1992-05-12

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during statements I gave notice that I would be asking for a moment of silence because of the disaster at Westray.
Considering the fact that rescue efforts are still going on, I would like to hold that in abeyance at this time, and later on return that issue to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour this morning of presenting a petition signed by several citizens of my constituency of Brant calling for the enacting of legislation that would provide for:
(a)	a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or to reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government;
(b)	the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by (1) a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with, (2) a majority vote in the majority of the provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from several hundred of my constituents from the west coast of Canada on Vancouver Island.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that the United States has unfairly imposed a duty on Canadian softwood lumber exports to that country and has engaged in numerous other practices which amount to harassment of Canadian producers.
They also draw the House's attention to the fact that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has resulted in lost jobs and devastation of the Canadian economy while not providing the promised benefits.
They call upon the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade to take any action necessary to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry against the unfair duty and also to effect the cancellation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of British Columbia, New Brunswick and other provinces of Canada which points out that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison, have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons, and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
They go on to point out that the only possible relief from the severe punishment, of which they have been victims, is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders PENSIONS


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition. This one is signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway and in particular was co-ordinated by a group of public servants working in Agriculture Canada by Isabel Verzosa, a plant health inspector.
They point out that indexed pensions for all Canadians are essential, that more and more Canadians are facing the prospect of living out their retirement on fixed incomes which are largely unprotected against the adverse effects of inflation. They express their concern about the intention of the government to restrict and remove full inflation protection through legislation from all federal public service employees' pension benefits earned in future.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to maintain full inflation protection for federal public employees as a demonstration of the commitment to full indexed pensions for all Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have one further petition and it is signed, as well, by residents of British Columbia, including my own constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway.
It notes that the people of Tibet continue to suffer under four decades of a brutal and genocidal occupation by the People's Republic of China, that in August of last year the UN human rights subcommission passed a resolution expressing concern at continuing reports of violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms which threaten the distinct cultural, religious and national identity of the Tibetan people.
Therefore, they urge Parliament to adopt His Holiness the Dalai Lama's five-point peace plan as official Canadian polity and to recognize the government of His Holiness the Dalai Lama as the sole legitimate government of the Tibetan people.
Finally, it calls upon the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately release all political prisoners, re-establish all human rights, including the right to self-determination of the Tibetan people, and commence earnest negotiations with the representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed that all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask your indulgence and that of the House to revert to tabling of documents so that I could table the response to a number of petitions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul Dick (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table May 5, 1992, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to begin today third reading of Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of the correctional investigator. This is a major piece of legislation and one which is of immense importance to all Canadians.

Government Orders
This single modem piece of legislation will entirely replace the Penitentiary Act which was first enacted in 1868 and never comprehensibly revised since that time. It will also entirely replace the Parole Act which was first passed in 1958 and seldom amended since.
In addition, Bill C-36 will end the 19-year use of the Inquiries Act to authorize the office of the correctional investigator. That important office and its independence will now be placed clearly and unequivocally in statute.

I am particularly pleased to be responsible for this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it represents the government's delivery on a promise made to Canadians in 1986.

In that year Bill C-67 and Bill C-68 were passed. The latter bill was generally regarded as a non-controversial housekeeping bill. Nonetheless it carried into law a number of amendments to the Penitentiary Act and that Parole Act that had been awaiting passage for some time; as long as eight years in some cases.
It is fairly obvious that Bill C-67 on the other hand was a controversial piece of legislation. It allowed the Parole Board to improve public protection by delaying the release of apparently violent offenders beyond their usual mandatory release dates.
The government felt that Bill C-67 was a very important piece of legislation and that is why it was proceeded with. In fact many members will recall that Parliament was recalled that summer so the bill could receive Royal Assent during a special summer sitting and be enacted without delay.
In the five years that have elapsed since then the reforms introduced by Bill C-67 have proven to be successful. This was confirmed during the last year when the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General reviewed the detention provisions of Bill C-67.1 think it is fair to say it found that the legislation is being implemented as foreseen and that any problems are either being remedied or have been remedied.
However, Bill C-67 was only the first in a series of comprehensive reforms which the government has
promised over the course of time and since that particular bill was passed.
Since 1986 work on these complex new reforms has been ongoing, culminating in the bill before the House today. Among these reforms Bill C-36 proposes significant changes to the structure and framework of conditional release, including temporary absences.
The last issue was of particular interest to many concerned Canadians, especially victims groups. To answer their concerns the government recently commissioned a study of temporary absences. The temporary absence review panel consisted of Jane Pepino, a prominent Toronto lawyer. Included as members were Bob Stewart, former chief of police for the city of Vancouver and Lucie Pepin, a respected member of this House, the member of Parliament for Outremont.
We believe the panel did an excellent job in the short time it had available to it. I am sure its report was as instructive for the standing committee as it has been for me. Consequently I am pleased to report to the House that virtually all the recommendations in its report with respect to Bill C-68 have been adopted by the government. These were supported by the standing committee with minor modification and are reflected in the bill. Other of the recommendations will be reflected in either policy or regulations.
