows that the people are always right. I have admitted that on several occasions, and I firmly believe it. However, the people are not stupid. They are not gullible. They will not be taken in by the Prime Minister, by the Solicitor General or by his predecessor. They know what the real issues are. I do not think the ploy will work. I do not think this Chicken Little routine is very convincing. The people of the country will place the responsibility where is should be placed. Once again the Government did not get its act in order. Once again it did not communicate with its colleagues in the other place. Once again it put the country to an additional inconvenience and cost. That is why we are here. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in your current physical inconvenience you have had to come back from a well-earned rest to deal with a matter that this Government could have handled in the ordinary course of proceedings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to deal with a matter that the Government tells us is an emergency. We have agreed to return because there is certainly a principle at stake. We do not like to see the Senate overturn the wishes of the House of Commons. We certainly hope that when we are in government the other Parties of the House will give us the same consideration to return to legislation should there be a Senate which thwarts the will of the duly elected House of Commons.
The Government is quite wrong in calling this situation an emergency. The idea that dangerous offenders are being or will
be released if this Bill is not passed today and the idea that murders will be committed are extremely far-fetched. Dangerous offenders are being released. They have already been released. Dangerous offenders finish their sentences. We have laws that put an end to prison sentences. Even if we have some belief that a person might later commit an offence once his sentence is over he must be let out. People have been let out, and they will continue to be let out. The people who will be kept in prison as a result of this legislation once it is passed will be let out eventually. The figure given by the Government is that 54 of them are time bombs. The Government wishes us to believe that these are walking time bombs about to commit offences. Of this number 38 will be released in two years. Some will be out in a matter of a short number of months. If the Government had been so concerned about their release why did it not act earlier this year, after this Bill was reported back from committee in January? Why did the Government wait until well into June before it decided that it was sufficiently important to give it some time in the House? That is not my idea of an emergency.
With respect to the question of these emergency cases and how good the Government is at predicting what they are, we know that the previous Government made some assessments after the Supreme Court of Canada ordered an end to gating. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that gating was illegal. The Government had its own list which set out 11 time bomb cases. In fact, because of the Supreme Court of Canada these people were released. We know what happened as a result. Four of the 11 were returned to prison. Three were returned as a result of the commission of non-violent offences. One was returned for a violent offence which took place well after the expiry date of the sentence. There is no way that gating would have prevented that person from committing the offence which was committed. We just cannot make these kind of predictions.
The Senate amendment to Bill C-67 is one which would improve a very bad Bill. We are opposed in principle to the contents of Bill C-67. However, the Senate initially had four amendments which it urged the Government to adopt. The Government did not adopt them. All four amendments would have moderated the Bill and made it somewhat less unacceptable. I do not want to suggest that we would have considered the Bill an acceptable one in any event.
Let us return to what the Senate said and the amendment it wants us to consider. The first issue deals with the question of which is the appropriate body to make decisions with respect to the detention of allegedly dangerous inmates beyond the date of eligibility for release on mandatory supervision. It was the opinion of the committee that the legislation should reflect the principle approved by the Senate when it adopted Bill S-32, an Act to amend the Penitentiary Act and the Parole Act, in 1983. That principle was that the courts rather than the National Parole Board should make decisions respecting the continued incarceration of inmates who would otherwise be
July 24, 1986

eligible for release on mandatory supervision. This is primarily what we are here to discuss today. We are asking who should be making these decisions, the courts or the Parole Board.
The Senate committee members said that they had heard the comments of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) with respect to the appropriateness of the board taking on this responsibility and that they must disagree. The Solicitor General, however, has continued to take the same position. While recognizing that the legislation attempts to ensure that inmates are afforded the best procedural safeguards available to administrative tribunals, the Senate committee members are still of the view that such decisions, affecting as they do the liberty of individuals, are more appropriately addressed in a judicial rather than an administrative forum, where affected inmates would have recourse to all the procedural rights and protections available in the criminal courts as well as a distinct right of appeal. This is a very fundamental point, indeed a point treated in the Charter of Rights. Of course, one of our concerns is that the legislation, unamended, would be contrary to the Charter of Rights and would be subject to appeal on those grounds in due course.
The motion put before us today by the Solicitor General is a very boldly stated and confident motion. The Solicitor General seems to think that he knows what he is talking about, but I would like to contest the motion's substance very strenuously. The motion indicates that the House would disagree with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67 because the House believes that the National Parole Board is better structured and experienced to deal with all matters of fact relating to the prediction of violent behaviour and that public safety is properly preserved by having decision-making kept with the board.
Let us look at the first point, that the National Parole Board is better structured and experienced. Better than whom? What is the body of comparison? The motion reads that the National Parole Board is better structured to deal with all matters of fact relating to the prediction of violent behaviour. No one is good at predicting violent behaviour. National parole boards, provincial parole boards and the parole boards of other countries have been trying to do this for decades. There is a substantial body of academic literature which goes back a very long time indicating that parole boards are not good at predicting violent behaviour.
It is not that anyone else is any better at making that prediction. Psychiatrists have tried to do it. Objective tests developed by various kinds of social scientists have been developed to try to predict who will be a violent offender. We also know that we cannot predict violent behaviour based upon the conduct of the offender in prison. People who are not well behaved in prison may adjust quite adequately on the outside. Infractions in prison are not necessarily an indication that a person will be a violent offender outside prison.
We as human beings simply have to admit that we are not very good at predicting anything. We are not very good at predicting the weather, although improvements have been
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
made. Human behaviour is considerably more difficult to predict than the weather. After decades and decades of attempts to predict violent behaviour, it becomes apparent that the statement made by the Solicitor General is simply not believable. He gives no basis for it, nor does his Department. The shelves of his Department are lined with studies showing that what he has said is untrue and that no one can predict violent behaviour.
The second part of the contention of the Solicitor General is that public safety is properly preserved by having decisionmaking kept with the board. What kind of public safety is he trying to provide us? Certainly the public would like to be safer and certainly we in this Party would support any reasonable measures designed to make the public safer. Unfortunately, all this motion will mean is that the public will have to pay higher costs to keep people in prison longer.
Public safety is not preserved by keeping people in prison longer. There is no evidence to suggest a violent person will become less violent after being kept in prison for an extra year. Indeed, this has been tried. The experience has proven faulty. Keeping people in prison does not improve their behaviour and, indeed, there is some reason to believe that mandatory supervision is a good thing.
It would seem to be more desirable for offenders who are going to be released in any event to be released with some form of supervision. After all, all of these 54 so-called time bomb offenders will be released. They are all serving fixed terms. They are not sentenced to life for which there is a minimum time to be served in prison of 25 years. These particular people are not murderers. Their sentences may be long, but at some point they will be released. We have no reason to believe that they will be released in better condition if they are kept in prison for an extra six months, one year, 18 months, two years or whatever the case may be.
The motion gives false hope to the Canadian public that safety will be preserved. I believe the statements made by cabinet Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are shameful. They have said that the safety of the public is at risk thanks to the actions of the Opposition and the Senate. That is scare-mongering, and I find it extremely sad to see that that is happening. People are quite rightly concerned about safety. Fortunately there is not a high rate of violent crime in Canada. Naturally we would like to see less of it and reasonable measures to ensure better safety would of course be very welcome.
In his remarks, the Solicitor General said that a four-year sentence ought to be a four-year sentence, that a six-year sentence ought to be a six-year sentence and that an eight-year sentence ought to be an eight-year sentence. That is a very simplistic approach, but it does have a ring of truth to it. Who can disagree that a four-year sentence ought to be a four-year sentence and that a person should not get out of prison early? However, there are reasons for letting people out of prison early. People are let out of prison if there is some reason to
15020

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
believe that that will make them better risks, and indeed that is the whole purpose behind mandatory supervision.
Let us look at the facts of the matter. In Canada, prisoners serve very long sentences and the sentences are getting even longer. Mandatory supervision is not something that has just occurred. This provision has existed for more than 100 years. There has always been time off for good behaviour. It offers an incentive for inmates to behave well in prison. It gives prisons something to hold out to inmates for co-operating. Judges know this and this is precisely why sentences have been getting longer.
Judges know that most inmates will get time off for good behaviour and they have been taking this into account. A four-year sentence is not simply a four-year sentence. A judge knows that four years means four years minus one-third and if the judge wants the prisoner to serve four years, he or she will impose a six-year sentence. That is how the system works and judges know that. They have been acting on that basis for a very long time.
There is no question that mandatory supervision shortens sentences, but sentences have been made longer with the knowledge that this happens. As it is, prisoners in Canada serve extremely long sentences. We have a European-style crime problem with American-style sentences. There is not much violent crime in Canada but people are put into prison for very long periods of time because we think we have a much more violent society than we do.
I shall now return to the question of the safeguards that are required and the faults of Bill C-67 along with the Senate's amendment. Of course, more amendments to Bill C-67 are needed in addition to the one proposed by the Senate. That amendment is directed toward addressing the fault in the legislation. It is a question of fundamental justice. A person who will not be released in effect will be getting an extra sentence. Who will be making that decision? In our view that question should be decided by the courts.
I should like to refer to the thrust of the Senate amendment. Of course it cannot alter the entire Bill. The initial decision could not be made by the courts, but an appeal could be made to the courts on fact and on law. This would bring the legislation somewhat more in line with the principles of fundamental justice which we adopted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let us look at the traditional safeguards provided to offenders by a court of law which the National Parole Board does not provide. Traditionally there would be the right to be represented by counsel. Also there would be the right of the person to be made aware of the case against him or her. There would be the right to a fair answer and defence, including the right to cross-examine the accusers. Of course this is absent from the provisions of the National Parole Board. The Board
decides not only what information the inmate will be permitted to see regarding his or her case, but whether or not the person can have counsel or an advocate present at the hearing. If counsel is permitted to be present, they will be unable to crossexamine witnesses or to have access to relevant documents. Instead, they will only be permitted to make brief statements at the end of the hearings.
Under the new scheme proposed by the Government, there is no requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegations being used to justify the continued detention of the individual. We are going back to procedures in our criminal justice system which were removed a long time ago. People other than the courts will be making the decisions. The decisions will be made in respect of charges about which the accused person does not know very much, and no opportunity to cross-examine will be provided. In short, these provisions are not remotely the standard required in a court of law. However, the effect is the same as that decided by a court of law. It is a new sentence, and it could be a very substantial one. It could be a sentence of several years in addition if the Bill is passed and people are indeed prevented from receiving time off on mandatory supervision for good behaviour on the basis of future behaviour.
Since my time is nearly up, let me return to the fundamental issue here, that is, why people should be before the courts or before the National Parole Board at all. The issue here is a prediction of future behaviour. The idea of the Government is that people should spend time in prison, not for what they have already done, but for what they might do in the future, of course knowing that we cannot predict this very well. Even if we could predict it very well, is it correct to sentence a person to a period of incarceration on the basis of what the person might do in the future? Surely our system of criminal justice is based upon punishment for offences clearly committed, for which there is clear evidence and for which the person has had ample opportunity to reply to the charges.
The faults in Bill C-67 are fundamental. People will be denied the rights of fundamental justice, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We certainly oppose Bill C-67 and Bill C-68.
Concerning the question before us today, we concur in the motion of the Senate. It would make the Bill a less evil piece of legislation. It would not make it a good piece of legislation, but it would provide some protection to accused persons in accordance with the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We urge that the Government accept the amendment of the Senate as a very minimum commitment to observing the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensuring that fundamental justice is the right of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 24, 1986


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks today I should like to set the record straight for certain Opposition Members and certain editorial writers. After the ill-considered initiative taken by our colleagues in the other place, which was aimed at blocking this Government legislative measure, we were accused of unduly delaying the introduction of our Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that certain Members opposite blamed the Government of procrastinating to have this measure adopted since it had been on the Order Paper for over a year. On the contrary, I believe I will be able to prove that the Government has always been firmly committed to pass this legislation as soon as possible.
Opposition Members are being ridiculous when they claim to have been taken by surprise with respect to the intentions of the Government. In its first Speech from the Throne the Government did indicate it intended to act upon public concern over the Canadian penal justice system. We had promised we would do away with the deficiencies of this system so as to guarantee that Canadians would be better protected against criminal acts. Bill C-67 was our way to meet part of this commitment. We agree that Bill C-67 will not solve all problems, but still it is a major step in the right direction because it contains the urgent measures which are needed and which can be quickly implemented while we wait for the findings of certain wide-ranging studies undertaken by the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General.
Mr. Speaker, had Opposition Members gone to the trouble of reading the Speech from the Throne, they would they would have realized that the Government had given a clear indication of its intentions in that respect. No one who intelligently read the Speech from the Throne would express surprise about the importance given to this Bill by the Government.
True enough, over a year has gone by since Bill C-67 was read for the first time. On June 27, 1985 the then Solicitor General introduced in the House two Bills to empower the National Parole Board to change the proviusions concerning the mandatory supervision of parolees. Had Members opposite paid attention to the statements of the Solicitor General they would have understood that the Government was really intent on providing better protection for society by preventing the release of patently dangerous inmates.
Had Members been the least concerned about the safety of our fellow Canadians they would have learned that shortly after his appointment as Solicitor General the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) announced that he would introduce legislative measures to eliminate automatic release granting.
Some Members claim that if the Government had really been convinced about the appropriateness of Bill C-67 and the need for quick adoption it would have said so earlier and taken the steps required to push it through the various legislative stages earlier in the session.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Those who come up with this kind of argument simply like the sound of their own voices. Undoubtedly they are unaware of the fact that unfortunately the previous Government had tried to make the problem disappear by introducing its own Bills S-2 and C-35. Overly confident about its own genius and probably in a hurry to deal with the matter without having to hold meaningful consultations, the previous Government got stuck with its two Bills. This Government chose not to take the easy way out, knowing full well that this kind of legislations was a contentious issue. My colleagues lived up to their responsibilities and made sure they would achieve the broadest possible consensus with respect to these legislative provisions. My colleagues did not spare time and energy to speed up the legislative process.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has accused the Government of unduly delaying the adoption of Bill C-67.
In fact, the Opposition would have us responsible for the time it has taken this legislation to get through the various stages before its referral to the other place. The Opposition is mistaken. I suppose that, being unaccustomed to holding consultations and allowing all parties to express their points of view, it would have preferred us to ignore such procedures entirely. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that unlike our colleagues opposite, we do appreciate hearing the views expressed by various sides on our policies, even when they are negative.
If I may recall the various stages this Bill has gone through. I am sure you will agree that the delay for which we are being so unfairly criticized was due both to the fact that the Government gave various groups a chance to express their views and make a thorough and careful study of the matter, and to the dilatory tactics used by Members of the other Chamber and of the Opposition to delay adoption of the Bill.
First of all, the Bill was tabled in 1985, before the House adjourned for the summer recess. The Government deliberately chose that date, since during the summer, it wanted to obtain the views of provincial governments, private and public organizations and certain individuals. The early tabling of the Bill in June 1985 gave groups with an interest in correctional matters a chance to take a close look at the provisions of the Bill. During the study process in 1985, the press showed a great deal of interest in the legislation. The Bills were also sent to provincial departments responsible for correctional services, to private agencies and to lawyers, for comment.
Officials of the Department of the Solicitor General met with these various groups, while correspondence received by my colleagues also contained various views to be considered and carefully weighed. Generally speaking, the Bills were well received, especially at the provincial level and by victim assistance groups and the media. Following the Cabinet shuffle in the summer of 1985, the Solicitor General, realizing it was an initiative whose time had come, decided to concentrate on promoting this legislation. Subsequently, after Parliament resumed in September 1985, the Solicitor General moved second reading of the Bills in question. All parties had an opportunity to participate fully in the debate on second reading which took three days. The Bill was adopted on second

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
reading receiving the support of several Opposition Members as well.
If we consider the referral to committee, we see that the Government certainly did not drag its feet. Three days after receiving its order of reference, the committee met to designate a steering committee and agree on procedural details. The committee started sitting about 18 days after that. They were held over a four-month period, including even the Christmas recess. The committee held 14 hearings and heard a great many witnesses.
Our colleague the Hon. Member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) appeared as a witness before the committee on five occasions, and his Deputy Minister as well as other Departmental officials appeared on ten occasions. The Committee heard the views of many non-governmental groups such as the Societe Saint-Leonard, the Queen University Group dealing with the parole bill, the Citizens United for Safety and Justice, the Ottawa-Hull Victims of Justice, the Association of Criminal Lawyers, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Penal Justice, as well as the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies.
Is the Opposition suggesting that the time-frame to deal with Bill C-67 at the various stages could have been shortened had we chosen not to hear these groups and disregard their views? Yes, the Government had to spend a little time listening to the valid testimonies of these interest groups.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has fully cooperated with the Committee. In addition to the Minister, the Committee had the opportunity to question officials of Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, and the Solicitor General Secretariat.
Moreover, the Government has demonstrated flexibility and good faith by moving six substantial amendments to this bill. I shall spare the House the many details of these amendments, while reminding Hon. Members that the Committee had concluded its work on January 23.
By contrast, when we see how things moved in the Senate, we realize that all along the Government has done its best to expedite matters, suggesting compromise and cooperate with a great deal of openmindedness. The Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs had six months to deal with this Bill. Meanwhile, in its desire not to press our colleagues in the other place, the Government deemed it advisable to postpone the reference of this Bill at the report and third reading stages. We wanted to provide the Senate with an opportunity to propose constructive and creative suggestions which could have been incorporated in the bill at the final report stage.
Yet, it was only on May 14 that we received the first so-called interim report, at the urgent request of our colleague the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. Then we received on June 23 a second so-called interim report. However, no final report ever came to us. Yet, this pre-study had
been most exhaustive, even exeeding the scope and subject matter of the Bill. This pre-study had even been marked by a series of visits to various penal institutions. In spite of all that, there were very few suggestions made to improve the Bill and most of those put forward by the Senate group had already been discussed or turned down before. Lacking somewhat in imagination, our Senate colleagues tried to recycle some of the worn-out ideas expressed by Hon. Members opposite. The Opposition should then have demonstrated its dissatisfaction. Was it sleeping while the Government was making new concessions to speed up the process? For instance, the guidelines concerning decision backing have become statutory rather than regulatory provisions. If there were undue delays, the Opposition should point their fingers elsewhere, because the Senate study turned into delaying tactics. If there were time overruns aimed at delaying this legislation, you should rather blame your august colleagues.
Finally, looking at the report and third reading stages, it will be found that they had to be hurried, because delays in the other House took almost all the time available. In the little time left to us, the Government made a point of disposing of some 34 New Democratic amendment motions, not to mention the avalanche of rhetoric from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). The Bill went through third reading on June 26 and was referred to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition over the last few weeks chose to blame the Government for giving little attention to the Bill over the last few months they asked why the sudden urgency to enact it. I want to put the record straight. I would invite Hon. Members opposite to read the evidence given by the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, as the then Solicitor General. When the Minister appeared for the first time before the Senate Committee, he insisted that the provisions in the Bill were urgent. He even recalled they had previously looked at similar provisions in Bill C-32 introduced by the previous Government.
During the seven other sittings of that Committee, senators launched into an analysis, not of the legislation itself but the penitentiary system, even indulging in a small tour of certain institutions, for the purpose of moving around the place, Mr. Speaker. Travelling has always been conducive to new experiences, but never reforms.
When he appeared before the Senate Committee on May 8, 1986, the Solicitor General again reminded Committee Members of the urgent need for the Bill. He also stressed how important it was for the Government to have it enacted before the Summer recess. After reviewing the various amendments introduced to incorporate the criticisms voiced, the Solicitor General urged members of the Senate Committee to concentrate on the Bill and make their amendments known as soon as possible. He was ready to consider any amendment consistent with the objectives stated in the Bill. However, having little or no concern for improving the provisions in the Bill, Committee Members resorted to delaying tactics that put Canadian public safety at risk.
July 24, 1986

Mr. Speaker, the facts I have just put before you, and I could go on, are ample proof that the criticism levelled by this Opposition and the Senate is groundless.
This Bill was supposed to be above party politics. It is regrettable that the Opposition and the other House did not understand earlier that this measure is necessary for the protection and the safety of our fellow citizens. The changes proposed in this Bill are obviously necessary and they have been requested for a long time by the police, by victim assistance associations, by many private and professional and organizations and by individuals.
Indeed, the Opposition has also failed to understand that this Government does not govern with a steem roller but through consultation and by trying to reconcile divergent views. This can cause delays when you try to bring about a consensus on a controversial issue. However, 1 prefer such delays to the dilatory tactics used by the Opposition Members and their august colleagues during the consideration of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. There are no questions. Debate.