One aspect of this bill with which I am quite pleased and in which I take a great deal of pride is the degree to which it reflects a broad spectrum of concerned Canadians. Over 1,200 Canadians were heard from in the consultation process. It was very extensive, that is the consultation on the discussion package released in 1990 and entitled "Directions for Reform". Before that there were also consultations of a broad nature on nine discussion papers published by the correctional law review project within my ministry.
The report of the sentencing commission in 1987 and that of the parliamentary standing committee in 1988 entitled "Taking Responsibility" also gave valuable advice on the direction which the reforms should take. More recently of course the bill had the benefit of very careful and detailed scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
May 12, 1992

During that process a number of opposition motions to amend the bill were adopted. Also there were government motions of both a technical and substantive nature. I would particularly compliment the Liberal members of the committee who were very helpful in proposing a compromise solution that built on the work of the temporary absence review panel. In adopting this particular amendment the committee agreed that this improved the definition of the purposes of temporary absences.
My colleague, the New Democratic member for Brant, was also very helpful in proposing several amendments. One in particular will ensure that victims will upon request automatically receive certain information. This is in contrast to other information which victims can request but will be released only at the discretion of correctional officials.
As well, I want to compliment my hon. friend from Lethbridge who was kind enough to pilot the bill through committee and at report stage in this House. He made a very valuable contribution at all levels of debate on this particular bill.
I am aware that the members of the committee took their work on this bill very seriously. They travelled to Edmonton and Vancouver. They heard many witnesses. They sat long hours to complete their work. I want to thank them very sincerely for their diligence which has brought, in addition to those I have mentioned, a number of improvements to the bill as first drafted.
The result of this lengthy and worth-while process is a bill upon which extensive advice has been received and which to a great extent has been heeded by the government. I would also like to mention the officials from the corrections branch in my ministry who worked so long and so hard to bring this bill to fruition and bring us to third reading.
We heard from many people, and not the least of those are victims. For far too long victims have felt that they are unrecognized and that their views have been disregarded. Bill C-36 is evidence that this era is over. Victims are specifically recognized in this bill. It contains a clear message that their interest must be respected by the system. Many victims have told us that one of their greatest needs is access to better information about those who have victimized them.
Government Orders
This bill provides an entitlement to specified information at their request. Moreover it ensures, should they wish, their views will be given consideration when conditional release decisions are taken.
Of particular note is the fact that victims, among others, will also be able to receive information by attending parole hearings as observers. No longer will their attendance be vetoed by inmates.
Finally, information will be available to de facto victims, even if the offender was never convicted of that particular offence against that particular victim for various technical reasons.
I am personally pleased with this particular feature because it responds directly to personal submissions made to me by those who were victims of a crime in cases in which the actual prosecution of the crime against that particular victim was never proceeded with because a conviction had been obtained against the offender with respect to other victims.
The bill would not have provided for it to go that extra step. I heard the views of victims, and we were able to work out an amendment which recognizes their particular problem. The fact that the bill reflects a wide range of views does not guarantee consensus on all of its provisions.
The field of criminal law is one in which there are very often very widely held and conflicting views. Of course, differences will continue. Nevertheless I believe that we have struck a balance in this particular bill which reflects and respects the rights of all Canadians, whether they be offenders, victims, correctional staff members and/or the general public.
Our paramount objective, and the guiding principle with which we worked on this bill and which structures our approach to law and order, is that protection of the Canadian public should remain first and foremost.

Mr. Speaker, the years of debate and consideration are over. In 1986, this government promised reforms that would significantly improve public protection. Those reforms are contained in the bill that is now before you. It modernizes the system and balances the interests of the many parties who are affected by it. I am proud of the result.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders

Bill C-36 was for me a partnership effort that began when I became Solicitor General and has now come to this particular point in legislation, and I would like to thank all who helped us bring the bill to third reading. I would like to close my remarks by suggesting that we hear members who have something to contribute at third reading and that we send the bill to the other place for speedy passage.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to begin the debate for the Liberal side on third reading of Bill C-36.
I would like to break down my remarks as follows: I would like to give a short history of the bill; I would then like to move right into the bill and examine the underlying philosophy of the bill as stated earlier by the Solicitor General; I would then like to examine the different parts of the bill to see if it has met the test of the underlying philosophy of the bill; and finally I will make my concluding remarks.
I would like to begin my brief historical examination of the bill by going back to November 4, 1991. That was the day that the government brought forth the bill on second reading.
The hon. member for York South-Weston, who at that time was the Official Opposition critic for the Solicitor General, spoke on behalf of our party. I want to quote three specific portions of his speech because they set the tone for what we on this side of the House were looking for in Bill C-36. Then I will discuss whether in my view we found it.
He said:
I suppose an editorial headline in a newspaper in Ontario, the Whig Standard, sums it up: "The parole system overhaul a big scam on public". That is the headline of an article written on October 12, 1991.
He went on to explain why that particular editorial argued that this bill was a big scam on the public.
Later in his speech he talked about what the minister had mentioned, Directions for Reform. It was a joint project between the minister and the Minister of Justice. The idea was for a complete overhaul of corrections,
parole and sentencing. There is the key. Sentencing was the beginning; sentencing, corrections and parole. It was an overhaul of everything.
At that time the hon. member said:
The minister says his counterpart, the Minister of Justice, will be introducing legislation dealing with sentencing reform. With all due respect to the Solicitor General, how can the legislative committee or the justice committee that will be dealing with Bill C-36, and the witnesses that appear before the committee, adequately and intelligently deal with reform of the parole system without looking at sentencing reform at the same time?
Therefore, what we have here-
-which is Bill C-36-
-is only half the package. Correctional law reform is only half of the package because it only deals with people once a judge sentences an offender to a period of incarceration.
It is interesting to note that the hon. member made those comments on November 4. It is now May 12 and the Attorney General of Canada has still not brought forward any legislation with respect to sentencing reform. As we will see we are being asked in this House of Commons to pass Bill C-36, but it is only a part of the puzzle. We are being asked to pass it in a complete vacuum in terms of the government's intentions on sentencing.
The Solicitor General has indicated that the government would be bringing in sentencing legislation. It has not. Will it? How can we logically deal with Bill C-36 without dealing with the other half of the package?
We did support on second reading the bill going to committee. The reason we supported the bill going to committee was so that we could examine the bill, examine the philosophy, listen to the witnesses, listen to the expert body of evidence that had been built up over the years and then decide whether the matter should proceed. That is where we stood on November 4, 1991.
In due course the committee met and decided which witnesses it was going to hear and where it was going to travel. We heard many witnesses. We heard academics, professors, lawyers, people who work with inmates on a day to day basis, and what I would call ordinary Canadians. The vast majority of those witnesses continued to echo what the hon. member for York South-Weston had asked in November 1991, which was: "Where is the sentencing legislation?" I will expand on that point in a little while.
May 12, 1992

The vast majority of witnesses had the same concerns that we had at second reading. Where was the sentencing legislation? How can we deal with this without dealing with sentencing legislation? We went through the bill. As the minister says we did visit Edmonton and Vancouver. We heard from aboriginal groups and from a number of sources. We visited the maximum security institution in Edmonton. We heard from a committee of lifers. We heard from a committee of aboriginal offenders. We took a tour of the prison. We spoke with prisoners and indeed we were permitted to speak with any prisoners that we wished. We were able to take a tour of the segregation unit and we received excellent treatment from the warden of that facility.
Even the inmates had concerns about Bill C-36. Their concerns focused on sentencing and the relevance, among other things, of dealing with Bill C-36 without sentencing legislation.
Having heard all of the witnesses we then began a clause by clause debate. We went through each and every clause in this bill. There are over 200 of them. I want to say that a number of amendments were put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party and a number of amendments were put forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
I want to give some credit to the government because it did consider the amendments we put forward. I believe the government and specifically the minister considered them in good faith. Some, although not as many as we would have liked, were accepted. Indeed some were accepted as late as report stage.
Therefore the process was as thorough as it could be considering that we are not dealing with sentencing but only with parole and corrections.
Today we are on third reading and we still do not know anything about sentencing. As we will see later this bill attempts to deal with sentencing through the back door at the same time as it is dealing with corrections and parole. What a way to deal with this situation. What a way to deal with the protection of Canadians. What a way to deal with the rehabilitation of offenders. This government is attempting in one bill through the back door to do what should be done in an open fashion through sentencing legislation brought forward by the Minister of Justice.
Government Orders
The Liberal Party is opposed to this bill and I am going to explain why in a moment. However the bill is not all bad. In fact, there are many positive features. I want to mention a few of them because I think it is important for Canadians to know that we do not oppose for the sake of opposing. We recognize that there are some strong features. I want Canadians who are listening and reading this debate to consider whether, once we have gone through the entire bill, in the opinion of Canadians it has met the fundamental test of what the government said it was going to do.
There are definitely some positive features. For example, in clause 4 the paramount principle of the bill is stated. I would like to read it because it is important:
4. The principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the
purpose referred to in section 3 are
(a) that the protection of society be the paramount consideration in the corrections process;
That is an interesting phrase because it leaves a lot of room for interpretation as far as what the protection of society means.
We heard from a number of witnesses. Almost every witness, regardless of where they were in terms of parole and corrections, agreed that the protection of society was a laudable, fundamental principle. However, some witnesses felt that the protection of society meant that we should incarcerate a prisoner and throw away the key. Others felt, quite literally, that the best protection for society would be the elimination of prisons, that there would be absolutely no prisons whatsoever. Between those two extremes we heard from an array of people on what is their definition of the protection of society.
I suppose that if we examined it all and came up with a definition we could say that the protection of society was a combination of deterrence and rehabilitation. Then we would have a debate as to how much deterrence and how much rehabilitation, a debate on where the weight should be, whether there should be some weight to one side or it should be 50/50.