John V. Nunziata: As you know, Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General spokesman for the Official Opposition, I have already made lengthy submissions with regard to Bill C-67. Therefore, I do not intend to speak at length today.
It is obvious that the Conservative Government is deserving of some criticism for the fact that we are here today, for the fact that only for the twelfth time in Canadian parliamentary history a Parliament has been recalled in order to deal with a matter necessary to be considered by the House of Commons. In my respectful submission, we are here because of the reckless negligence, the reckless rhetoric of the Conservative Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and his predecessor.
The facts speak for themselves with regard to this particular piece of legislation. As my leader pointed out, the legislation was introduced in this House over a year ago. Bill C-67 was introduced by the Conservative Government on June 27, 1985. At the time of introduction the then Solicitor General indicated that the Bill was urgent and that it should be passed as expeditiously as possible. The Official Opposition from the outset has indicated that we support in principle Bill C-67. I indicated the reasons why in my submissions of June 18 and June 26 of this year.
On September 12, 1985, the then Solicitor General indicated at page 6558 of Hansard, and I quote:
Bill C-67 is not the total answer to that promise but it is a very important beginning. It contains measures which were urgently required and could be introduced quickly while awaiting the outcome of broader policy reviews currently under way in my Ministry and in the Department of Justice.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
On September 12, 1985, the then Solicitor General indicated the urgency of this legislation. What happened, one asks, to this legislation over the course of the last year? If in fact, as the Government has indicated over the course of the last number of months, this Bill is so urgent, why then did the Government in its wisdom decide not to bring this legislation forward for expeditious passage by the House? It was introduced on June 27, 1985. Second reading began on September 12, 1985. It continued on September 23, 1985. The committee concluded consideration on January 29, 1986 and the report was concurred in on June 17, 1986.
The Government has procrastinated with regard to this legislation over five months, since the day it was reported out of committee. Was it because there was more urgent legislation that had to be dealt with by the House of Commons? Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that this particular legislation, Bill C-67, was considered by the Government to have less importance than other legislation that was given priority. For example, the Government gave priority to Bill C-87 which involved the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals. It gave priority to Bill C-107 which was an Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Government gave priority to Bill C-95 which dealt with the Archives. It gave priority to Bill C-118 dealing with a dollar coin. Those are the facts. The Government in its wisdom decided to give priority to those Bills rather than bringing forward Bill C-67 in order for the Bill to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
It is obvious that society will always be at risk by those who decide to pursue deviant behaviour. There is no way of competely eliminating the risk of deviant behaviour, the risk of criminal behaviour in society. What is hoped for is to try to minimize the amount of criminality in society in order to ensure the safety of the public. We live in the safest country anywhere in the world. There is no question about that. Our crime rate is the lowest of any western industrialized nation. We have a lot to be proud of with regard to the safety of our streets, our families and our children. That is not to suggest that we should not attempt to increase that safety and to minimize the risk of future criminal activity. One recognizes, of course, that it is a difficult task in order to ensure complete safety of our citizenry.
There are rules and regulations in society. There are those who have shown disregard and contempt for the rule of law and it is necessary in some cases to incarcerate those individuals who are convicted of criminal offences. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have one of the highest incarceration rates of any western industrialized nation. There are more people in prison per capita in Canada than in any other western industrialized nation.
If we do have the lowest crime rate and we have the highest incarceration rate, one could argue, of course, that one of the reasons why we have such a low crime rate is that we have such a high rate of incarceration. The facts would suggest otherwise. Generally, of course, we are a law-abiding nation.

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
The overwhelming majority of Canadians believe in and have respect for the rule of law. Sure there are those of us who at times do not come to a complete and full stop at a stop sign. There are those of us who perhaps tend to speed a little on the roadways. However, the overwhelming majority of us believe in criminal law. We believe that the laws are there in order to protect society.
The goal, of course, is to minimize the risk of danger to society. The intent behind this legislation is to protect society. One recognizes, of course, that of those who are incarcerated in federal institutions, a number of them will commit additional crimes, will become recidivists, if you will, will once again return to prison because they have decided to continue a life of deviant behaviour. A great number of them, after having served time in an institution, return to a normal law-abiding life from the day of their release onward. There is a core group in prisons who are beyond help. Regardless of programs or attempts to rehabilitate them, they will continue to lead a life of crime. When considering those who become eligible for mandatory supervision, we are dealing with those inmates who have shown to the authorities that they are not good risks to be released on parole. Every inmate, with the exception of those who are serving indeterminate sentences or serving life sentences, become eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence. The good risk inmates are released at the one-third stage or shortly thereafter. Those who are not considered good risks by the National Parole Board and have shown that they do not believe in rehabilitation are not granted parole. These are the individuals with whom we are dealing.
The current law allows an inmate to earn remission. It is an important concept in prisons for a number of obvious reasons. In order to give an inmate some hope, in order to ensure the safe running of the institution, and in order to guarantee some semblance of order in an institution, inmates must be given some hope that if they behave themselves while in prison they will earn some time off from their sentence. All those involved in the criminal justice system recognize that there is such a thing as mandatory supervision and earned remission, otherwise known as time off for good behaviour. When judges hand down sentences and when defence counsel and prosecution plea-bargain, they recognize fully that if an inmate behaves in an institution he or she will be able to earn some remission or time off for good behaviour. Without such earned remission there would not be that hope for an inmate and there would not be that incentive for an inmate to behave while incarcerated.
As a result of the earned remission process, an inmate is entitled to earn a third off his or her sentence. Bill C-67 says that if the National Parole Board, in its wisdom, decides that certain individuals who have been denied parole or certain individuals who are serving time in our federal penitentiaries for violent offences are likely to commit a further violent offence, then it can issue a detention order. In other words, it can keep an inmate incarcerated for a further year. It can
continue to issue detention orders until warrant expiry, when the inmate has served his or her complete sentence.
While it sounds logical in terms of public safety to keep inmates incarcerated, it is obviously not the answer. Sooner or later these inmates have to be released, according to the law. As the Solicitor General indicated somewhat naively, a four-year sentence is a four-year sentence and a six-year sentence is a six-year sentence. I suppose we can excuse the Solicitor General for his apparent lack of understanding of correctional law and apparent lack of understanding of his department, since he is a new Solcitor General. One would hope that with the passage of time he will acquire some knowledge and expertise with respect to the role of his Department. I offer the assistance and constructive co-operation of the Official Opposition to permit him to fully understand the workings of his Department.
Sooner or later these inmates will have to be released. If they are kept incarcerated until warrant expiry and their sentence has been completed, what guarantee is there that the inmate will not commit a further criminal offence? There is no guarantee. If anything, by keeping these inmates incarcerated until the end of their sentence one is increasing the risk of future criminal activity and the risk of harm to society. As a result of these detention orders that may be issued over the course of a number of years, the inmate may build up more anger and more vindictiveness toward the system and society and in fact may have a predisposition to get even with society for depriving him or her of liberty.
There is also the problem of releasing these inmates into society without supervision. When we keep an inmate incarcerated until the completion of the sentence we are forced by law to release that inmate without any form of control or supervision. Mandatory supervision allows us to release an inmate one, two, or three years prior to the expiry of the sentence and exercise some form of control over the inmate. For example, the inmate could be required to reside in a particular community, not to consume alcohol or associate with certain individuals. The inmate could actually be required to report to the local police station on a weekly basis or reside in a half-way house. We could require an inmate to obtain some type of treatment. We can exercise control and ease that particular inmate into society. However, according to this legislation, theoretically an inmate would be released from maximum security custody into society with no right to exercise any type of control over the individual once he or she is released into society. It is obvious that mandatory supervision, or some form of supervision is necessary, not only for the inmates but for the general safety of society.
Of course, there are those who would argue that certain inmates should be incarcerated and the key thrown away. We do not have that type of society. There are those in society who commit serious offences such as murder. We have a very serious penalty for murder, life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years. However, we as a society do not believe in incarcerating individuals and literally throwing away the key,
July 24, 1986

thereby giving the inmates no hope for the future of themselves or their family. That is the mark of a civilized society and every western civilized nation believes that there should be hope for inmates and that at some point they should have the opportunity to lead a law-abiding life.
Notwithstanding its negligence, its reckless rhetoric and its procrastination, the Government introduced a Bill a year ago. The Government has been in office for two years and it is interesting to note that in that period 3,000 inmates have been released on mandatory supervision. If the Government is so concerned, why did it not bring forward measures earlier? The Solicitor General, the Government House Leader, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the former Solicitor General have indicated that there are walking time bombs about to be released into society as the reason for calling back Parliament for the twelfth time in Canadian parliamentary history. They gave us a figure of 54 individuals who would be released between now and September or October. Who are these 54 so-called time bombs who are about to be released into society? Thirty-eight of the so-called time bombs have less than two years left of their sentences to serve. We can keep them incarcerated for another year, perhaps for two more years, but we are going to have to release 38 of the 54 individuals within two years. Is it not better to release them into society now and be able to exercise some control over them for the next two years as we ease them into society? Is it not preferable to do that now than to simply to open the prison gates in two years' time and say: "Fend for yourself'? It is obvious that we are increasing the risk to society. Twenty-one of the 54 so-called time bombs are serving sentences of five years or less. We cannot hold these individuals for more than another year. Seventeen individuals are serving sentences from five years to 10 years. Revoking their mandatory supervision will keep them incarcerated for an average of two more years.
The Government tells us there will be walking time bombs out here. If it is the case that there are walking time bombs about to be released into society, why has the Government not acted sooner? Why has it waited two years to resolve this so-called urgency? The reality is that mandatory supervision has been with us since 1970. Inmates have been released on mandatory supervision for the past 16 years. There are, of course, those individuals who are released on mandatory supervision who commit further crimes. We know of some of the more celebrated cases of those individuals who are released on mandatory supervision and who commit murders or rapes. But even those persons released on parole commit further crimes and it is a small percentage.
It would appear that there is a problem in this House with respect to what in fact is the actual experience with regard to the release of inmates. I would submit that the public is not well informed on crime and punishment. Canadians generally tend to exaggerate the rate of violent crime. One study indicated that a majority of Canadians thought that 50 per cent of murders in Canada were committed by parolees. The
_____________________________________15025
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
fact is that only 1 per cent of murders in Canada are committed by parolees. Another study showed that two thirds of those polled thought 90 per cent of all parolees commit further violent crimes. It is not 90 per cent, Mr. Speaker, it is 10 per cent.
I wish to indicate once again on behalf of the Official Opposition that we support the general thrust of the legislation. We support the Senate amendment. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to address the amendment itself. It is a good amendment which gives authority to the courts to decide whether or not an inmate's liberty should be effected.
In closing, I would urge the Government to reconsider its position on the Senate amendment in order to make Bill C-67 a little more perfect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Mrs. Duplessis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-


John V. Nunziata: York South-Weston!


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: In any event, I disagree completely with the Hon. Member who has just concluded his speech. For my part,
I believe that we would improve the general safety of Canadian society by accepting Bill C-67 as proposed originally without the amendment passed by the Senate. I have the impression that convicts and offenders will think twice before committing a crime if they know that they will have to remain in prison for the full term of their sentence.
I would like the Hon. Member to tell us whether or not he believes that the role of a Member of Parliament is indeed to defend the population in general rather than people on the fringe of society. As for him, he nearly always defends those on the fringe of society. I would like to remind him of a case 20 years ago-and I am now speaking for the fathers and mothers who went through these terrible events in my constituency, in Cap Rouge, when seven youths were sexually mutilated and then murdered. In this case, the criminal committed these acts after being released on parole and these murders would certainly not have been committed if he had remained in prison. I therefore would like to know how the Hon. Member sees his role and whether he does not think that he should defend society in general instead of those who refuse its rules. The prisons are made to keep the convicts under lock and key. I would like his opinion on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) like to entertain an answer to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis)?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to excuse the Hon. Member for confusing me with the Hon. Member for

July 24, 1986
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I would like to indicate to her that I have much more hair than my colleague to the right.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How much more?


John V. Nunziata: Fifteen more hairs.
On a serious note, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has obviously displayed a complete lack of understanding of prisons, inmates, criminology and public safety in Canada. For that reason 1 do not intend to be overly harsh. The Hon. Member asked who we purport to represent. We represent all Canadians. We represent the public at large. We are here as well to represent prison inmates. They are all human beings, my friend. They are all deserving of consideration by this Parliament. Regardless of what some people may think in this Parliament and elsewhere, we as a civilized and decent society must take into consideration even those of us who would pursue a life of deviant behaviour.
We are concerned, of course, with public safety and in considering the best interests of inmates we can consider the best interests and safety of society at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
the Japanese to restrain the number of cars imported into this country are putting jobs and the economy at risk.

Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a great many Quebecers are wondering why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) waited five months before setting the date for a byelection in the Saint-Maurice constituency. The reasons are quite clear. The Prime Minister does not want to give Quebecers an opportunity to openly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with this Conservative Government.
This week, a Gallup Poll has indicated that 67 per cent of Quebec voters are not satisfied with its performance. The most recent polls indicate that in Quebec, the Progressive Conservative Party is now ranking third with 20 per cent of popular votes, and I am proud to say that 27 per cent of Quebecers would support the New Democratic Party in a Federal election, which certainly indicates that NDP Members will be representing Quebec to reflect the strong social and democratic tradition of that province and to look after the needs of ordinary Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government that the time has now come to hold a by-election in the Saint-Maurice riding.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned for the summer recess the former Minister for International Trade gave the impression that the Government would soon have the agreement of Japan and, perhaps, of Korea to restrain the number of cars they export to Canada. Many weeks have now gone by and there is still no agreement. The Korean Minister who recently visited Canada said that his country did not intend to restrain exports.
The Government must ensure that unless and until Japan and Korea meet the same standards with respect to Canadian content and production as do the North American manufacturers, they must expect restraints on the number of cars they export to this country. Failure to do this would harm jobs in Canada. Failure to do this would increase pressure by the Americans to have the Auto Pact placed on the free trade negotiating table. The Government must act now. Its lassitude and failure to bring about an agreement with the Koreans and


THE SENATE
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: If with your permission I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared this morning in Le Soleil newspaper under the heading "A blunder by the Liberal Senate", and I quote:
Beyond the outcry over the waste of time and energy, it should be recognized for the sake of our political system that the Conservative Government was right to recall the Members of the House and to ask them to vote again on a bill which they approved as recently as last month.
The Senate, packed solid with political friends of previous Prime Ministers, should not assume the role of defender of the oppressed or the weak within our society when it is its major parasite.
The fact that Liberal senators, who also had to be recalled, have announced that they would not attempt again to oppose the will of the majority in the House, demonstrate their bad faith on this issue. In fact they have used an obsolete power both morally and politically to amend the substance of a bill which the House had adopted, and they are making all Canadians pay the price for their partisanship.
July 24, 1986

As suggested by several of my constituents, perhaps the time has come to reconsider the usefulness of the Senate as an institution.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, for a generation the lack of a mutually acceptable verification agreement has made it impossible for the United States and the Soviets to agree to a long-term nuclear arms test ban or to significant nuclear weapons reduction. However, the recent statement by Chairman Gorbachev on verification means that the New World has a new possibility. It would ill behoove the United States to turn away from it without a thorough and honest search. A new leader in Moscow has declared a new policy on an old problem. It deserves a new response from Washington.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford, and Halifax County are concerned about the gross sewage problems affecting the Halifax Harbour and are desirous of cleaning it up. The response of the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has been to abdicate any responsibility for this serious situation, and Nova Scotia's two federal cabinet Ministers have been conspicuous by their silence.
The federal Government ought to provide new moneys to assist immediately the cities and communities of Halifax and Sydney and other communities which have serious raw sewage problems. Instead of mouthing harsh criticisms against municipal leaders as the Minister of the Environment did in Halifax, he ought to take charge and introduce a national program to address these problems. Platitudes and statements of good intention are not helpful at all. The time for action to clean up this most serious environmental problem is now.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, during the past several weeks I have had occasion to visit a number of western farm communities in the company of the Leader of my Party. During that time we have ascertained the deep fear and anxiety felt by many farmers about the loss of markets and the low prices that are now being paid for the major agricultural exports of wheat and barley.
Recent reports from the United States point out that that country is intending to apply export subsidies under its Farm Bill on exports to Canada's best customer, the Soviet Union. If that takes place, the entire underpinning of the western grain economy will be wiped away. I call upon the Government to forget its down-on-the-knees attitude toward President Reagan and to make a strong and effective representation that an export subsidy cannot and should not be applied on exports to the Soviet Union, something which would take away Canada's best grain customer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Prime Minister of Israel paid a dramatic visit to Morocco in a bid to rekindle the dormant embers of peace in the Middle East. King Hasan, a leading Arab moderate who advocates harmony between the Moslem and Jewish communities, has taken an enormous risk in light of the reaction from several Arab states. Canada should use its goodwill acquired through its internationally recognized negotiating skills, contacts, and reputation for fairness, to make sure that this initiative does not die.
As parliamentarians it is our duty to use our influence in helping the Middle East become an area of stability, something which is crucial for world peace. The President of Israel and the King of Morocco need the support of all of us if they are to succeed in their mission of peace.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, do you get mail? Of course you do. We all do. At least we all should. My constituents in Emerald Woods, Chapel Hill, Greenboro and other newer neighbourhoods do not get mail- at least they do not get mail at their homes.