In any event, the bill recognizes that the protection of society be the paramount consideration in the corrections process. It also recognizes that inmates have rights too, and this is important. We do not simply throw people in jail and forget about them. We do not simply throw people in jail and declare them to be non-humans, non-Canadians. They have rights as well.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
Admittedly, they have breached the rules of society and they must pay for what they have done. However while incarcerated they have rights. The bill indicates that one of the principles that will guide the service is that, and I quote:
(e) that offenders retain the rights and privileges of all members of society, except those rights and privileges that are necessarily removed or restricted as a consequence of the sentence;
As the Solicitor General mentioned, there will be increased involvement in the parole process for victims who wish to be involved. This is something I want to stress. It is going to be up to the victims to decide whether they wish to be involved and, if they do, there will be many mechanisms for them to be involved. Some witnesses would have preferred more victim involvement. Other witnesses would have preferred absolutely no victim involvement. However, there is some.
Inmates will be classified as maximum, medium or minimum. You would have thought that was fairly logical, except heretofore it was the institutions themselves that were classified as maximum, medium or minimum. We are now not looking at the institution but rather the offender. I believe that this will permit for more individualized treatment for rehabilitation. In fact the particular section, section 30, calls on each offender to be advised in writing why that offender has been classified or reclassified. Hopefully that will help the offender understand where that person is in the prison system.
There is a special recognition of the needs of women offenders and there is a recognition of the needs of aboriginal offenders. That is important. We all know that in the correction system in Canada women offenders and aboriginal offenders were having great difficulty coping. We have an antiquated system to deal with women offenders and aboriginal offenders make up a disproportionate amount of the offenders in our prisons.
There are new programs that are being developed. We heard about them and saw them with our own eyes in the Edmonton institution in so far as they related to aboriginal offenders. These are going to be encouraged and there is a specific recognition that these particular groups require special needs.
There also will be increased access to information by victims and researchers. This is important because it will be very important for us to determine, among other things, the rationale behind Parole Board decisions releasing inmates from institutions, particularly in the sad cases when those decisions go wrong and the inmate reoffends, sometimes with tragic consequences. It will be very important to examine why an inmate was released, obviously in an effort to prevent history from repeating itself.
There are some positive features, there is no doubt about it, but let us look at that underlying philosophy. Let us see if the bill passes its own test of the protection of society as the paramount consideration in the corrections process.
I think that the theme that we heard back in November 1991 of the relationship between sentencing and parole is absolutely fundamental to this debate because in fact it is a combination of sentencing and parole that is ultimately going to protect society to the fullest.
We heard from such witnesses as the Canadian Bar Association. Listen to the diversity. There were lawyers on one side, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, various John Howard Societies, British Columbia Criminal Justice Association and others who said that sentencing was absolutely key to the discussion and consideration of corrections and parole and that both should be considered at the same time.
I think that the Canadian Bar Association's presentation said it best. It said: "The introduction of Bill C-36 followed the lengthy process of study described in the introduction. The contents of the bill unaccountably repudiate the serious and time-consuming work which preceded it. The bill ignores the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, the Daubney report, the Correctional Law Review and the extensive consultations on the green paper. In doing so it mocks the extensive time, energy, creativity and resources which have been devoted to this development process. It is a major step back from the government's own green paper, since it ignores the need for integrated reform of sentencing, corrections and conditional release recognized in Directions for Reform and proceeds with reform of corrections and conditional release before dealing with sentencing".

May 12, 1992

The Canadian Bar Association rejects this fragmented approach. Given this serious objection to Bill C-36, the primary recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association is to defer study of the bill at least until consultations on the sentencing package have been completed and legislation is tabled so that the reforms can be considered in a rational manner.
That was not just the Canadian Bar Association. That was witness after witness, time after time, asking that both sentencing and parole and corrections be considered at the same time. I remind you of what the hon. member for York South-Weston said in November 1991, which was exactly the same point before we even began committee consideration of this bill. That theme which we recognized as early as second reading of this bill continued throughout the entire hearing.
As we go through the bill, we will see the relationship of sentencing to corrections and parole. That is the fundamental flaw. That is the fundamental error of the government, proceeding with this bill in the absence of any indication of sentencing reform. I predict that if this bill passes and if this government has the courage to bring in some sentencing reforms, we are going to have to revisit Bill C-36, of course at that time it will be a law, and we are going to have to amend it. We are going to have to do a lot of work that we would otherwise not have had to do if we had been able to consider both bills at the same time and pass both at the same time.
Someone may say: Oh, no, we cannot wait for sentencing reform-after all we have only been waiting for it for eight months-we have to proceed because this bill will not wait. As I hope I will be able to demonstrate to you, that is simply a faulty argument.
What I would like to do is look at the bill in some detail, again with the underlying object of seeing if the philosophy of the government that the protection of society be the paramount consideration is in fact met.
The bill is conveniently divided for all intents and purposes into three parts. The first part deals with institutional and community corrections. What this really means is that it deals with the corrections system. Is there any real hurry to deal with the corrections system? Perhaps, if this bill was meaningful change in the corrections system, there might be a hurry.
Government Orders
We heard from a number of witnesses and it was never really contradicted, in fact I think it is fair to say it was agreed, that in reality part I is really codifying in legislation what is already in existence and has been for some time, for the most part. I am sure there is a little bit of tinkering here and there in various sections, but for the most part all of part I is already operating. The system is already working in accordance with part I, even though Part I is not in legislation. Part I is now what we call the policy of the corrections service written out in the manuals and in some fashion governed by regulations under the Penitentiary Act.
Really there is no hurry, no dire necessity to proceed with at least part I of the bill because it is already there. If we waited until sentencing legislation came down and we dealt with both at the same time, there would be no diminution of service, no problem that does not already exist since part I is merely the codification of what already exists.
The government's stated reasons for this legislation were threefold, I maintain. The first stated reason for Bill C-36 was to reform the correctional legislation so that it better reflects the values and concerns of Canadians. Above all, these measures assert the primary duty of the correctional system is the protection of the public.
This was presumably in response to the fact that the Conservative government felt that the public did not think the system was working. If that premise is true, if the public did not think the system was working, then what is the logic in part I which merely legislates the system that the public did not think was working. That does not make much sense to me. As I said, the vast majority of part I either codifies existing procedures or restates what is already in the Penitentiary Act or the Parole Act. Yet under the guise of reforming the corrections system, under the guise of reforming parole and under the guise of bringing in this yet to be brought in sentencing legislation, we are to believe that this is a meaningful change in the system. It really is not. It is not truly reform of the corrections system, it is merely tinkering with the existing corrections system, and that is a misleading by the government of the Canadian population.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
We then turn to clause 72 of part I, which is an interesting clause. This is a sort of highlight that I want to mention of part I, and that is this: This is a provision in the act, which has been around for a long time, that permits members of Parliament specifically to visit a penitentiary.
During report stage my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, put forward an amendment to this particular clause. I do not intend to go into great detail, but suffice it to say that in our history MPs have had unfettered discretion to enter penitentiaries to talk to prisoners. This had gone back to pre-Confederation days. In 1961 that was changed by the Diefenbaker government and the rights of MPs were somewhat restricted. Clause 72 continued, and continues, that restriction.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands put forward a reasoned amendment permitting MPs to be able to visit prisoners. The government defeated that. Surely, one of the protections that society can ask for is that prisoners are treated humanely, so that when they come out they do not bear a grudge against the system, or at least if they do, they do not bear a grudge to the system because they were treated like animals in a cage. What better way to guarantee proper treatment than, if I can put it this way, spot checks on the institution, by permitting members of Parliament the right to visit those inmates at will. That is not permitted under clause 72 and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had brought in an amendment which was defeated.
One could argue that clause 72 is reasonable. That is fine. My point is that it is an important right that was taken away after 110 years of our existence and it is being continued, even though there have been calls for members of Parliament to be able to visit the inmates who require protection. Society requires protection from inmates, that is why they are incarcerated, but sometimes inmates require protection from their jailers. It does happen. That was one of the purposes for permitting members of Parliament unfettered access to penitentiaries.
In any event, part I primarily is a codification of what already exists. Let us turn to part II, maybe we will find something that is new, maybe we will see something that meets this test of the protection of society as being paramount.
The government's second stated reason for Bill C-36 was to establish a statement of purpose and principles of parole and establish public safety as the paramount consideration in decisions relating to conditional release of inmates.
Part II is the guts of the bill and it deals with conditional release. There are many clauses codifying existing procedures. I just want to touch on a few that Canadians might be a little bit surprised at.
Specifically, I want to touch on eligibility for parole. I am not talking here about anything else but when you become eligible for full parole. For all intents and purposes, the bill makes absolutely no distinction whatsoever between first offenders and repeat offenders. There is one area where that statement is not accurate and I will get to it in a moment. It seems to me that it is important that we recognize that people are entitled to make a mistake, and when people make a mistake they are entitled to be brought back into society and continue their lives, on the understanding that we are not perfect.
On the other hand, people who continue to breach the law and have no respect for the rights of others should be looked at in a different way than those who have made one mistake.
Remember, we have the protection of society as the paramount goal and yet, for all intents and purposes, there is really no differentiation between first offenders and subsequent offenders. That to me is a weakness, and I am assuming that Canadians will believe it is a weakness as well because they want to be protected.
Let me give you a perfect example of what I mean. In what is called accelerated parole review, which is specifically clauses 125 and 126 of the bill, we have an interesting provision. I will say that accelerated parole review deals with first time offenders. Here is an opportunity for the bill to make a differentiation between a first time offender and a subsequent offender.
Sure enough in clause 125, we have a differentiation. There is a further differentiation because not only must you be a first time offender, but you must be an offender who is what I will characterize as a not serious offender. What I mean by that is someone whose crimes are not enumerated on schedule I or schedule II of the bill. Those schedules contain sexual offences, violent offences such as murder, manslaughter and drug offences.