July 24, 1986
Why is it that new developments plan for water, electricity, telephones, roads, sewers, bus services, cable t.v., police and fire service, garbage collection, schools, stores and recreational areas, but no one seems to plan properly for mail service? Do we blame the unions? No. Do we blame the Government? No. Do we blame the management? No. Do we blame the developers? No. We blame them all for letting what I believe is an essential service evolve into an unfair, unequal, ineffective, expensive operation in the last 10 years.
I look forward to meeting the new President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Post Corporation some day, wherever he is, and I call upon the Government today to take action to deliver mail to all Canadians.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in northwestern Ontario there exists today a situation which typifies the long and too often frustrating history of the native people of Canada. Six native Bands recently recognized in northwestern Ontario have waited patiently for over a year for the Department of Indian Affairs to assist with community development. In remote, isolated communities far in the bush, they are forced to wait for the bureaucracy and now for a brand new Minister to come up with desperately needed funding so people can live in houses and children can go to school.
Close to Hudson Bay, winter is not too far off. When 200 people are living in tents, even black flies are more welcome than the snow. I call upon the Government to release immediately emergency housing funds to these Bands of the Nishnaw-bi Aski nation in order that they might face next winter with the dignity and warmth that we in this House and across the country are fortunate enough to be able to take for granted.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Statistics Canada issued a special report indicating that there has been a very considerable increase in the incidence of long-term unemployment. In 1982 during the recession, 4.8 per cent of the unemployed were out of work for more than one year. In 1985, 9.3 per cent of the unemployed were out of work for more than one year. In 1985 this rate was almost double what it was in 1982.
Over the past year I have brought this trend to the attention of the Government on several occasions and have asked the
Government to address this problem specifically, always without response. There is now a new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). If this shuffle of faces is not merely public relations, then we should expect the new Minister to address this problem quickly and to announce new policies designed to assist the long-term unemployed. Let us have action and not shell-game politics.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) recently announced that in the autumn he would be introducing legislation that would continue the indexation of pensions of those public servants, members of the Armed Forces and RCMP who are already retired, together with a new approach to the pension programs for public servants.
I endorse this approach. I encouraged the Minister over many months to seek this type of resolution, partly because it was something we promised during the election campaign but, more important, because it was the fair, decent, and correct thing to do. These former public servants had entered into an agreement with their employer and had paid for the indexation of their pension plans.
This decision and the reforms being proposed for the Canada Pension Plan are part of the agenda of a sensitive, caring Government. They form part of a program to allow seniors, who have given so much to Canada, to live with confidence and comfort.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as the Government has shown on two previous occasions, it is not interested in hearing from the people of Canada on various issues. Only three hearings under Freedom to Move or railway pensions were held in three locations. Now, with the issue of cabooseless trains, it has left out three provinces. There will be no hearings at all in the Province of Saskatchewan, where there are thousands of miles of track with no signal systems, so that communities and employees can make their views known. There will be no opportunity for those communities to present their case.



July 24, 1986
We call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to ensure that the Canadian Transport Commission holds hearings in Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, or Melville. Any two of those four will do.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I note with some interest that the Department of National Defence has now decided to proceed with the first phase of the purchase of more conventional submarines.
This raises the issue once again of whether or not we will have a Green Paper, a White Paper, or any paper which will precipitate public discussion of important defence issues. It is time to take defence policy out of the closet.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, summertime usually means a happy vacation, but for a Hamilton East couple tragedy struck this summer when their young son, Andrew Warburton, became lost in the forest of Nova Scotia and subsequently died of exposure. As the Member of Parliament I was called upon to encourage the Canadian Armed Forces to assist in the search for Andrew. The family displayed uncommon courage in a time of great difficulty.
On their behalf I should like to recognize publicly the work done by the Emergency Measures Organization and thousands of volunteers. I should also like to thank the Chief Medical Examiner of Nova Scotia who decided to recommend a magisterial inquiry.
The family wants the inquiry, not to point fingers or to assess blame, but to ensure that a similar tragedy might be avoided in the future. Andy Warburton was a popular and well liked boy. His family and friends have rallied around his parents in this difficult time. It is the sincere wish of the family that a full inquiry will ensure that Andy's death provides us with lessons for the future.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are unaware of the major changes in the CPP
Oral Questions
which were introduced in Bill C-116 last month. Flexible retirement was introduced. Canadians can now begin drawing the CPP any time between the ages of 60 years and 70 years, instead of 65 years, with appropriate adjustments to the amount of the pension.
Disability benefits have been substantially increased for 140,000 disabled Canadians, and an additional 5,000 people will qualify. CPP survivor benefits will now continue after remarriage. Benefits will be restored to those who lost them. Benefits for children of a deceased or disabled contributor have been doubled in cases where both contributing parents die or are disabled.
These are just a few of the sensitive, caring, and far-reaching improvements which the Government has made for senior citizens. They have contributed much to this great country and are deserving of these increased benefits.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE PUNJAB ASSEMBLY
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo, Speaker of the Punjab Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think I express the feeling of all Members of the House by saying that we are all pulling for the Member for Nickel Belt, who is ill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: My question, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is for the Deputy Prime Minister whom I congratulate once again on his assumption of high office. It is great to have friends, I want to tell him, in high places.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I think all fair-minded Canadians may share an honest difference on whether or not

July 24, 1986
Oral Questions
Canada should be participating in the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh. All fair-minded Canadians, I believe, will condemn absolutely the completely irresponsible statement of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport who last night, speaking presumably on behalf of the Government, in Edinburgh said that "We should punish financially those who would use the Commonwealth Games as a forum of protest."
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Government favours punishing Antigua, Barbados, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and India for not participating in the Games? How does that kind of stupid policy help keep the Commonwealth together?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, I am not sure whether I would want to comment on a so-called quote which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has read into the record. There are times when such quotations are taken out of context or prove to be erroneous. Suffice it to say that if there are any penalties, or if any action or punishment will be taken, it will be taken by the Commonwealth Games Federation. I think it is in the best position to make that judgment.
[ Translation]


MINISTER'S STATEMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) has stated categorically, and I am quoting his words, that Canada is in favour of punishing Third World countries which protested against apartheid in what they though was a moral way. This has been reported, it is up to the Government to deny or prove it.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Minister of State now wants to impose economic sanctions against Kenya, the Bahamas and Zimbabwe? Will the Minister of State be asked not to intervene in the external affairs of our country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken a position to compete in the Commonwealth Games. I think that is a position widely endorsed by all Canadians, particularly by the athletes. As well, if there are any sanctions, any penalties, or any punishment, a decision in that regard will be left to the Commonwealth Games Federation. It is in the best position to make that judgment.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, one final question for the Deputy Prime Minister. That is not what the Minister of Amateur Sport said. He is thinking of punishing Bangladesh where the annual income is $100 a person, or Sri Lanka where the average income is $230 a year. Will the Deputy Prime Minister contact the Prime Minister at his cottage-


Mr. Frith:: During this emergency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -and ask him to instruct the Minister of Amateur Sport to stay on the track and stay out of foreign relations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the right hon. gentleman that I do not have to contact the Prime Minister wherever he is. I will undertake to ascertain the facts before I shoot from the hip like the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition just did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APARTHEID
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that the Prime Minister contacted Mrs. Thatcher with regard to the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister contacted President Reagan and attempted to convince him to impose tough economic sanctions against South Africa, or does the silence of the Government in the wake of the President's declaration the other night suggest that Canada finds the President's position acceptable?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Hon. Member has been for the last six months. This Government has not been silent on the issue. The position of the Prime Minister and the position of this Government has been clearly expressed. It has been expressed to Mrs. Thatcher. I can tell the Hon. Member that it has been expressed to President Reagan as well. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is at this present time wrestling with this very important issue. At the mini summit which will be held between August 3 and August 5, I am sure he will find that our Prime Minister will be taking a leading role at that conference. I hope that we have the endorsement and the backing of that Hon. Member and indeed of his Party, if they can stay together on that issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us in answer to my supplementary question whether the Government will therefore be making a public response to the
July 24, 1986

President's declaration, which we have not yet heard. Moreover, if the Government is serious about imposing economic sanctions against South Africa, why is Eldorado Nuclear, the Crown corporation controlled by the Government, continuing to do business with that country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of this Government has been clearly stated by the Prime Minister, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and will be reiterated at the mini summit on August 3 to August 5. I hope the Hon. Member can be patient enough to see it reiterated in forceful terms and working within the context of the Commonwealth.


THE SENATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I begin by saying that 1 speak I am sure not only for members of my caucus, but for all other Members in the House, when I say I wish him well in his new responsibilities. I say that genuinely.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Having said that, I now want to ask him to exercise the leadership for which he is well known. Today the House of Commons is meeting because of what another Minister has described as the irresponsible action taken by the Senate. Also, today at four o'clock the newest Senator, one Norm Atkins, the campaign director of the Conservative Party, is being sworn in as a new Senator.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: There is my answer. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. When is the Government going to put an end to the hyprocrisy of criticizing the Senate for using its powers one day and naming new Senators to that body on
the same day?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have been asked to respond to this question because of my wide experience with the Senate. In response to the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, when people of competence and great ability, people who have made a great contribution to Canada, are appointed to the Senate, it should be applauded universally in this Chamber and across the country. I want to reiterate to him-
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: There was not one bit of applause there. What happened?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is not a question here of us being back because of any appointments of competent people. It is because of the actions of the Senate which we think in this particular case were unwarranted, irresponsible, and out of character for that institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR CURB OF SENATE'S POWERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Minister is continuing to try to have it both ways. They continue to appoint people to that non-elected body which the Americans had the good sense to put an end to 200 years ago. They put people in on the one hand, and criticize them when they use their powers on the other. Since the Government has named three new Senators since it last objected to the Senate using its powers, will the Minister live up to the commitment made by his predecessor and bring a Bill before Parliament that will put an end to this undemocratic power that the Senate now has?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we have been looking at the whole question of the powers of the Senate. I believe that the question of Senate reform is one on which there is consensus across the country, that it should be considered and dealt with. I suggest that reform of the Senate is completely unrelated to the proposition put forward in the Hon. Member's question. Putting competent people in the Senate has nothing to do with the powers of the Senate, how those are exercised, and whether or not the Leader of the Opposition has control over the Senators in his Party at this particular time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Can the Minister give Canadians one reason for keeping a Senate which costs $28 million a year? Can he give one reason to keep such a Senate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the position of the New Democratic Party is known. I think our record with respect to reform of the parliamentary institutions is well understood in the country. I was very pleased to take part in changing the rules in this House which have in fact substantially enhanced the role of the private Member in the House. I

July 24, 1986
Oral Questions
believe the Hon. Member would agree that these particular rules have been working out very well indeed.
The matter with respect to the whole question of reform in the Senate is under constant consideration by the Government and, when an announcement is made, it will be made in the usual course.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the conflict of interest guidelines which were introduced with such pride and promise by the Prime Minister. It does not concern the Stevens inquiry but whether the other Ministers in the Government are taking the guidelines seriously for themselves and their staffs. What new steps are being taken by the Government to ensure that the conflict of interest guidelines are being respected by Ministers and their staffs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest guidelines are in place and are expected to be complied with not only by Ministers but by the exempt staff and those associated with the Ministers' offices.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister telling us that the Government is satisfied with the way the guidelines have been enforced until now and that it is not prepared to do anything to make them more effective?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware that there is a commission of inquiry currently taking place.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am asking about other Ministers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure that the adequacy of the current conflict of interest guidelines will be the subject for examination and analysis. If there are any recommendations forthcoming, I am assuming that the Government will take them very seriously.


PARKER INQUIRY-WITNESS' EVIDENCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to what we are learning from the inquiry, particularly the news
that the special assistant to the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Ms. Walker, has admitted that she lied before the judicial inquiry, concealed documents and obstructed the work of the inquiry, as well as admitting that she was engaged in wholesale evasion-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -of her responsibility not to carry out commercial activities in conflict of interest with her government position. What action is the Government taking in view of this revealed evidence of conflict of interest and grave impropriety on the part of this particular government employee? In particular, will she be fired, or will the Government give a message to all ministerial staff that they can evade conflict of interest guidelines with no discipline at all?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will not exclude the question or rule it out of order, but I want to warn all Members, who are aware of the sub judice rule, of course. I am sure they would not in any way jeopardize the future of any possible witness in any case. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made some very serious charges. In fairness, I believe all Hon. Members would certainly not want me to make any comment upon testimony that is currently before a commission of inquiry, certainly not before the inquiry is concluded. I might mention in passing that there are three other inquiries into conflict of interest currently taking place. They involve two Liberals, namely, Elinor Caplan and Rene Fontaine, and a New Democrat by the name of Wildon Parasiuk. I would not want to comment on those either.


REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Deputy Prime Minister not aware Mrs. Walker acknowledged publicly in the hearing this week that she had in fact given incorrect information, that she had lied, she had misled and had taken away documents which should have been given to the inquiry? Is that not sufficiently grave impropriety to cause the Government to act now in the case of a ministerial employee? Or is the Government saying to all employees of government Ministers that they can do anything they want and will not be disciplined by this Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may in an irresponsible way draw conclusions. I will choose not to do that. I will await the conclusions of the inquiry.
July 24, 1986


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who is the new Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration so I will put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday Statistics Canada issued a special report indicating that long-term unemployment has increased 91.6 per cent over the last three years. Since none of the Government's present programs are adequate to deal with this problem, will the Minister, or someone on behalf of the Government, indicate today in specific terms what the Government intends to do about this very serious report?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the Hon. Member that the Acting Minister this day is the Minister of State for Immigration, a newly appointed Minister whom I am sure all Hon. Members would want to welcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed take note of the Hon. Member's question. I thank him for his representation and will assure him that the Minister on his return will address himself to the question.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT MEASURES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the answer is not adequate. This issue has been around for quite a while now. I want to ask the Acting Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question. With unemployment hovering around 9.6 per cent for the last four months and when only 28 per cent of Canadians say they are happy with the Government's job-creation programs, what is the Government going to do which is new to help this group of unemployed Canadians today, not next week?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate across the country has fallen from 11.7 per cent to 9.5 per cent. Youth unemployment has fallen from 18.4 per cent to 14.8 per cent. That is a pretty good record.


STATISTICS CANADA REPORT-REGIONAL IMBALANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister as well. Statistics Canada this morning indicated long-term unemployment is up by some 91 per cent and that we indeed have two economies in Canada, a buoyant southern Ontario and a stagnant rest of the country. What specific steps is the Government planning to correct this very serious regional economic imbalance and to create long-term jobs?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree that the economic performance of the Government has been excellent. Unemployment has dropped. It is below 10 per cent. For the first time in eight years we have interest rates below 10 per cent. In fact interest rates are at the lowest level in eight and a half years. Inflation is down to 3.7 per cent. I think the record is very good.
That is not to suggest that we do not have some difficulties. We know there are problems in the agriculture sector and in the energy sector in western Canada. Those particular areas are being addressed and there will be new policies forthcoming in the future.


SITUATION IN WESTERN AND ATLANTIC REGIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Statistics Canada said almost a year ago that long-term regional unemployment was up in western Canada by over 800 per cent, and very much up in Atlantic Canada as well. Specifically, what will the Minister do to correct this very serious regional problem? Will he now, for example, keep the CN shops in Moncton open so we can at least keep those 250 jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very much aware of the number of initiatives we have undertaken with respect to the agricultural industry in western Canada. We scrapped the NEP. There are still some remnants left which are still irritating some people out there, but that has certainly been a positive development. There is the Atlantic Enterprise Program in the Atlantic region. All of these things clearly recognize the commitment of the Government to regional development and economic growth opportunities right across the country.


PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX-REQUEST FOR COMPLETE REMOVAL
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Western Accord provided for the total elimination of the discriminatory Liberal Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax by 1988. Since the signing of the Western Accord, however, world oil prices have dropped 60 per cent. The resulting downturn in the economy in western Canada from low oil prices has translated into a loss in excess of 18,000 jobs in Alberta alone in the past four months. It is obvious-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please put a question to the Minister?

July 24, 1986
Oral Questions


Jack Wendele Shields: Will the Minister be announcing the total, absolute and final removal of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax soon? And if not, why not?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister just said, we are very concerned about the implications of lower international energy prices in western Canada. This was the subject of the first trip by the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has had a number of discussions with other representatives of the industry. As soon as he has had a chance to canvass these views in full, we will be making some decisions known.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In a CBC radio interview aired this morning, the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said he has no plans and no intentions of working toward the winding down of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Why has the Government decided to abandon the policy of implementing Indian self government?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in view of his question I think the Hon. Member should not draw some of the conclusions he has. He is well aware that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now in his job for some weeks, has to be given the time to examine the Department. I think all of us recognize that.


John Napier Turner: Then he shouldn't talk.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The objectives of the Government with respect to Indian Affairs have not been changed.


CONSULTATIONS WITH INDIAN LEADERS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, if I may. In that same CBC radio interview, the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said he does not plan to do much travelling across Canada in connection with the responsibilities of his portfolio. Why has the Prime Minister permitted the new Minister to abandon a longstanding practice of actively consulting with Indian leaders? Does the Deputy Prime Minister really believe it is enough for the Minister to stay in Ottawa and consult with himself?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the Hon. Member, for whom I have a lot of respect, would make such a suggestion. I happen to have heard that clip from the program this morning. What I heard the
Minister say was that he did not plan to travel quite as much as the previous Minister.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. The current crop year expires on July 31 and many farmers cannot fill their quota of grain deliveries because country elevators are congested. Will the Minister extend the crop year so farmers can sell this year's crop at this year's prices and not have to accept an up to 30 per cent reduction by being forced to accept next year's prices?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very serious concern of many farmers in the prairie region. In the northern area of the prairies, especially, the harvest was difficult last fall and the resulting grade of grain is not of the top quality usually produced in Canada. I have raised this issue with the Board and have had conversations with the Hon. Member, as I have had with other Hon. Members on this side. The Hon. Member should know that the Board is doing everything possible to take delivery of the outstanding quotas which will be there at the end of the crop year, and hopefully by the end of the crop year everyone will have had a chance to deliver on the quotas which are presently in effect.


DELIVERY SYSTEM-EFFECT ON FARMERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Does the Minister not think it is unfair for anyone who does not have an opportunity to deliver his full quota to receive a lower price, when his neighbour 10 or 15 miles away can get the full price, just because the system has broken down and he has not been able to deliver his crop?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not hear my answer to his question. The Canadian Wheat Board has been able to take delivery of three million additional tonnes this year, which number was not in the system last year. That is about a 15 per cent increase. The information I have is that we will have the lowest on-farm carry-over ever, something in the order of one million tonnes or less. The Wheat Board has given the assurance that it will do everything it can to take delivery of the quotas which are in effect for the end of the crop year.
If the Hon. Member has some concerns in some specific areas I would be more than happy to take them up in order to do what we can to ensure that the situation to which the Hon.
July 24, 1986

Member refers does not occur. I have already had conversations with the Hon. Member for Athabasca and the Hon. Member for Peace River.


DOMESTIC PRICE OF WHEAT
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since 80 per cent of Canadian wheat is exported, and an increase in the domestic price will offer only inadequate help to farmers, what alternatives to increasing the price of domestic wheat, and as a result the price of bread and pasta, will the Government consider as it endeavours to help wheat farmers?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat
Board)): Mr. Speaker, the Government is considering many options. The Hon. Member will know that we have acted already on several. The Minister of Finance removed the tax on farm fuel, and we thank him for that. We have moved to limit transportation cost increases.
I am aware of the concerns that the Hon. Member has concerning jobs in his own area. He should know that what we are endeavouring to do is to be fair to everyone concerned. In this regard I refer to the consumer as well as to the industry in which there are jobs at stake. Above all, I refer to the producers who are being hurt by what I think is unfair competition from outside our borders and over which we have no control. I understand the situation in the Hon. Member's riding. We are cognizant of his concerns.