May 12, 1992

In other words, let us say you are a break and enter artist. If you are a first offender, certain things will happen. What does first offender mean? First of all, it means first offender under federal law, so we may have someone who has been committing break and enter offences before, perhaps since he was a young offender.
That person is not a first offender for the purposes of this bill until he gets into the federal system and has been sentenced to two years or more. To get into the federal system of penitentiaries you must be sentenced to two years or more as opposed to under two years.
That is why the public reads about someone being sentenced to two years less a day. We read about that every day. The reason someone is sentenced to two years less a day is because that keeps him out of the federal penitentiary system and keeps him in the provincial system.
Let us take this fictional break and enter artist who presumably to support a drug habit breaks into people's homes and has been caught a couple of times. Perhaps the first time he was given a conditional discharge, the second time, a couple of months in a provincial institution and the third time three or four months in a provincial institution.
Unfortunately he makes it to the federal system. What is accelerated parole review? I ask members to consider whether this is for the protection of society as the paramount goal. It says that in those cases, those people will be entitled to accelerated parole review. They will have their cases considered faster than normal parole.
Not only will they have their cases considered, but here is the shocking part, it is mandatory, they must be released, no questions asked, even if the Parole Board has a reasonable belief that they will go out and recommit an offence. In this case, let us say that the Parole Board looks at this first offender-I say first offender but I mean first offender in the federal system-and says that they believe there is a reasonable likelihood that this person, based on previous track record, is going to go out and break into someone else's house.
They have absolutely no mechanism to keep that person back. They must release that person even though that person will, in fact, commit another crime. How can I make a statement like that, and how do I know that it is accurate?
Government Orders
During the course of committee hearings, I was asking questions of the chairman of the Parole Board, Mr. Gibson. I said when I was giving him an example: "That means that you could have a first offender who is a B and E artist, and the board could be quite convinced that when released he is going to commit another B and E, which is not a violent offence as I understand the philosophy of the bill, but the board will have to release him. To me this is virtually rubber stamping early release of so called non-violent first offenders. Am I reading it wrong?" The Parole Board chairman replies to me: "Mr. Chairman, in essence no". I am not reading it wrong. In fact I am reading it correctly. It is a rubber stamp of first offenders. Why? To manage the numbers of people in prisons. There is no other reason for it.
How does that protect society when the National Parole Board must release a first offender such as the one I described regardless of whether or not they believe that person will re-offend.
We moved an amendment in committee that would have changed the word "shall" to "may" to permit the case I just described to be dealt with properly so that in effect we would say all right there may be cases where we have accelerated parole, the person has proved to be a model prisoner, it was out of character, let him go.
Then there may be cases like the one I described. Let us make the section "may" instead of "shall" so it is not mandatory and the government rejected that amendment. In the face of the chairman of the National Parole Board saying he agreed with me that it was a rubber stamp. It is unbelievable. How does that gibe with the stated protection of society? Well it does not. I say the bill fails on that test.
Second, statutory release is found in clause 127. What is statutory release? Under this bill you are entitled to be considered for full parole after serving one-third of your sentence or seven years whichever is the less. Once you are in, if you have served one-third of your sentence, you are entitled to be considered for parole. That is fine if you accept that period of time. There are some who think that is too long and there are some in Canada who think it is far too short. At least the Parole Board has an opportunity to look at you and to determine whether or not you should be released.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
When we come to the two-thirds point of a sentence, statutory release kicks in, clause 127. Again I am not talking specifically about murderers or violent offenders in schedule I or schedule II. I am however talking about people who perhaps have repeated many offences and who are almost incorrigible.
What happens? The clause says that once you have reached the two-thirds point of your sentence you must be released from prison. What does that mean? These people have been eligible for parole since one-third of their sentence and the Parole Board obviously has felt there is a problem because they have not allowed them to be out or if they did allow them to be out they have come back for breaches of parole or whatever. What we have in effect is the worst cases who have not been able to make parole because they are still in the system at the two-thirds point.
This is what happens. They have not been able to make parole or they have had their parole revoked. It does not matter how they behaved, it does not matter if they made any progress, it does not matter if they are in any way penitent about what they did. When you reach two-thirds of your sentence you are out, you are gone, you must be released.
Is that consistent with protection of society being the paramount consideration in the corrections process? I think everybody can answer for themselves but for my part I cannot see it. We are forcing the Parole Board to release those people who they have refused to release simply because they have attained two-thirds of their sentence. Someone sentenced to nine years, once they have done six, even if they failed every Parole Board test up until that time, must be released. Is that protection of society? I say no, I say the bill fails on that basis as well. It will be up to Canadians to decide whether or not this is a reasonable piece of legislation and does what it says that it does.
I should mention in passing that there are a number of provisions concerning sentencing. We will take one of them specifically, clause 139. It deals with multiple sentences. It is almost incomprehensible. I am a lawyer. I read it many times. It is almost impossible to understand. The minister has acknowledged that there are problems.