PENITENTIARIES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. First, I would like to congratulate him on his appointment and offer the constructive co-operation of the Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: -to remedy some of the serious problems facing his Ministry.
It is a strange coincidence and a strange irony indeed that we are here today to deal with the issue of keeping inmates in jail when five dangerous inmates were allowed to escape from Laval Penitentiary due to gross negligence. Is the Solicitor General in a position today to explain to the people of Canada how it was possible for these five dangerous inmates to literally go under the wall at Laval?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his good wishes. I
Oral Questions
certainly look forward to his co-operation with respect to the operation of my Ministry. There is an old saying, but I will not use it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: Needless to say I am aware of the escape which occurred at Laval. An internal investigation is presently being conducted. When I receive the report I will decide on what further action, if any, should be taken.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that an internal investigation is not enough. What is necessary is an external, independent and thorough investigation into the escape in order to assure Canadians of the security of our institutions. Will the Solicitor General immediately call for an independent inquiry into the escape in order to assure Canadians of the security of all federal penitentiaries?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member, all Members of the House and, indeed, all Canadians that I am concerned about the security of our institutions. Starting next week I will be undertaking a tour of the various penitentiaries and federal institutions. The first one I will visit is Laval, where I will be on Tuesday.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, Canadians want to know how much more they can expect to pay for prescription drugs once the Government brings forward its proposal to amend the Patent Act with respect to generic drugs. Will the Minister instruct his departmental officials to release immediately all studies and information which they have with respect to projected price increases for prescription drugs once the Government brings forward this measure?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wants the best health care system but he does not want to produce it in Canada. He wants to buy the best drugs from outside Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The present Act has not allowed us to develop new drugs in Canada. The evidence is in in that regard. In fact the Hon. Member knows this as well as anyone else knows it. If we look back to insulin some 50 years ago we will see that that is the Canadian record in almost all cases in
15036

July 24, 1986
Oral Questions
terms of new drugs. Canadians can do better. The new legislation will protect the aged, those who are on welfare, and those who are disabled. There is also a price review mechanism. Those are some of the protections which are in the Bill.
My suggestion to the Hon. Member is that he should get off the narrow view which he has so often expressed. He should expand his view and say that we can have the best health care system in order that some of our young kids, our new researchers, can get into that area.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PATENT ACT AMENDMENTS-COST IMPACT STUDIES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said previously that he wants a rational debate on his Government's proposal. I wish to ask the Minister, who was highly critical of me for simply asking for some basic information on which we can make a rational judgment, whether or not he still agrees with the advice he gave me in committee on May 27 when he said that his Department had done studies within the Department. At that time he said that he could not give me the cost impacts but that the Government would be prepared to give us that information once the Government had moved on the changes to the Patent Act, which it clearly has. What have you got to hide, Jake?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that. The reason I made the point was that the Party of the Hon. Member, without even having seen the Bill, has already made up its mind with respect to how it will react. It is against it. It is against any change. What I am saying to the Hon. Member is that, yes, when we introduce the legislation he will obviously receive the information for which he asked in committee. I will be glad to give it to him at that time. Perhaps today we will see a change in attitude and he would like to see the Bill.


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his May 1985 Budget and in this year's February Budget, the Minister provided for a very considerable increase in personal income tax. On the other hand, in his 1986 Budget he announced a reduction in corporate taxes.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister gave a press conference which was a complete contradiction of his firt two Budgets. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of this contradiction and why he is now changing the course he announced in the House in his last two Budgets.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction whatsoever. We embarked on tax reform in our very first weeks in office. In October of 1984 we commenced the removal of some of the loopholes in the tax system, some of the abuses. I refer to the scientific research tax credit, limited partnerships, and other matters for which I am sure the Hon. Member applauds the Government. Since then we have introduced the minimum tax and phase one of the corporation tax which reduces not just the tax rates, as the Hon. Member points out, but also some of the exemptions that corporations have had. This ends up in the corporations paying somewhat more tax. We are continuing this process. That was the substance of my announcement last week. We will continue the process in the directions that I laid out in my announcement of last week.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WANTS TO WITHDRAW PROPOSALS TO INCREASE PERSONAL INCOME TAX AND REDUCE CORPORATE TAXES
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I have the following supplementary for the Minister of Finance. If he is serious about what he just said and what he said last week, does he intend to withdraw the proposals for increases in personal income tax announced in his last Budget and withdraw as well the reduction in corporate taxes, in line with what he said at last week's press conference?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should recall that it was not an increase in tax rates but a temporary surtax put on to get us over a hurdle in the battle we are waging against the deficit problem that was left to us to deal with in September, 1984, by the Party the Hon. Member represents. We are continuing to fight that battle but we think we can do it in a more effective way by rationalizing the tax system and dealing with it in the way I set out last Friday.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Is it not about time, as a counterpoint to what is going on in Great Britain and the United States, for the Government to express leadership to the Commonwealth by announcing now the imposition of a complete ban on investment in South Africa and an embargo on the importation of South African agricultural products?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the most appropriate time and place for the Government to show further leadership on this issue are at the Commonwealth mini-summit conference which is to take place in the next few days.


ECONOMIC SANCTIONS-REQUEST FOR AID FOR NEIGHBOURING STATES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of what has been going on. The Commonwealth is falling apart around our ears.
The Prime Minister has indicated that if apartheid is not dealt with effectively by South Africa, a complete termination of all economic relations with South Africa will be imposed and a committee of the House of Commons has supported the Prime Minister in that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member to put a question, please?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, has the Government prepared a plan, either alone or in concert with other nations, to provide economic assistance to the frontline states which will be retaliated against by South Africa in the event of the imposition of those sanctions the Prime Minister has promised he would impose?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Hon. Member is advocating the dismantlement of the Commonwealth. We take the very strong position that the Commonwealth is a very important institution and we will do everything we can to see that it flourishes and continues. It is within that context that the Prime Minister will be making his presentation and furthering the commitment of the Government, which has been so clearly expressed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to pursue the kind of policies necessary to end apartheid in South Africa.
Oral Questions FINANCE


TAX REFORM PROPOSALS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I am sure all Canadians applaud him for his accelerated approach on tax reform and simplification. Has the Minister set a goal whereby, once all the changes are made, the system will be revenue neutral so that the changes will not be seen as being a tax grab?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the tax reform proposals I announced on Friday are designed to shift the burden of taxation. They are not designed to raise revenues in any way. We are trying to examine the balance between corporate income tax, personal income tax, and sales tax. In examining the balance between the various elements of the tax system, we want to ensure that there is a sufficient degree of incentive to encourage economic growth and job creation and to do it in a way that will keep the tax system competitive in view of the changes that are being considered in the United States.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration whom I congratulate on his new responsibilities. When his predecessor announced the new refugee policy back in May, the Government reversed itself on an earlier decision to apply visa restrictions to Portugal on the grounds that that was the incorrect mechanism to address refugee related matters. Why did the Minister suddenly slap visa restrictions on Portugal in the middle of the summer? Why did he not choose to prosecute the small number of immigration consultants and lawyers who are responsible for the majority of bogus claims and who are very well known to the Minister and his Department?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the visa was imposed in order to protect the credibility and integrity of the entire Canadian refugee and immigration policy. We did it regretfully. I have announced that it is a temporary measure. When my officials and myself determine that the situation has been normalized, we can deem that the visa restrictions be lifted.


REQUEST FOR REVOCATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, by imposing a visa restriction he is punishing the innocent and is allowing the guilty to get away. Since visas punish the more than 10,000 visitors from Portgual who come to Canada every year and unfairly and needlessly tarnish the reputations of the proud and hard-working Portuguese-Canadians, will the Minister not instead revoke the visa measures and concentrate fully on

July 24, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Althouse
eliminating the flourishing white-collar crime committed by unscrupulous lawyers and consultants operating out of Toronto and Montreal?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the visa is a mechanism to provide access to those who should be legitimately seeking our shores. I sympathize, and I have said very clearly that it is my intention to go after, in a very heavy way, those consultants who have been causing innocent Portuguese citizens to make misleading statements. There is an RCMP investigation going on and it is not appropriate for me to comment on that investigation. I do not want to prejudice the investigation or the legitimate rights of all claimants to a fair and just hearing.


TARIFFS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns a new wrinkle in the Government's book tariffs which will now include a tariff on music at an even higher rate by making the base price the sales price even in the case of rented music. Will the Minister not agree to respond to Canadian music lovers and readers who have protested by the thousands this very misguided policy, and agree to revoke the tariff on both books and music?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member of the reasons we regretfully took that action. It was not an action taken against the book industry but it was an action taken to exercise our rights and demonstrate our concerns over the direction U.S. government policy was taking. I have met, as has had the Minister of Communications, with representatives of the book publishing industry. We have asked the industry for information. Once we receive that information, we will be able to chart our course from there.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister respond to legal opinions put forward indicating that the tariff on English-language books is discriminatory, that it violates provisions in the Charter designed to provide equal protection for both official languages, that it discriminates against English readers, and that it violates the provisions for freedom of expression, thought and exchange, by impeding the free flow of ideas? Will the Minister not agree that the Charter should be respected and that that tariff which is in violation of it should be withdrawn?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would know that one can get an opinion from a lawyer on both sides of that particular issue.


John Edward Broadbent: Of any issue.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the New
Democratic Party, a noted legal scholar, is probably right. One can get an opinion from a lawyer on both sides of any issue. Given the circumstances, that is particularly so with this issue. We are reviewing the matter but, as I indicated, we have asked the industry for information and until that information is available it is difficult for us to proceed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period I noted that the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) may have inadvertently misled the House when he told us that the Government had removed the fuel tax on farm fuel. I think it would have been more correct to use the word "reduced" rather than the word "removed". Accordingly, I ask that the record be corrected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must rule that that is not a point of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act; and the motion (Mr. Kelleher) (p. 15013).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, five minutes were remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Therefore, I recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a question or comment.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my question to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) by congratulating him on his fine remarks on the Bill earlier today. I am sure all Hon. Members of the House would agree that as usual they were very thoughtful and thought provoking remarks.
Is the Hon. Member of the opinion that the Government is misguided in its approach? Does he think, as I do, that it is actually using this issue as a ploy to divert attention from the
July 24, 1986

other embarrassing situations with which it happens to be faced at the present time? Does he think that it used the guise of this Bill to reconvene the House for this very short session and in that way is attempting to divert the focus of public opinion from very serious problems at the present time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I know all Hon. Members are very happy to see each other back in the Chamber. It is nice to hear that camaraderie in the House. However, I would appreciate it if they would take their conversations behind the curtains so that we can hear the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), for his very generous comments.
It is obvious why we are here today, for only the twelfth time in Canadian parliamentary history that the House of Commons has been recalled. We are here because of the reckless negligence of the former Solicitor General, the reckless negligence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as well as the reckless rhetoric of the former Solicitor General. It is pure and simple politics. That is the reason we are back here dealing with this legislation.
We agree that the legislation is important. We agreed a year ago with the former Solicitor General that the legislation was important. Notwithstanding the fact that the legislation was of crucial interest to Canadians, as the Government has indicated, the Conservative Government of Canada had this legislation hanging around for a year before it called it back to the House for third reading. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to call the Bill back for third reading. It is not the responsibility of the Opposition. It is the responsibility of the Government, which failed miserably in its obligation and responsibility to call back this Bill at an early stage. If anyone is responsible for the year of living dangerously, it is the former Solicitor General.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member took great pains in his earlier remarks before lunch to explain that mandatory supervision really did not matter, that we were better off bringing them out in society where they could be watched, where they could be counselled, and where they could be under supervision, and that they would be let out in two years anyway. What would that Hon. Member say to the family of the 19 year old girl who was mutilated, raped, and strangled to death by someone who was released on mandatory supervision? How would he respond to that?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the more irresponsible questions which has been asked in the House. It is indicative of the attitude of the Government.
It was the former Solicitor General, the current Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), who needlessly alarmed Canadians by indicating that there were 54 time bombs which were waiting to be released into society. He knew darn well
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
that mandatory supervision had been with us for the last 16 years, and that over the course of the last two years since his Government came to office some 3,000 inmates in federal institutions had been released on mandatory supervision.
If the Conservative Government of Canada had been true to its word-and many Canadians would question that-it would have taken action two years ago rather than recalling Parliament. It is quite obvious that the Government of Canada and specifically the former Solicitor General have mastered the art of hypocrisy.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the debate this afternoon to add my thoughts to the events which returned us to Ottawa on this very hot day. I have been taken away from my constituents and Lake Superior with its cool breezes and returned to Ottawa and its warm weather.
We are here because of two principles. The first principle is that it is up to the House and its Members, as newly elected representatives of Canadians, to decide what shall be the laws of the land. In this case we are here as an opposition Party reviewing government legislation to determine whether it is the most appropriate mechanism for the aims of the Bill. Ironically, I am not happy about the second principle, the one which allows the Senate, that unelected group in the other Chamber whose ranks will be swelled by one this afternoon, to make changes. I do not agree with the principle that the Senate should be making changes to a Bill. However, the amendment it proposed and sent back to us for consideration makes a lot of sense.
Our society believes in the right of appeal and in justice prevailing. We do not arbitrarily pick someone up off the street and throw him or her in jail. If we have duly tried and convicted individuals of certain crimes and have incarcerated them in one of our penitentiaries, they should have the same rights in terms of early release as they would have in the process of being found guilty. Even within our court system we have a series of appeals. The Supreme Court of Ontario can be overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada. We allow for benefit of the doubt. We allow an appeal for people who feel they have been wronged by the judiciary. In civil law we provide the right of appeal. We in the House have passed many pieces of legislation which give the right of appeal to Cabinet of decisions by Minister, of decisions by tribunals. This amendment by the other place would provide opportunity for those persons whose early release had been rejected by the National Parole Board. If they have just cause, if they have actually lived up to the rules of good behaviour, and if they have indicated quite clearly that they have learned from their experience behind bars, they can go to the next phase.
The next phase is the transition. If you are placed in confinement for a number of months or years you are no longer in touch with the real world. You are in a very artificial situation where you are told when to eat, when to sleep and

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
when to watch television. To go from that environment into the real world where no one tells you what to do is a big change. All you have are vague laws that you are supposed to know and obey.
When you have such a cut and dried situation with no supervision, no parole and no assistance, people tend to run afoul of the law again or, in some cases, seek to go back inside because of the security it provides. We have seen that situation in northwestern Ontario where we have our "winterees" who come back each and every winter because of their economic situation.
The questions raised in this Bill are very important. Should a decision be up to the Parole Board. Should there be some other level of appeal? When someone is hoping to be released early under mandatory supervision they should have the right to be represented by counsel. This should not be a token representation with counsel sitting at the back of the room, making a statement at the end of the hearing. Counsel should participate fully. Whatever evidence is placed by officials from the penitentiary to justify why this individual should not be released should be verified. We should have a decision based on the feeling of the prison officials, because of attitude or what have you. We must ensure that the individual's rights are protected. Every person has the right to be made aware of the full case against him or her. Clearly nothing is more fundamental in our society than the right to defend yourself against allegations. One must have the right to cross examine those who accuse. Ask any Canadian whether he or she thinks that these rights are rights all Canadians should have. The answer would be yes.
If we as a society are going to change the rules and increase the amount of time an individual will spend incarcerated, and we do it at a point through the process other than at the time when the judge hands down the decision, based on the findings of a jury or his or her own findings, finding an individual guilty of the crimes charged, perhaps somewhere later in the process, two thirds into the sentence, we must still provide those protections, Mr. Speaker. If we are to judge ourselves a just society, we must treat those who we incarcerate in the same way we treat all citizens.
What about the question of who has the ability to judge what might happen? It is like the argument put to someone in a traffic accident, that if they had gone a little slower they would not have been at the intersection at the time, being told they were at fault even though the facts show that the other person was clearly at fault. The law rejects the what-if argument. Why should we play the what-if game with those who have been found guilty and sentenced both to a prison term and to a period of mandatory supervision?
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) pointed out this morning, when judges pass sentence they take into consideration the amount of time they feel is appropriate for the incarceration and also the amount of time that is appropriate for the mandatory supervision for easing back into society. That easing back is
very important. We have heard time and time again over the years about how most of the people get their training in the joint. They have committed a crime, perhaps a consequential crime or one that is not so consequential, they are sent away and they get a graduate degree in our institutions, only to go back on the street and apply their trade.
If we are to provide for meaningful rehabilitation of those individuals, and I believe that the facts will bear out my suggestion that the majority are rehabilitated, that we do not see the kind of repeat offenders at the federal penal institutions we see at some of some of the small provincial ones, and if we are to ease them back into society, we must have that period of mandatory supervision where they have someone to report to, somebody who keeps an eye on them and where there are some rules over and above those that are assigned to the rest of us in society whereby infractions can put them back very quickly behind bars. We have to look at this very seriously, Mr. Speaker. We are supporting this amendment because of the possibilities of error. It is possible that the Parole Board may not make the best decision either for the benefit of the individual concerned or for society. We have to allow recourse to the courts.
When people ask me how I feel about coming back today I say it is like a truck from GM that has been recalled. You are not happy about it but it is something that has to be done. It takes time but it is our responsibility as the Parliament of Canada to make these kinds of decisions. It is not for the other House.
Let us look at the timetable. The Bill was tabled a year ago. It went to committee. The committee reported in January. When did we see the Bill? Did we see it in February, March, April or May? No. We saw it in the dying moments of this House when it was sent back to us. We have seen changes in the Cabinet. With the appointment of a new House Leader we have seen an indication that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) was not satisfied with the manner in which business proceeded, and he has placed his trust in the new House Leader. I offer him my best wishes because I know he will put the same vigour to this task as he did to the Ministry of Transport.
There is no reason we should be back here. If these 54, 51 or 36 time bombs are a danger now, why were they not a danger in February or last fall? This is clearly an indication that the Government did not have its act together and at the last minute tried to put together a Bill in the way the Government would like it.
In the final moment or two of my allotted time I would like to reiterate the need to accept this amendment to ensure that all Canadians have the right of appeal, that those who have been incarcerated for a proven violation of a law have the right to appeal the decision not to let them out early. They should have the right to be represented by counsel, the right to be made aware of the case against them so they can rebut and challenge.
July 24, 1986