Many witnesses came and pointed out the difficulties with clause 139. We have heard that judges do not understand it. We have heard that lawyers do not understand it. We have heard that Crown attorneys do not understand it in many cases. We have heard that many of them do not even consider it when they are requesting sentences for repeat offenders or offenders who are on parole, shall we say, and have committed another offence.
We know by admission that this section is deficient. The minister has said: "Yes, we recognize that there are some problems, theoretical and otherwise, so we'll appoint a group of people to look it over and report back to us in about a year and make some recommendations".
What is the House being asked to do? It is being asked to pass a clause dealing with multiple sentences. These are people who are repeat offenders, people who have not agreed to abide by the rules of society. We are being asked to pass this clause when it is almost incomprehensible, when it is acknowledged to be almost incomprehensible, when it is acknowledged that there are problems with it which obviously could impact on Canadian society. Notwithstanding that, we are asked to pass something we do not even understand. Is that a protection of society? I say no.
Part III deals with the correctional investigator who is mandated by the statute to investigate problems in the system. He reports directly to the minister. He does not report to this House.
We attempted to move amendments to provide that the correctional investigator would be able to report to this House. One of the reasons for that would be to permit this House to find out what is going on in the system.
Right now clauses 192 and 193 of the bill provide that the correctional investigator must submit an annual report to the minister. In clause 192 it specifically states that that report also will go to the House of Commons because it says: "Every such report to be laid before each House of Parliament". If we look at those clauses it says that every report the minister receives must be laid before the House of Commons.
May 12, 1992

In report stage debate we heard from the hon. member for Lethbridge who quite candidly admitted on page 10306 of Hansard that no, that is not going to be the case. The minister is going to review and in effect censor those reports for whatever reasons he considers such as Privacy Act considerations. That is not what the House of Commons wants. It wants to see the reports of the correctional investigator.
Mr. Speaker, you have given me as much opportunity as I have been able to have under the rules. I believe that the bill does not pass the test for which it was brought forward and it fails because of that. It fails because it was brought forward in the absence of sentencing legislation. For those two very fundamental reasons, we in the Liberal Party oppose Bill C-36.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I approach the third reading stage of Bill C-36 with profound disappointment. The bill has changed very little from its make-up when it was first introduced at second reading several months ago.
Many of the worth-while amendments that were offered by both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party were ignored by the government in its determination to respond to the emotional outcry in society with respect to criminal elements and criminal activity in our country.
I say a response to the emotional outcry in society. This bill addresses the fears, and very legitimate fears, in society in a very devious way. It purports to protect or extend the protection of society against violent criminals, when in fact this bill does not. Second, it purports to intensify the rehabilitative process of offenders while they are incarcerated so that they will be safe and law-abiding citizens on release. Again, I suggest that this bill does not do that.
In fact, to almost all the informed witnesses I questioned at committee stage on this very subject, I put the question: "Will this bill make society safer?" Virtually all of them said no. In fact, some of them even went so far as to state categorically that in their opinion this bill was nothing less and nothing more than a cruel hoax.
Government Orders
I am in complete agreement that our correctional system and our criminal justice system should have as its paramount goal the protection of law-abiding citizens in this country, the protection of society and along with that, the treatment and rehabilitation of the offenders who are incarcerated under the federal system of corrections. The two go together.
We do not solve the problems of crime in society by coming forward with a bill that tinkers with existing regulations, procedures and statutes, instead of getting to the root causes of crime in society on the one hand and a genuine rehabilitative process on the other. That is why I am profoundly disappointed that Bill C-36 is in fact, in my view, a hoax. It does not really solve the problem of growing crime, particularly crimes of violence in our society.
Instead, I fear that it adopts the American approach. You get tough by executing murderers; you get tough by extending sentences; you get tough by building more and bigger prisons. We know the story. We know where that leads.
Has it reduced crime in the United States of America? Has that approach succeeded? Of course it has not. The tougher the American criminal justice system gets with violent offenders in that country, the higher the crime rates go. Some parts of that country are virtually out of control. You cannot walk the streets in the daytime in parts of Washington, Los Angeles, New York, Detroit or Philadelphia. Surely that approach is not working.
I was reading The Guardian weekly supplement just the other day, the May 3 edition, a series of articles dealing with the Los Angeles riots. It was an opinion piece. The writer of the opinion piece said, and I quote from page 10, May 3 edition of The Guardian supplement: "A society without answers to its wider ills will take comfort in harsher measures". That is what this bill is doing. That is the way this Conservative government is going. Lock them up for longer periods of time and you may convince some of the people that you are really getting tough on criminals and that you are going to reduce criminal activity on our streets.
Really, what does this bill do? I only have a few minutes at third reading, but I will try to highlight some of the reasons why I am disappointed.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
It says that from now on judges at sentencing, that is judicial review, will be able to extend the period of ineligibility for parole from one-third of sentence to one-half of sentence. It does not say anything about improving the treatment programs.
It does not say anything about more treatment programs, more rehabilitative processes within the system. We just keep them in there longer. Somehow, by keeping them in there longer, they are going to rehabilitate themselves. They are going to come out better citizens. They are going to come out as a result of longer sentences more eager to obey the law.