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I look forward to the remainder of the debate and the vote later this afternoon so that we can get back where we belong, namely, in our constituencies. Thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to congratulate the previous speaker whose comments were more or less what mine would have been if I had spoken to this motion today.
I think he was right to analyze the situation the way he did, and I think his speech will be helpful to Canadians who are watching us on television and who wonder why Parliament was recalled today in such a hurry, to adopt a Bill that has been before Parliament for a number of months.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member would agree that the Government's decision to recall Parliament is unfounded or at least ill-founded, as well as costly and unnecessary.
I say ill-founded because I think we should not take the exceptional course of recalling Parliament unless there are issues that are particularly urgent or unless there is an overriding need to do so. I believe that the precedent created today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) is an ill-considered precedent. In my opinion, the reason given by the Conservatives for resorting to this exceptional measure does not justify a massive recall of Members to Parliament, the cost that entails and the incovenience to House of Commons employees and the entire parliamentary apparatus.
I feel that we are here today because of a mistake on the part of the Government. And I think this measure is unnecessary in any case, because, although the Prime Minister would have us believe that without this legislation, dangerous criminals might be released, what he is not saying is that every month, inmates who have served their sentence are being released from prison and returned to the community.
I think it is rather strange that all of a sudden, after nearly two years, after more than 20 months in power, this Government is getting worried about inmates who are released at the end of their sentence. I therefore wish to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke whether he could explain why it is the Government was unable to have the legislation adopted earlier in the year, if it was really so anxious to keep all inmates deemed to be dangerous inside our penitentiaries. In fact, in that case, this Bill should have been one of the first measures adopted by Parliament, and so I wonder why the Government waited until the last day of the session to have this Bill adopted by the House?
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). I appreciate his comment. I think it is interesting to note that this is the twelfth time since Confederation that this House has been recalled on an emergency. We have been recalled for matters such as the declaration of war against Germany, the Suez crisis, the Great Depression, sometimes to legislate men and women back to work, the Constitution of Canada. When I read that list and compare it to the reason we are here today, in order to right the incompetence of the Government in planning the business of this House, it is clear, and I think all Members of this House and those who are watching will agree, that this does not compare.
The Government has had over a year since the introduction of the Bill. It has had at least five months since it cleared committee, which is two points back from the final process. While I cannot give the Hon. Member any specifics, I know that we twiddled our thumbs in this House over the winter months. We talked and talked on legislation that was nowhere in the same vein as this Bill. That the affairs of this country could have been managed much better.
At the end of June we saw a lot of pressure by the Government to rush through legislation. The Hon. Member for Papineau will recall that his colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), made sure that one particular piece of legislation did not pass through this House. I am sure the Government House Leader will remember that measure as well. When we come back on September 8, and if the press reports that tell us there will be a Throne Speech on September 17 are true-I do not know if they are- we will see the Government try to cram through a lot more. This House has had enough of that kind of management. We expect to see legitimate debate, a full airing of issues so that the concerns of the people of Canada can be properly brought to the floor of this Chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet):


André Ouellet: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether it is true that the argument to the effect that we in the Opposition and the senators who supported this amendment really want to let dangerous criminals loose in the streets is an argument or an accusation made by the Government appears to me to be dangerous and quite unfounded. I wish the Hon. Member who said he would support the amendment passed by the Senate- as we in the Liberal Party will also support the amendment- would reassure the people who are listening to us that indeed, by endorsing the amendment, we will not be doing anything at all to encourage or multiply the possibilities of having dangerous criminals roam the streets.
What we are proposing is that, in the case of an inmate who is about to finish serving his sentence and may be released

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
after good behaviour, that if the authorities have decided that the inmate is dangerous and must remain behind bars, that the decision not be made by federal Government officials but by the courts because in fact an individual is sentenced and sent to prison by judges, by the Canadian courts. Therefore, the senators as well as the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, if I correctly understand the purpose of our motion, are saying that if it is decided that an inmate about to be released should remain in prison for a longer period of time, this decision should not be made by public servants but by the courts which sent the individual to prison in the first place.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Papineau, I would like to state very clearly that regardless of whether this amendment passes or not, those individuals will be out on the street at some point. They will either be out at the end of their full sentence, as prescribed by law, or some time earlier. I do not believe that an extra six months in a jail somewhere is going to change the potential of an individual for committing another crime. I do believe that by providing them with an opportunity to ease back into society they will be less dangerous. In fact, society as a whole will be better protected by that kind of more humane approach.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak, not for 20 minutes, but for a few minutes only. I believe we should proceed fairly quickly to adopt this Bill and I will limit my comments to help achieve the objective which is to pass the legislation.
I am happy to assist in passing the legislation quickly because I believe it is important and will tend to support public
safety.
This strange emergency presents me with the opportunity to rise and explain how this important piece of legislation became an emergency. Before doing so, let me say that I believe this legislation serves a purpose and should be defended.
I think the New Democratic Party is tortured with the question of whether this legislation will do any good. I suggest that it will. The NDP has advanced two reasons why they believe it will not be useful. First, NDP Members say it will not do any good because it is not possible to predict who will commit a violent crime even though a person may have committed one in the past. While that proposition is essentially true, one cannot always predict who will commit a violent crime. Yet there are a small number of cases where such violent crime can be predicted, and the whole premise of the Parole Board is based on the possibility of prediction.
If an inmate is behaving in a certain way and making threats, if psychologists who have been watching that inmate for years come to the conclusion that he is likely to commit an offence, I suggest that there is a possibility of prediction. We presently do not have the tools to keep such an offender in prison and he must be released on the date when mandatory supervision is reached. I reject the argument that one cannot predict violent crime as an across-the-board proposition.
Of course, it is not a premise of the Bill that each case can be predicted. The Bill is simply a tool that I hope will be used in the case of inmates with respect to whom prediction is possible, and it is on that premise that I believe it is a valid Bill.
The second argument made by the NDP against the Bill is that even when prediction is possible, there is no basis on which can it be said that keeping a person behind bars for a couple of months or years longer will rehabilitate him or her. Again, I believe that that NDP proposition is wrong.
While there may be some cases where an inmate may see the light by remaining incarcerated for an extra period rather than being put on the street, the point is that by keeping them behind the bars for that extra period of time at least provides a measure of extra public safety during that period.
What about those who are incurable and dangerous criminals? In our democracy we cannot keep them behind bars any longer than the warrant states. According to this Bill, at least those who we can predict will be dangerous offenders once on the street can be kept from being let loose for that much more time. That is a worthwhile measure which our Party supports. While this is only a slight improvement in most cases, it is better than nothing since it provides a little extra protection by virtue of that longer incarceration.
I also recognize that keeping someone behind bars until the end of his or her sentence is a trade-off against mandatory supervision.
As a result of my past experience as Solicitor General, I recognize that street supervision is sometimes more beneficial than incarceration. If someone is to be put on the street at a certain point in time, it is advantageous in some cases to be able to have the person spend that first few months or years on the street under supervision rather than being let loose at the end of the warrant without any right to impose any conditions.
Let us consider what type of conditions can be imposed on someone under mandatory supervision. They can be kept away from liquor and kept away from former associates. They can be told to live in a certain neighbourhood and be required to report weekly, if necessary, and even daily in an attempt to help them adjust during the difficult first days when they hit the street after being in prison for a long period of time.
I have seen and heard of cases where the supervisor or parole officer has told the inmate or the person under supervision to empty his pockets and put the contents on the table, then asked such questions as: "Where did this money come
July 24, 1986

from? Whose phone number Is that? What lock does that key fit?" This is possible when a person is under mandatory supervision. It can assist the person in re-entering society. This cannot be done with someone who has stayed behind bars until the full sentence has been served.
There is an advantage to mandatory supervision. However, the premise of the Bill is that there are also cases where there should be authority to deprive an individual of mandatory supervision. That is why we support the Bill.
As a matter of fact, the House will know that I introduced this Bill in 1983 after I tried but failed in court to deprive inmates of mandatory supervision in a few cases, using administrative means. Those administrative means did not work and the Supreme Court of Canada ordered us to release inmates whom we wanted to keep behind bars. Therefore, I had to come back to this legislation, which I took to the Senate. The Senate proposed amendments, to which I agreed since the election was forthcoming. I approached opposition Parties to see if they would give unanimous consent to pass the Bill in the dying hours of the last Parliament.
Let me report to the House that the Conservatives offered their unanimous consent in order to pass the legislation, but the NDP deprived us of unanimous consent in June, 1984. Therefore, we were unable, as a Government, to bring this legislation forward. After we were defeated and the new Parliament was called, I reminded the Conservatives that since they agreed to this important legislation when they were in opposition, it should be passed. The then Solicitor General said he would look into it, and his successor also said he would look into it. Now they tell us that we need to be called back from our summer break to deal with a problem that they identified as an emergency in the summer of 1984.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) tells us that 74 dangerous inmates to whom this Bill should be applied will come out in the next three months. I believe that that estimate is rather high and I hope the Bill will not affect such a large number of inmates. While I admit the possibility of prediction, I would be surprised if there are 300 inmates a year who can be predicted to be dangerous. After all, what is the difference between this three-month period this summer and the same period last summer? What is the difference between last summer and last fall or winter?
My point is that a certain number of inmates in this country are released under street supervision every day. For the Government to say suddenly that the ones who are coming out this summer are the reason we need the Bill is to falsify an emergency and create a sense that something we should have done years ago is an emergency. The Government is characterizing this as an emergency now in order to be able to Senate-bash and Liberal-bash. I cannot think of any other explanation, but if there is one, I would like to hear it. The Government, by calling this an emergency this summer, is attempting to blame Senators or Liberals because it could not get the Bill through the day it wanted rather than doing so two years ago when the same emergency existed and the legislation had the
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
same importance as it has now. It may think the Canadian people are dumb enough to fall for the argument that this is suddenly an emergency, but I do not think the Canadian people are that stupid. I think those who are watching this debate, and not all of them are, will recognize what the Government is trying to create out of its own bad administration and delay-


John V. Nunziata: And negligence.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: And negligence, as the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) points out. It is the Government's negligence it is trying to cover up by calling this a summer emergency which is the fault of the Senate. I think the Canadian people will surprise the Government. It is true they voted the Conservatives in in September of 1984 but-


An Hon. Member:: And they voted you out.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They did, and I think we have benefited from being in opposition. I do not believe the Conservatives have benefited from being in government. I do not think the Canadian people have benefited. I am looking forward to seeing their reaction to this false emergency called to get through some legislation which they believe at heart will do some good in supporting the public safety.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to say he supports this legislation, that it is important legislation which needs to be dealt with. I wonder why when he was in office the Government waited until the end of its term to bring forward legislation to deal with this matter. How can the Hon. Member justify criticizing the Conservatives for failing to act on this legislation for the last two years when his Government was in office for at least four years and did not act on it until the last minute?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that when I first observed the problem of people who were predictably dangerous getting out on mandatory supervision, I hoped the problem could be solved administratively. I thought we could take people who were earning mandatory supervision, let them march through the prison door, then turn them around and bring them back.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Re-arrest them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Re-arrest them. That is a very good way of putting it. In fact that solution was attempted. We took 15 inmates, one after the other, for a period of several months, inmates whom we thought to be dangerous and who should not be allowed out, and tried to bring them back. I want to level with the Hon. Member. We had legal advice from the law officers of the Crown that this was a legal thing to do and was not false imprisonment. Eventually a number of inmates took us to court, I think 11 inmates out of the 15, and we fought the case. We lost at the trial level. We appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which took almost two years of the mandate.

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
We honestly did our best to try to make the administrative solution work, even going up to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. Within weeks of the time that the Supreme Court found that the Solicitor General had no authority to cancel earned remission, we introduced legislation. I had a Bill which was going through the Senate at that time. I introduced an amendment to the Bill in late 1983. It was an addition to the Bill which was going through the Senate. The Senate had the same objections to my Bill as it has to the Bill now being brought forward by the Government. I went before the Senate, which took a couple of months. I argued with it against the amendments which it has now put to this Bill. It refused to change its mind.


Marcel Prud'homme: Both Parties.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Exactly, both Parties refused. I then agreed with the Senate's amendments because I could see that it was going to be the last session of Parliament and there was an election coming. So for the Hon. Member to suggest that I sat around for four years doing nothing with the problem I had identified is totally inconsistent with the facts. I did everything. I went to court. I tried a creative new solution for cancelling mandatory supervision. I hope the Hon. Member will withdraw any suggestion that I waited until the election to try to solve the problem.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, if this matter of the release of dangerous prisoners was a matter of such urgency, would my colleague tell me why he chose to follow doubtful legal advice and experiment with an administrative solution? Why did he not take expeditious and immediate legislative action?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, legislation was not exactly immediate in the last Parliament. We did not have 211 Members on the government side.


Cyril Keeper: You were the Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, we were the Government but we had a Senate composed of Liberals who disagreed with my Bill. We had two opposition Parties which were being quite difficult until the end. I hope Hon. Members who were in that last Parliament will be honest enough, as I am sure they will, to agree with that. I had legal advice that we had an administrative solution. I put to the Hon. Member that we do not bring forward legislation, especially the Solicitor General, when we are receiving legal advice. We take the legal advice we are given. We are not in a position to be able to go against legal advice. I knew that these inmates who were about to be released should not be released. We just could not come up with overnight legislation in a controversial and difficult area such as this. The New Democratic Party may think we could, but members of the NDP do not have the kind of experience which should tell them that we cannot get legislation through that easily.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One further question.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, granted that the former Minister had legal advice. However, he has just told the House that the matter was urgent. Surely, legal advice is not always on one side of the question. I am sure he would have wanted to act in a way that he would be sure would bring about the results he wanted. How can the Hon. Member now accuse the Conservatives of being tardy in legislative action when he himself took fully four years before he proposed to bring legislation before the House?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to add to the explanation I just gave. I hope that people who are interested in the issue will read what I just said.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to my hon. colleague. When the Hon. Member's amendments were introduced in the Senate, similar amendments which the majority of the Senate introduced to this Bill, did the two Parties represented in the Senate agree, voting together, to such amendments? Would my colleague confirm that Conservative Senator Nathan Nurgitz stated in the Senate that he was: "... more than satisfied with the amendment put forward by Robert Kaplan and this counts in the Senate's committee suggestion". Is that factual?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is factual.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any further questions or comments? Debate.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the real reason we are back in Parliament in the middle of July is not that the Government is concerned with the safety of the Canadian people but that the Government has mismanaged the business of the House. This issue has been around since 1983 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the administrative measures introduced by the last Government unconstitutional. As the previous speaker pointed out, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled those measures unconstitutional, he, as Solicitor General at the time, introduced a Bill to deal with the problem. That Bill was in process when Parliament was dissolved for the election of 1984.
This Tory Government was elected in September, 1984. Parliament was called in November of 1984. But Bill C-67 which is before us now was not introduced until June of 1985. What kind of concern is that? The Government is calling Parliament back in the middle of the summer because it says it is very concerned about the early release of dangerous offenders from prison, but the Conservatives themselves, after the election, knowing the problem existed, did nothing about it from November of 1984, the first time Parliament met after the election, until June of 1985. That is quite a considerable period of time. It shows what a low priority members of the Government gave to this issue at that time.
July 24, 1986

If the Government was so concerned with public safety then why, after the hearings in committee on Bill C-67 were completed and after the Bill was returned to the House in January of 1986, did the Government let the Bill hang around on the Order Paper? It was not called for debate. It was left to sit on the Order Paper from January of 1986 until June of 1986. That is another considerable length of time. During those four or five months where was this great concern for the public safety? There was none at all. It is a phoney issue.
The Bill was left on the Order Paper for that length of time without debate. It was called before the summer adjournment at the end of June for report stage and third reading. On the last Friday of June it was sent to the Senate with the expectation that it would deal with the Bill at all stages on the same day and send it on for Royal Assent. To accuse the Senate of delaying the Bill because it amended it on that last day is also a phoney issue. If the Senate had dealt with the Bill at all stages in one day, on that last Friday in June, and if it had passed it without amendment, then the House would still have had to be recalled since a Bill does not become law without Royal Assent. In order to have Royal Assent Members of the House of Commons must be present in the Senate Chamber. So if the Government had wanted this Bill passed in the summer, without amendment, it would still have had to recall Parliament. Thus it is a phoney issue to accuse the Senate of being responsible for the recall of Parliament to deal with this Bill today. Parliament would have had to have been recalled in any event in order for Members of the House to be present for Royal Assent.
In the week following the passage of this Bill in the House the new Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) appeared before a Senate committee. Members of that committee asked him if he was planning to recall Parliament in the middle of the summer for Royal Assent in order to make the Bill law. He would not give them that commitment. That is on the record. They also asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate if he would give a commitment that Parliament would be recalled for Royal Assent. He would not give that commitment. So there was no commitment at that time that the Government would recall Parliament to have this Bill become law.
It is necessary for the three levels to be present in order to pass a Bill into law. The monarchy must be represented, which is usually done by the Governor General. Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Commons must also be present. No piece of legislation can be made into law without these three parties being present. The House of Commons would have had to have been recalled whether or not there was an amendment made in the Senate. Clearly, the real reason we are sitting here today in the middle of summer is not that the Government has great concern for public safety. That is a phoney issue. It is also a phoney issue that we were obliged to be here because at the end of June the Senate proposed an amendment to the Bill we are debating today.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
For a few moments I would like to discuss the substance of the Bill. What are we talking about here today? We are talking about the early release from prison of inmates as a result of earned remission under Section 23 of the Penitentiaries Act. Section 23 does not provide for automatic release from prison. It provides that an inmate can earn remission which will reduce his sentence. It provides that he can lose good time which will add on to his sentence. However, it is earned remission.
Before 1970, when an inmate earned remission he was automatically released from prison at the end of his sentence without any supervision whatsoever. This measure is unlike parole. Parole is granted by the Parole Board, and always has been, after one-third of a sentence has been served. Parole is granted because it is felt that an inmate can better serve his time outside prison. It is granted when the board feels that the inmate is no longer a danger to the public and that his rehabilitation process will be better carried out outside the prison. As a result of a decision of the Parole Board the inmate is released after having served one-third of his sentence. However, he is released under the supervision of a parole officer. He must report to a parole officer and there are conditions of parole. If the conditions are broken, the former inmate is returned to prison. If he commits another offence, even one of a minor nature, he is returned to prison. While these types of conditions applied to parole before 1970, they did not apply to release on earned remission. At that time we introduced mandatory supervision for inmates released on earned remission just as was the case with parole.
The question in this regard is the following one. Some of those who earned remission and were to be released because they had earned that remission, even under mandatory supervision, were still dangerous. That problem was recognized around 1981-82. The previous Liberal Government tried to do something about it through an administrative measure. This was done because administrative measures can be introduced quickly and without long debate in the House of Commons. The measure did not work. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional. The Government then had to try to achieve the same results through legislation. It tried it near the end of the last Parliament. It did not work.
It is wrong for the Government to give the impression that this Bill will stop all sorts of dangerous people from being released into society. In the first place, the great majority of prisoners are in prison on limited sentences, not life sentences. They are serving sentences of three years, five years, seven years, et cetera. Even if there was not parole or earned remission, these prisoners would have to be released at the end of their sentences even if they were the worst actors in prison. If a man has received a five-year sentence and is a terrible actor he will not receive parole. His earned remission will be cancelled at the end of five years. At that time he must be released, dangerous as he may be. The police must look to him to commit another offence before they can arrest him and put him back in prison.

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
As a former Solicitor General I know that all those who work in the prison system know that people come to the end of their sentences and are not ready to go back into society. However, we have to return them to society because they were given a sentence of only a certain length of time. When that term is up, they must be released. Furthermore, even when an inmate has been released into society under mandatory supervision or parole to complete his sentence and he breaks the conditions of his parole or commits another type of offence, be it minor or major, his parole or mandatory supervision is cancelled. He is then put back into prison. This Bill does not change that procedure. It will remain in operation.
What we are discussing today, and what we as Liberals support, is legislation by which the administration of the prison system, the Parole Board, could cancel the earned remission of an inmate on the day he is to be released into society if it is felt that he is still dangerous. We support that measure. We differ from the Government in that we believe there should be an appeal from that decision to the courts and not simply to the Parole Board. Why do we suggest an appeal to the courts and not to the Parole Board? Because we are dealing with the question of civil liberties. We are dealing with the question of civil rights and responsibilities. The final decision in these matters should be taken by the courts where there is the right to cross-examine and where there are protections, not the more informal procedures which occur before the Parole Board.
This morning I listened to the Solicitor General. He said that the Parole Board is more properly equipped to deal with the factual matters of sentencing. He said that it is more equipped to do that than are the courts. It is the courts that must decide on sentences in the first place.
As we all know, the Criminal Code provides for a wide range of sentences for all offences. Judges hear representations from attorneys following convictions of offenders in order to decide whether they should impose full sentences, minimum sentences or suspended sentences. Judges now and for a long time have been deciding on sentences and have done a lot of work with respect to sentencing. It is not correct to say that the Parole Board is any better equipped to deal with sentencing and the shortening or lengthening of sentences than the courts. Protections exist in the courts. We support the Senate amendment which would provide for appeals from Parole Board decisions regarding the cancelling of earned remissions in the courts.
I would like to repeat what my hon. colleague has just said. When the Liberal Government introduced a similar Bill in the last Parliament, it contained no provision for appeal to the courts. When the Bill got to the Senate, it was amended to provide for an appeal to the courts. Finally, the Liberal Government used good sense and agreed to the amendment passed by the Senate. The Bill returned to the House and would have been passed if the election had not been called.
At that time, both Liberal and Conservative Senators unanimously agreed to the amendment. In 1983-84, Conservative Senators, who are still in the Senate now, agreed to the amendment that provided for final appeal in the courts, but today they are not agreeing to it. Of course this is for political reasons. They are following the instructions of the Conservative Government of the day and not what they believe to be right. If they did follow what they believed to be right, they would do the same thing they did when the Liberal Bill was before them. They would vote unanimously for appeal to the courts.
I would like to make it absolutely clear that we in the Liberal Party are opposed to the loose release of dangerous offenders, and there is a long line of legislation backing up that contention. We are in favour of parole and mandatory supervision. We believe that the best way for an inmate to be released into society is gradually and under supervision. It is a bad thing to keep a person in prison until the final day of his sentence and then release him into society without supervision.
With parole and mandatory supervision provisions, inmates can be released into society gradually and under the control and supervision of a parole officer. In the transition period, inmates have the support of the parole services while readapting to society. We are against the loose release of dangerous offenders, but we do support the gradual release of offenders into society through mandatory supervision and parole.
To conclude, I would like to repeat that the reason we are back here today in the House of Commons in the middle of July is not that the Government is concerned with the public safety of Canadians. If the Government had been concerned with the public safety of Canadians, it would have introduced this Bill in November, 1984. It did not do so until June, 1985. If it had been concerned with the public safety of Canadians, it would have moved report stage and third reading of the Bill in early February, 1986, but it did not do so until June, 1986. That shows that the Government was not really concerned with the public safety of Canadians as it maintains today that it is. In fact, that is the reason given for the recall of Parliament in the middle of summer.
The Government's accusation that the Senate is responsible for this recall is also phoney. The House would have had to be recalled if the Senate had made no amendments because we need the House of Commons in session for Royal Assent.
This is a phoney issue. We will vote against the measure put forward today because we believe that the provision of appeal to the courts is the correct provision. Tory Senators believed the same thing in 1983 and 1984.
Today's procedure indicates that the Government did not know how to manage the House in the last session. We hope for better things with a new House Leader. The Government badly managed the legislation it now claims is essential legislation.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I have one short question to ask my friend opposite. I was quite sure that his seatmate, the
July 24, 1986

Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), had indicated that the Liberal Party supported this proposal and was prepared to vote in favour of it. Can the Hon. Member inform me which is right?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill as submitted by the Senate but we do not support the Bill without the amendment. We believe in the general principle of the Bill. There should be a procedure for cancelling early release on mandatory supervision. We do support the basic principle of the Bill, but we only support it with the Senate's amendment which provides that if there is a disagreement regarding early release, an appeal should be made to the courts.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made it clear that he and his Party support the principle of the legislation. Presumably the legislation is designed to try to protect the public from dangerous criminals. How does the Hon. Member come to the conclusion that letting a person out of prison without supervision, which is the impact of this legislation, will protect the public? How is it that it is better to have a dangerous person on the streets without supervision than it is to have a dangerous person on the streets in a supervised way?


Marcel Prud'homme: That's not what he said.


Cyril Keeper: That is the position of the Liberal Party and the position of this legislation. The legislation provides that a person is kept in prison for the entire term of his sentence and is then released on to the streets without supervision. How can that lead to safety in the streets?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member pretends that this Bill does away completely with parole and earned remission. It does not. It will still be possible under the Parole Act for inmates to be released after serving two-thirds of their sentences, and I support that. It will still be possible for inmates to be released on mandatory supervision as a result of earned remission.
The Hon. Member was pretending or suggesting that this Bill would end all mandatory supervision on early release. It does not. It simply gives the Parole Board with, we hope, the right to an appeal to the courts, the right to cancel early release in some cases. We would hope that the number of those cases would be very limited. According to what we have heard, there are now from 7 to 11 such cases in all of Canada. That means that the great majority of people who have earned remission would still go out on the streets under mandatory supervision.
We support the position of the Hon. Member but we also feel that there are exceptional cases in which it is fairly clear that inmates are dangerous. In those cases only, there should be a provision to cancel release on mandatory supervision.
We do agree with the general principle that it is better to enter society in a gradual way under supervision, and I said that during my remarks. However, we are not supporting a Bill that would cancel parole or earned remission and mandatory
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
supervision altogether. The Bill only deals with exceptional circumstances.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the Hon. Member indicate that he did not believe that we had returned today because of the actions of the Senate. I am sure the Hon. Member was present in the House on Friday, June 27. He will recall that a number of Bills were passed and went to the Senate that day. To the best of my knowledge, all of the Bills, with the exception of Bill C-67, received unanimous consent for passage in the Senate that day. One Senator withheld unanimous consent on Bill C-67, and that meant that if the Bill was to pass, the House would have to be recalled to deal with it. All of the other Bills which received the consent of the Senate that day returned to the House that day, were passed by the House and did become law that day. I am sure the Hon. Member would like to correct his remarks for the record.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will not correct my remarks at all. The Bills the Senate agreed to pass quickly were Bills to which it had no objection. The Government knew that the Senate objected to this Bill in its form because the Senate had amended the Liberal Government's Bill in that same form.


Alan Redway: But it was just one Senator.


William Warren Allmand: No, it was not just one Senator. One Senator denied consent but he did it on behalf of a lot of others.
When it came to the vote on the Bill, all the Senators approved of the Bill, with the amendment that there must be an appeal to the courts. The Solicitor General knew that that sentiment existed in the Senate. The Bill was sent to the Senate on Friday afternoon, the last day, and the Senate was expected to pass the Bill with little or no debate and without that amendment, but the Government knew that the same Senators who had wanted that amendment in the past were still there.
By the way, in a previous Parliament Conservative Senators voted for that amendment. However, to send the Bill to the Senate on the last day, knowing that that objection existed in the Senate, was completely foolish and did not take account of that sentiment in the Senate. Knowing that that sentiment existed, the Government should have at least sent the Bill to the Senate in March or April, and it would have had time to deal with it without bringing us back in the middle of the summer. However, it did not do it.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity once again to make a few remarks in respect of Bill C-67. As Your Honour is quite aware, I have directed remarks in respect of the Bill on a good number of occasions in the past. First, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which dealt with the Bill for many weeks in committee hearings. The committee pressed forward on the Bill with all possible haste and ensured that it got out of committee as quickly as possible,

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
notwithstanding the fact that there were many motions moved by members of the Opposition and lengthy speeches made to those motions in an effort to slow down progress of the Bill. However, it went through committee expeditiously, bearing all that in mind.
I also participated in report stage debate when members of the New Democratic Party put forward some 33 separate amendments. They spoke to it in a very reasonable fashion and treated the amendments, as well as report stage and third reading debate, in a most responsible fashion. As we progressed from there, the Bill finally received third reading, went to the Senate, and here we are today.
We could spend a lot of time discussing and debating whose fault it was and whether someone is right and someone else is wrong. It seems clear from the remarks of all Members who have participated in the debate so far that it is quite clear everyone recognizes that the central issue in the debate is the protection of the public. All of us are interested in ensuring that the public is protected and in ensuring the passage of the Bill so that we can protect the public in every way possible.
As all of us are aware, the National Parole Board is required to release inmates who have been sentenced to prison after serving two-thirds of their sentence whether or not the board feels they are violent persons, whether or not it feels those persons will cause other problems for society or commit other crimes of a violent nature. Irrespective, the board is compelled under current legislation to release prisoners or inmates automatically after serving only two-thirds of their sentences. As the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) pointed out in his remarks earlier, if a prisoner is sentenced to a six year term by a judge, automatically the prisoner is released after four years. There is no way to keep that person in prison for the remaining two years, even if he or she is a violent offender. Also the Solicitor General pointed out that at the present time we are looking at an estimated 40 prisoners who are considered to be potentially violent offenders and will be released within the next six months unless legislation is passed to give the National Parole Board the authority and power to retain them in prison, not automatically to release them.
Regardless of who did what, whether it was the Government of the day, the last Government, the Official Opposition, or the NDP Opposition, surely we all agree that it is most important, if at all possible, to avoid having one more violent offender released to commit one more violent crime. As has been said many times in the debate, there is no guarantee that somebody will not be released who will commit a violent crime. However, if by the passage of this piece of legislation we can avoid one single solitary violent crime, surely we have accomplished something today and surely we have accomplished the purpose of recalling Parliament. It seems to me that that is what the debate is all about. If we clear away all the business about who is right, who is wrong, and whether or not it is important to be here today, surely it is important to avoid just one single solitary violent crime.
Many people have asked in this debate, in the press and in other media, what is the purpose of what we are doing today, because all violent offenders are in prison for a certain length of time and will be released at some time in the future? They have said that at some stage they will be out in society and will potentially cause problems, and that there is nothing we can do about it. If we follow that theory or philosophy, surely what they are saying is that there is no point in incarcerating anyone or sending anyone to prison in the first place because eventually they will get out and cause some other problems. I do not think anyone would quarrel that that is a potential difficulty or problem; there is no doubt about it. However, the reason the Parliament of Canada and the courts in their wisdom incarcerate people is that we feel the public must be protected.
That is one way of ensuring that the public is protected, at least for a limited period of time, from people who are potentially violent and commit criminal acts. We need to protect the public from such people, and that is the whole purpose of incarceration. No one guarantees forever and a day that they will not get out and cause other problems. However, if there is pretty good evidence that there will be problems, and a judge has said that a person has been sentenced to a fixed term, then it must be incumbent upon the rest of us to ensure that the person serves the full term. That should be the case if we have really good evidence and reason to believe that the person will commit some violent offence if let out early. That is what this debate is all about.
Other people have said that it is a mistake to let out people at the end of their sentences without having some sort of supervision tagged on at the end, without having some sort of control, without having some sort of conditions, without having other regulations to govern individual offenders when they are released. That may make a good deal of sense on the surface, but we must make sure that the system in place now is working.
The present system is called mandatory supervision. Supposedly, if we listen carefully to the term "mandatory supervision", on the surface it sounds as if someone will be following the released person all the time, that if the person commits an offence, such as crossing the street against a red light, a parole officer will be there to grab the person and say: "You are in breach of your mandatory supervision and we are going to take you back". We all know that that is not the case. We all know that mandatory supervision does not work like that. In fact, it does not really work at all. I could give a good many examples of that, but I choose to refer once again to a recent case dealing with this whole issue. I am referring to a classic case which took place in Metropolitan Toronto in March of this year, the case of one Leander Chesterfield Savoury. He was 21 years old but in October, 1984 he was released on mandatory supervision after serving two years of a four-year sentence for four convictions of armed robbery. The National Parole Board did not want to let Mr. Savoury out, but it had to do so because the legislation said that after serving two-thirds of a sentence there is no alternative, and so
July 24, 1986

he was let out. In January of this year, at the inquest into the death of Mr. Savoury, the parole officer said that Mr. Savoury and he met once in January-remember he was released in October- and spoke twice on the telephone. The parole officer told Mr. Savoury that he wanted him to stay in regular contact.
During that period of time, from the beginning of November, 1984 to the end of January, 1985, three months, the coroner's jury found that Mr. Savoury had committed eight other armed robberies and had murdered a gas bar attendant in early or mid-January, 1985. He even admitted to one of his accomplices that he had murdered this other man.
The coroner's jury in considering all of these facts indicated that it felt Mr. Savoury's so-called mandatory supervision was grossly inadequate, and it did not believe this was an isolated case. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not an isolated case. We hear of people being released on mandatory supervision all the time.
The coroner's jury also urged quick passage of Bill C-67 now before Parliament, which will give the National Parole Board the power to deny automatic release to dangerous offenders. That was a recommendation of a coroner's jury in the City of Toronto in March of this year as a result of the Leander Savoury case. By no means is that an isolated incident, Mr. Speaker.
The Senate has amended this Bill. The Senate said that having just the National Parole Board make the decision it is a bureaucratic act and that there is something wrong with it. It is contrary to civil rights and contrary to the protection of individual civil liberties. The Senate said that there should be an appeal to a superior court, but it did not set out anything relating to the appeal. The Senate said that there should be some sort of a right of appeal from the decision of the National Parole Board as to whether or not a person should have to serve his or her whole term as meted out previously by a judge in court.
Right away in saying that, we are saying that the judge of first instance and all of the courts that dealt with the sentence handed out by the trial judge made some sort of error that should have been corrected in the beginning. The judge handed out a sentence, a firm, definite term sentence. What the Parliament of Canada did in the legislation in 1970, which we are now trying to amend, was to say that regardless of the sentence handed out by a judge in court-even if the judge said a person should be put away for six years-we say that a person has to be released after serving only two thirds of a sentence. In other words, the sentence will be "four" years or a lesser amount than that stated. Unfortunately, the judge, in his or her wisdom, set a firm term as to how much time should be served. The Bill we are trying to amend today prevents the penal system from carrying out the original sentence meted out by a judge. Surely if we make sure by changing this legislation that the sentence handed out by the judge in the first place, which was subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, is served, then the course of justice is being served.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
I could comment as well on some of the other aspects of the Senate amendment. I could suggest that it is vague and it implies that we may very well have to release a person on mandatory supervision pending a court decision on whether that person should be released on mandatory supervision, because a person would have the right of appeal if we agreed with the Senate amendment.
There are a number of problems with the amendment the Senate has put forward. What I am sayng this afternoon, as I have said all along in committee, at report stage debate and on a number of occasions during Question Period this year, is that we should be getting on with the legislation before us. It is not perfect. The former Solicitor General said it was not perfect. He was right. We need to take a look at the whole system of mandatory supervision. We need to take a complete look at the whole system of parole and sentencing. We have a sentencing commission which is now looking at the sentencing aspect. I believe that when a judge hands down a sentence, the public has the right to feel that that is the sentence a person is going to serve. Right now we have a very confused system. We should be putting in place a system that when a judge says that a person will serve so many years in prison, that is what it is. We may want to put in place after that some parole system, and we may want to put in place after that some mandatory supervision system. If we do, I hope we put in place a system that is much better than the one we have now because the one we have now does not work. If we are going to deal with these problems effectively, we have to change the system so that it does work. We should be changing the whole system, but that will take some time. We have to hear from the sentencing commission as well as have a lot of other studies. In the meantime, surely we can act on this Bill to make sure that the National Parole Board can insist on a person serving out the full sentence imposed by a court, which originally was subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In my view, this is part of a move by our Government to change the swing in the pendulum, which has for many years been swinging exclusively in the direction of the civil rights and liberties of individuals. There is nothing wrong with that. They must be protected, but at the same time the public has to be protected too. A balance has to be struck. We have moved so far away from the balance of protecting the public that it is time we moved back. This Bill addressed that issue. This Bill brings us back to protecting the public and balancing that off with the rights of individuals. That is why we have to pass this Bill today in the form that it was passed by this House on June 27.
I urge all Members of this House to vote in favour of passing this Bill and to do so quickly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say that at last the cat is out of the bag. I was listening, and I think I did so with great respect, to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) whose final comments made clear what this Government really had in mind, and I want to thank him for that. 1 will comment further on this in my speech, but I want to thank the Hon. Member for shedding some light on the Government's true intentions. I think he is the only one who actually said what the real reason was for recalling Parliament today.
I have two questions. In 1982-83 there was a similar discussion in the Senate. As the Hon. Member knows, it was the unanimous conclusion of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, when it was considering Bill S-32-for those who may be listening, the S stands for Senate- that this view was incorporated in the Bill when it was passed by the Senate. It was passed by the Senate without a dissenting voice on June 9, 1983. This was the key recommendation contained in the unanimous Senate committee report on Bill C-67-C stands for Commons-dated May 14, 1986.
I ask the members of the Conservative Party, when were the Members of the other place wrong, then or now? On May 14, 1986, they agreed. Will my hon. colleague comment on the John Howard Society, which works very closely with released inmates? That society has expressed immense concern on what is going to take place in the jails if we go ahead today with the proposal that our colleague is asking us to vote for. The majority of witnesses who addressed this question while appearing before the Senate and the House of Commons agreed that jurisdiction should rest with the court.
Finally, does he not believe that the Parole Board would be placed in an untenable position if it were now expected to authorize the release on mandatory supervision when it found on earlier Parole Board hearings that there would be an "undue risk" to society? As my colleague knows, people who have been refused parole after one term may have to go through two terms of their sentences and will then have to be reviewed by the same parole officers. Does that not put them in an untenable situation? Why is it that my colleague is so opposed?
That is why we are here today. We are not here today because we think society is going to explode, as the former Solicitor General commented. Canada is not living with a time bomb. It is an extraordinary analogy, but it is not according to fact. Why is my colleague afraid of letting the judiciary decide on a decision taken by the Parole Board which may have already decided earlier to refuse release after one term?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has, I believe, put three questions to me. I hope I have them right. I will try to deal with each one of them.
The first one he dealt with was the question of the Senate and the Senate's position with respect to this matter. The Hon. Member is well aware, first of all, that between whatever happened in 1982 and 1983, there was a federal general election. There was a new Parliament elected, a new Government elected. In my view, at least in part one of the reasons for that was that the public felt it was time that there was more emphasis placed on the protection of the public than there had been in the past and that the criminal law, the judicial system and the legal system should be tightened up.
Regardless of what went on in the Senate and regardless of what went on in 1982 and 1983, in my view, what is going on today is a reflection of the views of the Canadian public that it is time that the judicial system, the legal system, was tightened up. That is what is taking place.
With regard to the fact that other bodies, other social service agencies, may feel that there should be an appeal to the courts from a decision of the National Parole Board, I indicated in my speech that in my view, the court has already had the opportunity to examine the issue and has made a decision. Every time a person is sentenced to prison, it is a judge in a court who does that. When the judge hands out a sentence, there can be an appeal of that sentence, usually to a provincial court of appeal and then there can be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
There are at least three opportunities to pass judgment on the length of term that a person should serve in prison. Once that has been done, then there has been a decision. There has been a judicial review. The courts have made their determination of how long a person should stay in prison. What Parliament has been doing is artificially interfering with the term that has been imposed by the courts previously.
As far as the question of what we are here for today is concerned, in my view what we are here for today, and the whole purpose of bringing Parliament back, is to ensure that if we can stop just one more violent crime, this will be worthwhile. It will be a very, very beneficial effort that we have made. In my view, that is what it is all about. That is why I am here today. I hope that is why the Hon. Member is here today, to protect the Canadian people, the Canadian public and, if possible, to prevent just one violent crime.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made his case for the legislation, in part at least, based upon the inadequacy of the present supervision system. If the Member is that much concerned about protecting the public, why is the Government not acting today in order to improve the quality of the supervision system that affects the vast majority of people who are coming out of prison and who will still continue to come out of prison even after this legislation is passed today?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member directed some questions previously to a former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The questions that he directed were to the effect that why did the former Solicitor General not act more quickly in dealing with this problem. He
July 24, 1986

is asking today why we do not slow down the process and not do anything until we have improved the mandatory supervision
system.


Cyril Keeper: Why is the Hon. Member-


Alan Redway: Will the Hon. Member just hold his horses and let me answer the question. I will be pleased to do that. Hopefully there will be a little more time and he can ask another question if he wants. As the Hon. Member knows, improving the system is not going to happen just like that. To the best of my knowledge, there has been nothing in the way of formal studies conducted other than perhaps by a professor of criminology here or a professor of criminology there, but there has been very little in the way of formal studies done in relation to our supervision system.
There is, as the Hon. Member knows, a sentencing commission that was put in place by the former Government. It was asked to examine the whole field of judicial sentences and asked to make recommendations so that the House could look at those recommendations and, hopefully, act on them. I hope it does. The Hon. Member knows that that commission was set up some years ago and it has not reported yet. Unfortunately, if we set up today some sort of a study to look at the mandatory release system, it would be a number of years down the line before there were any recommendations made or any improvements made.
What the Hon. Member is asking for in this House, as I understand it, is action and speed. That is what we are doing today. We are putting in place a protection mechanism that will protect the system until there is a chance to examine the entire system and allow these recommendations to come forth from the sentencing commission and wherever else so that we can make those changes that the Hon. Member would like to see. Hopefully they will be the same changes that I would like to see in the system, changes that would tighten it up so that at the same time that we are protecting individual rights we are also protecting society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the procedures by which mandatory supervision can be withheld from inmates. It is important to recognize that this is the basis of the debate, not necessarily the quality of the Bill which was passed by the House of Commons in June. While we believe that there were some inadequacies in the Bill, it was passed and assumed to be adequate by the House of Commons. In the process of considering this legislation, the Senate proposed an amendment.
By recalling the House to consider this Bill, the Government should recognize that this legislation could be passed just as quickly with the amendment in place as it would if this amendment were rejected. Therefore, it makes good sense not
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
to consider the pros and cons or the quality of the Bill, but only to consider the pros and cons of the amendment.
The fundamental question is how we can successfully rehabilitate a truly violent offender at the same time that we provide adequate protection to the public. When the Bill was before the House we contended that it failed adequately to rehabilitate inmates who were moving out into society and at the same time failed in the attempt to protect society. Regardless of what the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) suggests, there have been numerous studies of the correctional system, all of which have highlighted the problem of supervision and training, not only within the institution but in the parole and mandatory supervision process after inmates have left the institution. The lack of meaningful training, educational treatment programs for prisoners, and the shortage of postrelease assistance have been established by a number of studies as the basis for the inadequacy of our correctional system.
Therefore, today I am speaking not necessarily to the inadequacy of the Bill but to the inadequacy of the system as a whole. If such meaningful post-release assistance for mandatory supervision is not in place, then the mandatory supervision itself becomes inadequate. While the value of mandatory supervision can be easily demonstrated intellectually, it becomes very inadequate if nothing is done to make the program work.
When a judge sentences an individual to 15 years, the judge knows that five of those years will be under mandatory supervision and that the inmate will spend five years under some kind of meaningful program that will help him become a free member of society. In other words, the judge gives the correctional system five years in which to help the inmate adjust. The point which has been made many times today and has been repeated by all of those who work closely with the correctional system is that the parole supervision programs that are in place are inadequate.
Every time someone is released on parole or mandatory supervision, we save a considerable amount of money because that person is not in an institution. Therefore, it would be a much better expenditure of money to establish a supervisory or parole program that would give greater assurance that people who are released, either on mandatory supervision or at the end of their sentence, are given an even chance of making it in society.
I live in a constituency which has two correctional institutions that are run by the federal Government. There are a number of people who come through those institutions who have no recognition of what society is when they are released. They feel totally alienated, and the first thing they do is to return to the institution as quickly as possible. This can only be blamed on the inadequacy of the supervision and parole programs that are in place.
I suggest that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility not only to consider seriously this amendment before us today, but to consider whether it improves the Bill. I am surprised

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
that members of the Government do not recognize that if they thought the Bill was already adequate it would be much better if they accepted this amendment. It would prove to Canadians that we in Parliament have some respect for the rights of individuals, no matter in what situation they find themselves.
This amendment attempts to improve the Bill by saying that if the inmate were able to take his rejection for mandatory supervision before a court, he would be able to defend himself and face his accuser. He would have the right to a fair defence and the right to cross-examine his accusers. If a judge, when handing down a 15-year sentence, applies a 10-year sentence plus five years under mandatory supervision, if the inmate must spend those five years of mandatory supervision in an institution, he should have the same kind of rights he had when he was originally sentenced. In other words, we are increasing his sentence. He was given a sentence of 10 years and then five years of mandatory supervision. If we are increasing his sentence, then he has the right to be represented by counsel and the right to be made aware of the case against him. He has the right to have a defence against his accusers. Those things are all being withheld by this Bill. The small amendment suggested by the Senate at least does something to put in place that kind of recognition of human rights, the kind of justice that we in Canada suggest is the right of every human being.
I want to suggest that we are being shortsighted if we do not accept a good amendment, even if it is being put before us by an institution which I myself would eliminate. I am in a position which I find a little uncertain because I recognize that this Bill was passed by elected representives of Parliament and was changed by non-elected representatives, which is what they call themselves, and sent back to us. That does not mean that what they thought of it was incorrect. It does not mean that they did not improve it. One does not have to be elected to be a good legislator. Regardless of what we think of the Senate, we have to recognize that the approach it has taken in this particular case is adequate and should be recognized as such.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be brief. I want to deal with three subjects: first, the prerogative of the Senate, second, the rehabilitation of inmates and public protection and, third, the question which has already been asked by many before me, why are we here?
I would submit that the role performed by the Senate with respect to Bill C-67 was a proper one and within its constitutional prerogatives. It did what it was expected to do. It acted as a Chamber of second thought which examines Bills and improves them when it sees fit in what it considers to be the best interests of the country. I suspect, as has already been pointed out by other speakers, that this was not done unilaterally but was done in co-operation with Senators of both Parties who joined hands and produced the amendment to Bill C-67, keeping in mind what they understand are the basic principles
which should guide those who would implement this piece of legislation once it is given Royal Assent.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate acted properly and within its constitutional mandate. In doing so, it did a service to the country as it has done on a number of other pieces of legislation which have, over the years, been amended in a number of ways, and these amendments have resulted in improvements to Canada's legislation.
The central question at the heart of the discussion today, and that which has motivated all the discussions surrounding Bill C-67 and its predecessors, is the matter of rehabilitation and protection of the public. I would be inclined to think that the two issues are not the subject of polarization or of a pendulum first swinging in favour of the individual's rights and then of public safety and protection. In my mind, they are one and the same. The better the rehabilitation and civil rights of the individuals affected by sentence, the better will be the protection of the public in both the short and the long term.
I would like to quote a few passages from a newsletter published by the Canadian Association of the Elizabeth Fry Society. It is Newsletter No. 16 of the summer of 1986. The Society analyses the Bill before us today and makes a relevant point about Bill C-67 by saying:
We believe there are no measures in the proposals which give any assurance that the problem of violence is being addressed. The problem is simply being delayed. In short, these measures appear to be politically expedient, with severe repercussions for the over-all federal correctional system, and with little likelihood that they will increase the safety of the public.
It goes on to make another interesting point by stating:
We are firmly opposed to any practice which removes fundamental criminal justice issues from Parliament as Bill C-67 seeks to do. Issues of liberty are of vital importance and ought not to be left to regulations. It is our view that all matters which affect the length of time a person spends in prison should be subject to the full scrutiny and agreement of Parliament, and be fully laid out in law.
The Society goes on to state:
Indeed, one of the basic philosophical flaws of Bill C-67 is this refusal to recognize that locking people up damages them, and the longer we lock them up, the worse the damage gets.
That in the end affects the public interest and the protection of the public. The society goes on to state:
We cannot afford to end the remission system for any prisoner. The concept of remission is almost as old as Canada itself, having been in practice since 1868.
Remission is common to virtually all other jurisdictions in the western world. Indeed, some countries remit as much as one half of a sentence for good behaviour inside the institution.
The Society concludes by taking the position that:
the necessary powers to ensure the closest supervision of released prisoners, in order to prevent future incidents of violence as far as possible, already exist. Only 18 months ago, the Solicitor General amended the Parole Act regulations to provide for closer supervision of such offenders after release.
The Society expresses the hope that Parliament will decide not to proceed with this legislative package, namely, Bill C-67, because:
-it cannot be expected to produce a genuine increase in the long-term safety of Canadian society. It will only exacerbate the misconceptions and problems it purports to address.
July 24, 1986

In the many interventions today, Hon. Members have tried to strengthen these misconceptions and problems the Bill purports to address. Finally, the Society makes quite an interesting policy statement which I am sure the new Solicitor General will want to consider. It proposes that instead of the superficial measures contained in the proposed legislation, qualitative change in programs and services within prison and in the community be introduced to address the fundamental problems which lead to violence and thereby generally provide greater safety for the public. These changes should be introduced as part of a full system-wide reform which would incorporate the recent, and as yet unfinished, work of the Canadian Sentencing Commission and the Correctional Law Project.
What I like about this newsletter is that it establishes a very lucid and important link between the question of rehabilitation and the protection of society at large. The society understands that rehabilitation depends very much on the way an individual is treated in prison. This is why the amendment proposed by the Senate is so important. It recognizes the civil rights of the individual in prison and gives to the courts, as opposed to a regulatory body, the onus of determining whether or not a certain release is to be permitted in relation to the freedom of that individual. It seems to me that because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms this particular amendment is one which the Government should heed if it wants this piece of legislation not to be challenged once it is given Royal Assent, if it is given Royal Assent.
Finally, with respect to the question as to why we are here, it is quite clear. That has already been well established by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) in the course of this debate. I will deal only with the last few months preceding today's sitting. This Bill was introduced in June of 1985, and report stage was dealt with in January of this year. After being given third reading it could have been sent to the Senate, as is the custom with other Bills. However, it was not sent to the Senate. It did not go to the Senate until the last day of our sitting here. It reached the Senate with a number of other Bills. An assumption was made that this Bill would be accepted passively in the Senate and that it would be given the rubber stamp. In the knowledge of the fact that the Senate has been involved in matters of this type in preceding months and in preceding years, that was evidently the wrong assumption to make. The Government did not realize it was dealing with a number of Senators who feel very strongly and who profoundly understand this issue. They want to make a contribution to the quality of legislation which will eventually see the light of day in our country. It was this waiting for the last minute and this misreading of the attitude of the Senators that created the problem.
The House would have been called back to meet again as a result of the fact that the Senate wanted to debate this
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
measure, even if it had not made an amendment to it, since at the end of the debate a week had elapsed and the House had adjourned for the summer. Therefore, the action of the Senate in terms of debating this Bill, which was fully within its constitutional prerogative, would have required our coming back in any event. We are here not because of the behaviour of Senators, which was quite proper, but because of the incompetence of the Government. It did not realize that a Bill given third reading should have been sent to the Senate at that time and not left until the last day before the House adjourned in June when there were a great many other Bills with which to deal. Therefore, this is not an issue of the powers of the Senate. It is an issue of the incompetence of the Government in dealing with its legislative timetable. It did not ensure that the Senate had enough time to deal with a measure of importance that was sent there for deliberation.
The principle of rehabilitation is one that attracts me to this Bill and which has prompted my intervention. It is fundamental for the individual who is serving a sentence in jail and for the safety of the community into which the individual will eventually re-enter. Of course, social programs that will improve the quality of community life from childhood to adulthood have an important and major role to play in this respect. However, that will obviously be the subject of another debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He described the action of the Senate as appropriate. I am not quite sure of his exact words. However, I know that he used the word "legitimate" in describing its actions. While I support the amendment which is now before the House, I am wondering if the Hon. Member would like to balance his comments in recognition of the fact that the Senate is a non-elected body. Does his attitude that what the Senate has done is a perfectly legitimate action reflect the attitude of the Liberal Party? If by some accident the Liberals were to gain office again, would they take the attitude that the Senate is a legitimate body and that it is quite okay to fill it up with political appointees? Does the Hon. Member not have some concern about the legitimacy of the Senate in that it is a non-elected body?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I thought that my remarks were balanced. I do not know how I could improve on the sense of balance that I attempted to give to them. I remind the Hon. Member that so long as Canadians support our Constitution, which includes the existence of the Senate, the Senate has a role to play, whether or not the Hon. Member approves of it. It is a Chamber of sober second thought.


Cyril Keeper: Liberal hacks!

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


Charles L. Caccia: It has served the country well. If Canadians exert pressure on the Government of the day-on any Government-in favour of removal of the Senate, I am sure the Government of the day would pay attention to that. However, I am not aware of any such pressures being exerted on removing the merits of a non-elected Chamber which performs the role that our present Senate performs.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) will deal in more detail with this particular matter.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just confirmed his attitude that the Senate is a perfectly legitimate body even though it is non-elected. Does his view reflect the attitude of his Party?


Marcel Prud'homme: This is not a debate on the Senate.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand why the Hon. Member becomes so upset with the fact that there is a non-elected body which performs a legitimate role. There are many non-elected bodies in this country which perform legitimate roles and which serve the public purpose very well. One day he may see the light and recognize the importance of the Senate in our system.


Cyril Keeper: Is that the Liberal policy?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) in favour of an elected Senate? If the Liberal Party were to come into power would it turn this situation around?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the Senate has been debated at length. It is something which will be debated for another 100 years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments is now terminated. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act. In my view the first matter the House should address is why we are here this afternoon. Obviously, there are two schools of thought in this regard. I will outline them briefly. First, it is because of a strategy on the part of the Government, or because of its incompetence. It has nothing to do with the Senate. It has nothing to do with the Opposition. It has nothing to do with delaying tactics or any other issue. It is a government initiative, pure and simple.
Let me deal first with the issue of strategy. We know that the Tories are in trouble. Being the non-partisan person that you are, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have a full appreciation of the fact that the Tories are in serious trouble. They have fallen considerably in public opinion. Very few people will even admit today to voting Tory. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? The odd person in the great riding of Glengarry-
Prescott-Russell may have voted Tory and more numerous people voted Tory elsewhere, unfortunately, but these people rarely admit to having done so. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) who is sitting across the way knows that.
[DOT] (nio)
The Tories are in very serious trouble and we need only look at major newspapers to see that this is so. Just read the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker. Need I enumerate the headings which describe some of the serious problems the Government is facing right now?
What is the Government's strategy? During recess, Governments usually tend to do better than the Opposition. When the House is in session, the Opposition holds the Government accountable, and that accountability process tends to weigh somewhat on the Government and tends to make the popularity and shine of the Government fade away somewhat. During recess when only cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can get national coverage and make speeches and when there is no forum in which to have rebuttal from the Opposition, a Government usually looks better. This particular recess does not seem to be doing that for this Government.
What did the Tories do? They decided that although having the House in session is usually bad for the Government, it would actually be better than the present situation with scandals splashed across the front pages of newspapers. They decided to use this to take attention away from what we see in the newspapers. It may be that the Tories decided to recall Parliament as part of their strategy.
Perhaps you think some of the comments I am making are somewhat partisan, Mr. Speaker, as unlikely as that thought might be on your part. There is the odd Tory over there who thinks that way, so let me remind the House of an article in The Gazette of July 24 written by Don Braid who says that the recall of Parliament looks like a ploy to gain votes. I will read to the House some excerpts from the article. The article reads:
First of all, the government did-or at least the cabinet changed after Mulroney's June 30 shuffle.
That is when this whole business got started. The article goes on:
It immediately took on a more political look. This bunch is now ready to take advantage of any edge, including the public's fear of wandering criminal hordes.
Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski said Tuesday that public pressure prompted the recall. There was a fear that inmates would be released "who might pose a threat to society."
NDP House Leader lan Deans charged that Beatty caused this fear with "his attempt to create panic in the land by saying large numbers of unrepentant criminals were going to be charging around the streets murdering and pillaging."
In other words, the Tories created their own market for recall, and then produced the goods. The trouble is there's no evidence that the object of all this fuss-the notorious gang of 54-is worth the trouble.
The Ottawa Citizen revealed Wednesday that none of the 54 was convicted of murder, and that 38-
That was the other figure used by the previous Solicitor General. First he talked about 38 criminals to be released and
July 24, 1986

subsequently he decided to colour it a little bit and call it 54. Nevertheless, let us return to the article. It continues:
-and that 38 have less than two years left on their sentences. Twenty-one are serving minor sentences of less than five years.
The 38 criminals about whom the previous Solicitor General spoke will be released shortly in any event. Need I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when a person has completed serving his sentence, it is quite normal for him to be released. We are not discussing whether or not people who have committed crimes and served their sentences will be released. That usually happens anyway.
I will say this slowly so that the Hon. Member over there will understand me. We are deciding whether or not there will be a temporary transitional period with some form of supervision for the transfer of an inmate from an institutionalized life to a life on his own.
Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the possibility that this is a strategy to deal with what I consider, with all due respect, to be a phoney issue. I would be the last to accuse the Tories of being incompetent, but if one analyses this matter very carefully, one comes to the conclusion that it could very well be that there is at least an ingredient of incompetence in the Tory Government. Let me elaborate on that.
First, let us go over the history of this Bill. We should start by saying that mandatory supervision has existed in this country and in most countries for a very long time. Mandatory supervision is not a weird scheme that was invented by a Government a year or two ago. It is something that has existed in one form or another for 100 years. Of course, we know that the Government is a little slow, but after 100 years, even it should understand.
After 100 years, the Tories decided on June 27, 1985, to introduce this Bill which they now call very urgent. Do you know when the Bill was introduced for second reading, Mr. Speaker? It was not on June 28 or the day after that. June 27, 1985, was almost eight months after the Government was elected. The Government presented this emergency legislation for second reading on September 12.
Just in case there is the odd person out there who thinks the Opposition delayed the Bill at second reading stage, let me say that second reading stage ended on September 23. Counting weekends, that was only 11 days, and other Bills may have been discussed at the same time. That is good co-operation on the part of the Opposition, and I congratulate my colleagues, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who are very good spokesmen on these issues, for dealing with the matter so expeditiously. I know that even Tory Members would want to do that.
This important and urgent legislation, as the Government now calls it, should have gone to committee on September 24 since debate ended on September 23. In the unfortunate event that there was a delay, it should have gone to committee on
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
September 25. Do you know when it was referred to committee, Mr. Speaker? It was referred to committee after Christmas. The last committee meeting was held on January 23, 1986. That is the speed with which the Government deals with emergency legislation.
The committee tabled its report on January 29. Of course the committee wanted to be co-operative as well. Do you know when the Government called back the report for concurrence in the House, Mr. Speaker? It was on June 17. Is that the way to deal with emergency legislation?

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves how sincere this Conservative Government is when it takes such an unconscionable amount of time to deal with legislation it has now qualified as urgent.
The debate on third reading of the Bill in question started in the House on June 18, 1986 and ended on June 26. Some Conservatives are accusing the other Chamber of dragging its feet. Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The Bill was presented in the other Chamber on June 27. Debate on second reading of the Bill started on July 2 and ended the same day. The third reading stage in the other Chamber also took place on July 2. How can the Government accuse others of wasting time when it has taken this Government nearly two years to get around to dealing with the issue through the normal process in the House of Commons?

I am sure I have convinced you, Mr. Speaker, and the majority of Canadians that indeed this is not a situation of the Opposition, the Senate or anyone else committing a mistake or lacking in respect for the authority of the one across the way who thinks he is almighty, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It is either total incompetence or part strategy; maybe it is both combined, maybe it is strategic incompetence.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to a report of May 14, 1986 which was made in the other House. I will not quote it verbatim because I know we are not supposed to do that in this Chamber, but in the opinion of the committee, legislation should reflect the principle in Bill S-32 that the courts rather than the Parole Board should make decisions respecting continued incarceration of inmates. Conservative and Liberal Members of the Senate unanimously indicated that they wanted the courts rather than the Parole Board to revoke the privileges of inmates who were to be released into society.
As the Hon. Member for York Centre and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) indicated so eloquently in the House earlier today, this Party is not saying that there are no cases in which prisoners should remain incarcerated for their full terms. As a matter of fact, the previous Liberal Government wanted to amend the law. What we are saying in the House today is that we should not deny anyone the privilege of appealing to the courts. What are they there for,

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
except to administer justice? We are saying that the Parole Board should be able to make its decision and the individual should be able to appeal to the courts if he or she has a case. To do otherwise is a denial of natural justice. Everyone has said that in the past.
As a matter of fact, not long ago the Supreme Court of Canada addressed a similar issue. At that time it indicated that we should have a process whereby the courts would deal with the matter, and that the National Parole Board was acting outside its mandate when it acted differently.
In conclusion, my Liberal colleagues and I are not against the principles in Bill C-67. However, we want to state clearly that the process which the Senate brought to our attention, a process that was previously brought to the attention of the House and was supported at one time by the Tories, is the correct one. For the Government to pretend today that it needed to recall the House to deal with a Bill, which was only presented at the last minute and upon which the Government had sat for a year and a half, is a little less than honest. I wish all Hon. Members well in the remainder of the summer vacation after the conclusion of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is confusing several principles in this particular matter. As a practising criminal lawyer for many years, I always had trouble explaining to the general public how someone who had been sentenced to six years in prison could be released after four years and be said to have served his full sentence. In Quebec not long ago we saw, for instance, the case of Captain Marchessault, a police officer sentenced to fourteen years in prison who was released under supervision after a year or a year and a half. And I think people would understand that judges who sentence someone to six years in prison expect inmates to serve the full six years.
So if it is a full six-year sentence and the National Parole Board examines the merits of the case, I can agree with that. What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, are these people who have received a sentence and serve their "full" time, as they say, in other words, four years out of six, when all of a sudden the rules are changed. This bothers me a little, not because of the principle but because of the practical implications. This does bother me a bit, Mr. Speaker. However, I still intend to vote against the Senate's proposal because I think that within our Canadian system, the Senate of Canada cannot ask for a referral of this kind.
I think that the Canadian people would agree that we would save a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, quite simply by abolishing the Senate or changing its vocation altogether. I fail to see what we are doing here when Members elected by the people
unanimously endorsed the principles of this legislation which is not perfect-no legislation is ever perfect, but it does not justify recalling Parliament in summer and force it to take drastic steps. Notwithstanding what Liberal and NDP Members may say, I think we ought to consider whether there might not be other ways to take the money allotted to the Canadian Senate and use it for other expenditures which might be a lot more useful to the Canadian people.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly to the Hon. Member. First of all, if he wants to abolish the Senate nothing prevents him today or some other day from introducing in this House a motion dealing with the issue. He is quite free to do so. Since it was not done today or until now I can only conclude that it is a new project of the Hon. Member. I am looking forward to the first sitting day in September when the Hon. Member, I am sure, will deal with the matter.
With respect to parole, I find interesting the fact that the Hon. Member would state that he is unable or has difficulty to explain to his constituents that we have a system under which an individual may be sentenced to six years and, for instance, serves only four years and his time is done, according to him. That is not quite right, but I will let it go at that. If he does not like the parole system, why did he not vote against this measure, or why did he not introduce a Bill to abolish parole? We all know that the system will still be there once Bill C-67 becomes law, and indeed I would suggest that all Parties in this House want the system to remain as is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to recall what I said yesterday on radio and television, because I want to make sure the version is the same.
I said that if it were up to me, we would be sitting here for quite some time.


Mr. Bernier:: You aren't married.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier)-Why these pointless remarks? Either we are here to work or we don't come at all. Our marital or personal status has nothing to do with recalling Parliament. I will go on, and if the Hon. Member wants to interrupt, I will go on that much longer. What brings me here, Mr. Speaker, is the Government's request to hurry things up, and you may have noticed the mood of agitation during this last hour in the House. Everybody is making gestures, cut here, cut there, sit down, stop talking, and this from all sides of the House!
We were called back because of a so-called emergency. What I want to move is that there is no emergency or if there was one, it should have been dealt with long ago. There are no two ways about it.
Second, there is some discussion about the Senate. This is not a debate on whether the Senate should or should not exist.
July 24, 1986

It is always either or, and I always liked logic. Some people say that we Francophones are not economic wizards, as a certain Minister said not long ago, but we, at least the people of my generation who did their "cours classique", have a reputation for logical reasoning. It is either or: either the Senate exists or it does not. Either we want to get rid of the Senate and we say so or the Senate exists and we let it do its work. My conclusion is that the Senate exists, because since the 21st of the twelfth month of 1984, in other words since December 21, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight... Eight Conservative senators have been appointed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and that is his prerogative, I do not dispute that.
So if we go on appointing senators, we also have to let them do their work.
My leader was eloquent on the subject this morning. What we would like the Senate to be is on the record. In any case, Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense for the Government to have this Bill before Parliament for a year and then wait until the very last minute, on June 27, 1986, to throw it at the Senate, as much as to say: Gentlemen, hurry up, we are leaving! Hurry this through tonight, because this is urgent, and in any case you don't count, even if we go on appointing senators, but we want this Bill just the same.
I say, and my leader says and he is right, that in cases where there is a difference of opinion between the Senate and the House, the views of elected representatives must prevail. That is obvious. We were elected. If we really want this Bill to be the way the Government wants it to be, and the way the Government wants to amend it, I think we are going to vote against the Bill, but if that is the position that is to prevail, the will of the elected majority ... Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why we should prevent these people who have a lot more time than the Members of this House to think about all these matters ... Some senators, and it is not my duty to defend them, but I think that to be perfectly fair, we have the right to say what goes on in both Chambers.
Some senators who have been dealing with the parole issue for years stated that this is not the way to proceed. They already did that in 1983. I will refrain from relating the background facts. It has been done eloquently by my other colleagues, two former Solicitors General, certainly one Solicitor-General-to-be in a future Liberal Government. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that we must pay close attention to what those people in the Senate, those men and women in the Senate have asked us to do. What did they ask us? They did not ask us to let all prisoners go free, as some Members have so clearly suggested. Hardened criminals roaming the streets-I will get back to this issue in a few minutes if someone will remind me to talk about the former Solicitor General. But, Mr. Speaker, they introduced' as most reasonable amendment. They said: We cannot expect Parole Board members who have already dealt with those inmates to deal again with them only to reject their parole application after they have served two
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
thirds of their sentence, to decide whether they should be set free or not.
With respect to the mood of inmates it will be a tragedy. So the senators said: Of course it is a good Bill. Of course we must be strict. Of course we must protect the people, Of course, but we think it would be better if the Parole Board decision were subject to appeal to a judge. There is nothing complicated about appealing to a judge, Mr. Speaker.
Your Honour, your predecessors in the chair had us pass a Bill on parliamentary reform, on redistribution. What is included in redistribution? Provisions which state that the chief justice of each province may appoint a judge. He is the one who decides which judge will sit on each electoral commission. When somebody wants a search warrant-there are lots of them these days with respect to spying and security matters-a panel of judges may decide whether warrants should or should not be issued.
My hon. friend from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), who is an excellent defence lawyer, is well acquainted with these matters and knows a lot more than I do since he practised law. So I don't see why it would be so terrible and difficult to ask judges in each province who are well-known in their field, whether or not release would be possible on final appeal. So we can either agree or disagree with the Senate.

You can agree or not with the Senate. That is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is intellectually acceptable. We say yes. Senators of the Conservative Party in 1983 said yes. Senator Nurgitz said yes to the same kind of argument. Why is it so wrong today, Mr. Speaker?
The Senate decided to make an amendment even though we sent the Bill there on the last day after having had the Bill before our eyes for one year. Why on earth call the House back in the summer, call the staff and call my hon. friend from Beauce who has a wife and children-that is the implication I overheard? Is this so urgent? Well-

This reminds me of the fable of the ant and the cricket. Where were you all this time? What were you doing all year long, if it was so urgent? Why didn't you call us back before? Why didn't you adopt this Bill? So I have to conclude, Mr. Speaker, that there must be-

There must be other motives, Mr. Speaker. I am allowed to believe that there may be other motives for being called back. I will come to that if someone reminds me. There are two things that I have to deal with: the ex-Solicitor General and the motives.
To be logical, the Senate has put forward an amendment. If it is the wish of this House not to accept amendments from the Senate, we will return the Bill, as you will do, Mr. Speaker, since the Bill is so urgent. Since the Senators are not elected, they should give in to the elected people. This is a very logical

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
series of events that could take place. But as long as the Senate exists, let us stop dumping on it or expecting rubber stamps. Either you have the courage to say that we will abolish the Senate, or if the Senate exists-


John Napier Turner: An elected Senate.


Marcel Prud'homme: -or if the Senate exists, the Senate is to work.
My Leader was asked by a member of the NDP where the Liberal Party stands on the question of the Senate. My Leader and the caucus is on record as believing that if the Senate is to exist, we would prefer an elected Senate. That is on record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: When there is a debate, if there is any, I will have certain views to express. I may not, however.
And now about the former Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Now I think it is really too bad- The people listening to us now and the reporters who are looking down are all wondering why we are here and who is right. Mr. Speaker, you know perfectly well, and I'm looking at the people listening to us in the gallery and I know what they are thinking. When a Government comes and says: we are going to clamp down on criminals; don't worry: we are going to take care of this country's security- It is a popular subject, no one will deny that. I see the Deputy Speaker of the House, an eminent criminal expert. I know and he knows that people like to gang up on the underdog and they like seeing criminals used to scare people. That is considered to be acceptable behaviour. I don't like that because I tend to be perfectly frank with my constituents. I tell them: listen, it's too easy to say: "You know, all these criminals who are going to be let loose on the community-", without further explanations. Mr. Speaker, I realize it's very popular to say that, but it is not the answer to the problem we are considering today.
The former Solicitor General has made a specialty of what we in Quebec call scarecrows. In fact, of using scare tactics. I think that is language we can all understand. So what did he say? I would like to recall two statements, one of which you may not remember. There was a time when here in Canada we had terrorism on the brain. It was terrorism here and terrorism everywhere. Remember when the former Solicitor General rose in the House and said: I want to say that starting next August-

It was last winter that the ex-Solicitor General said, "I want you to know that starting in August we will see about terrorism". My friend was with me in Mexico when we talked about terrorism. It was at the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union. He said then, "I want you to know that we will have a special squad in August". I could not do anything other than
laugh. I thought it would be wiser for the then Solicitor General to get up one morning in August and say, "Oyez, oyez, people of the world, I want you to know that as of today we have a special squad to deal with terrorism" rather than give them a few months' notice, saying, "Hurry up, boys and girls, if you have something to do in Canada, you had better do it before August because in August we will have a special squad". I did not choose to go that way. He did. I thought he would learn his lesson. Now I realize that he wanted to become Minister of National Defence. It worked. He is now the Minister of National Defence. There will be no more problems. Terrorists will be dealt with because now we are in good hands with the ex-Solicitor General, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty).
What did he say recently? This is what has made me speak like this today. I am not known to be so aggressive. I thought it was the end of it when I heard the former Solicitor General say, "Any further delay endangers the safety and in some cases the lives of Canadians", and warn that, "we are sitting on time bombs ticking away". Canadians listening to that said, "My God, are we in good hands. He is going to do something about it".
The new House Leader is a good friend. I wish him good luck in his job. I will not back off on my friendship. However, I ask him what Canadians are thinking. We are called back here because we are living with a time bomb. If it is true, I am glad to be here and do my duty. This Bill was introduced in the House on June 27, 1985. The Bill was not dealt with until long after that. Suddenly the Government says, "Boys, quick, the Senate, hurry up boys". That was one year later to the day- June 27, 1985 to June 27, 1986.


An Hon. Member:: Irresponsible.


Marcel Prud'homme: I do not know if it is irresponsible, but Canadians will judge. There will be many more occasions on which to talk about national defence. I am sure the former Solicitor General will admit that he was not careful when he announced many months ago that he would have a special squad in August. He must at least admit that it was not wise to say that. He should not have alerted the terrorists of the world. We do not want to see them in our land. He should not have said that we will not be able to cope with them until this coming August.
I believe it was wrong. I will let people judge whether he was right. I believe it was an honest mistake. I did not believe the second one, namely, to make people afraid and then say to Canadians, "Don't worry, big Daddy is here".

So, Mr. Speaker, I understand, I was never able to speak any other way than to speak with-When I believe-Do you see the difference between certain political men and women, my dear colleague, the new Quebec caucus president, elected in a very close vote but elected, so I congratulate you.
July 24, 1986


Mr. Rossi:: A former Liberal candidate, a former Liberal candidate.


Marcel Prud'homme: But let us be elegant, I congratulate him-


Carlo Rossi: A former Liberal candidate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Let us be elegant, I wanted to congratulate him.


Carlo Rossi: A former Liberal candidate, they did not want you.


Marcel Prud'homme: Please. I was about to-


Carlo Rossi: They did not want you, you were not good enough for us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.

Order, please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor. He has another three or four minutes.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I was about to congratulate him. I am forced to conclude. What brought us back here this summer? So I thought about it, I thought about it. I said: It could have been done before. We scared the people, we showed we were tough-I am talking about the Government, I would not want to make a mistake. So I said: Well, now, there must be another reason. Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, with a man as nice and charming as the new House leader, when we compare him-because you know everything is relative-to the one who was there before, he has to display not only a new face but also a new Government, a new mentality, something elegant, something soothing, so they said we will be back on September 8. But it does not make sense, we should not return with such a Bill which is awkward and embarrassing, because maybe my colleague from York North-Weston will decide-


An Hon. Member:: York South-Weston.


Marcel Prud'homme: York South-Weston.

My colleague for York South-Weston-Mr. Nunziata- the time will come when we humanize this institution and refer to each other by name. It is ridiculous to call each other by the names of our constituencies. However, that is the rule. They knew that in September they would convince even me as well as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). They are lucky that today the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) did not participate in the debate. They expected that to take place in early September. Since they want a new order of the
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
day, they had to get rid of that this summer. I believe that is the reason we are here.
The House would have been better ordained under the exleader of the House of Commons. We all know who he is. We hope he will relax now. He no longer has to do a hatchet job on everybody. If he would have ordered the House differently, that Bill would have been dealt with a long time ago. If this Bill is as important as the Government say it is, it would have been sent to the Senate. The Senate would have returned the Bill here with the amendment. We would have said that it is unacceptable to a majority of this House. The Bill would have been returned to the Senate, as it will be done today, with the message "Sorry, you are not elected, we are, we want that Bill".
This is useless. I have tried to put forwad the true reason. Let us not fall into the trap of saying that this Government cares more than we do about the protection of Canadians. We care just as much for the protection of Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: We care more.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will not fall into the trap of saying we care more. We do care equally. We care for the protection of Canadians. We must not say to Canadians that people in the two Parties on the opposition side of the House care less than the Government. If the House business had been better ordered, we would have worked in a more orderly fashion and this would have been done a long time ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, like everybody else, I would have liked to take part in the debate, but considering that everyone says this is urgent... First of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on his expose, and I think all my colleagues and my leader have clearly shown that we were called back today strictly in an attempt to save the face of the Prime Minister following a drop in the polls and to make public opinion forget all the scandals this Government is struggling with. However, I would appreciate some comments by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, in connection with his expose on the former and the present Solicitor General, and his premise that they had tried to scare Canadians by alluding to the possibility that there were criminals that might be released without consent. So I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that at the very moment these two people were trying to scare Canadians, five recognized criminals in a Canadian penitentiary did not bother to wait for this legislation and escaped through the sewer mains, and that these two Solicitors General did nothing to try and reassure Canadians. So I would like to hear the Hon. Member's comments on the subject, namely whether what we have been doing today is just a whitewash, while the

July 24, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Government has failed to do anything about these real incidents.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is obviously right when he says that urgent measures should have been taken. And it would be interesting to know, and in fact a Member of the majority, and I don't want to embarrass him but he is from Quebec, from the Montreal area, and as I was saying, this Member asked or is going to ask the Solicitor General what measures he intends to take because this is very important. People are a lot more concerned about matters like these. These are the real issues. I want to thank you. This is an argument I completely forgot to bring up, but time is running out and I'm getting signals that we have to leave and that we have to hurry up. But I know one thing and that is that we all know what internal investigations are like. The important thing is that we know the facts. You are absolutely right. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who always goes straight to the practical aspect of an issue. He has an intuitive flair for this and I think he is right to believe the Solicitor General could have made some kind of announcement on this matter. It is too bad, but I would have liked the former Solicitor General, and it is too bad he is no longer our Solicitor General, but what worries me is that he is now Minister of National Defence. We will have to watch him, mark my words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion in the name of the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher).


James Francis Kelleher: That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, because this House believes that the National Parole Board is better structured and experienced to deal with all matters of fact relating to the prediction of violent behaviour and that public safety is properly preserved through decision-making being kept with the Board.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than Jive Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
July 24, 1986

Motion (Mr. Kelleher) agreed to.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 6.25 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 9.55 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendment to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, to which the House of Commons has disagreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa,
24 July 1986
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
______________________________________15061
Royal Assent
General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 24th day of July, 1986, at 9.50 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to a number of Bills.
Yours sincerely,
A. P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary,
Policy and Program.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to Her Excellency, the Governor General, that this honourable House attend him immediately in the Senate Chamber.
Accordingly, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski) with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act-Chapter No. 42.
Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code-Chapter No. 43.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 10.07 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 8, 1986, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.07 p.m.

The Thirty-third Parliament was prorogued by Proclamation on Thursday, August 28, 1986.