Every informed witness who came before the Bill C-36 committee thoroughly discredited that supposition. There is no correlation between the length of a sentence and the behaviour of the inmate after he is released, no correlation whatsoever. Put them behind bars, keep them in there longer and society will be safer. That is a cruel hoax because we are already incarcerating violent offenders for an average of 47 per cent to 52 per cent of their time. The worst of the violent offenders do not even get any consideration for parole until about three-quarters of their sentence is served. Some of them are never paroled until their entire sentence is served.
This bill says yes, we are going to get tough on violent criminals and yet it does not change the present system at all as it presently works. That is why some of our witnesses said this bill is a cruel hoax.
If we look at the details of the bill, we find that at most violent offenders will spend on average four or five months longer behind bars than they are spending now without Bill C-36. This bill does not improve society's chances of living in a safer environment by purporting to be tougher on violent offenders. It will not increase the rehabilitative process. It will not make our streets safer and it does not address the victims' needs. In other words this bill is a quick fix. It is tinkering with the present system, with the status quo.
Most of the witnesses we listened to argued one way or the other that incarceration is one way of dealing with an event after it has happened; that is a criminal act. We all know that criminal offenders, violent and non-violent, have to be removed from society for some period of time. There has to be some punishment, some deterrent value attached to the sentencing.
Surely by now we realize, not being perfect beings, beings only capable of reason, beings who have emotions and who have many frailties and shortcomings, that there is a major reason why our streets are not safe today in some sections of our country. I do not want to
overstate that lack of safety, but there is genuine concern about very real problems of a criminal nature in some of our cities, in some of our sections of cities. Surely we have come to accept the fact, and again I refer to the United States, not with malice but with regret and concern, that the major fundamental causes of crimes have to be addressed; not in the court rooms of the nation, not with juries, not in our correctional institutions, not after the fact, after the crime has been committed, but before. We have to look at the causes of crime that are endemic in our society. One is poverty. Poverty breeds crime. It breeds a lot of other things too but it breeds crime. Go into any city and you can walk the streets of the high income, residential areas with relative safety and, in this country, with quite a bit of safety, but there are some sections of those towns and those cities that perhaps you would not walk in, certainly not after dark. Why? Because they are primarily ghettos of poverty.
Poverty has to be attacked. Poverty has to be addressed. We have to commit ourselves to banishing poverty, and along with it many of these other social ills, not the least of which is criminal activity.
Violence in the home, sexual violence in the home, sexual violence perpetrated on children. How many serious criminal offenders have experienced a violent childhood, no home, no father, perhaps no mother, wandering in the streets at the ages of 5, 6 and 7, having their first brush with the law at the age of 10 or 11, on drugs before they get anywhere near high school? That is where crime begins and that is where we have got to do something to solve this horrible social ill that we have.
Lack of education, lack of skills and training, that breeds unemployment in a society that is pushing retraining and skills training and education for the great and wondrous high-tech age in which we live. It is tough enough for the law-abiding members of our society to get proper training, but can you imagine what it is like for people bom in poverty, degradation, in violent homes who have been sexually molested or brutally molested by their father, by the neighbour or by somebody down the street? Can you imagine what it is like for them to try to enter the work force today and live a law-abiding life? It is easy after he has committed a murder. You lock him up for 25 years. Or after he has robbed a bank you put him away for five, seven or eight years. That is easy. That is a quick fix. But that is not going to solve your problem on the streets. That is not going to solve your problem in your neighbourhood with respect to crime and violence, break and enter.
May 12, 1992

What are we seriously doing about drugs and drug abuse? President Bush launched his war on drugs a number of years ago. Do you know all it did? It increased the federal prison population by 35 per cent. Eighty per cent of those were blacks living in ghettos. So much for the war on drugs. There is more cocaine, more heroin, more destructive killing-drugs entering the United States today, four years after the declaration of the war on drugs, than there was before. Is that not a hell of a stupid way of going about solving a major social ill; throw them in jail and throw the key away?
What are we doing about things like day care? That is where we could begin. That is where there could be a new beginning to solving the problem of crime in this country, with a meaningful day care program that all kids could be part of, the kids from those parts of town that we are afraid to walk in. It would give them at least some chance at a young age to learn how to live peacefully among their peers. They would learn hopefully how to resolve conflicts, how to control tempers, how to pick up skills and how to live a half decent life whether you are rich or poor. I am not talking about materialism here. I am talking about learning at a young age how to live and get along on the street and in the neighbourhood. That is where it comes from. You cannot impose that after the kid has done two or three years for break and enter and armed robbery and a Saturday night heist. It is usually too late by that time.
Finally, I wanted to include in this bill at committee stage and again at report stage a section for the victims of crime. Quite frankly, I believe victims of violent crimes in this country have been woefully neglected. They have been overlooked. They have been forgotten by the criminal justice system.
I do not know how many witnesses came before us, women in particular. In Edmonton they had formed a group called the Victims of Larry Takahashi, the serial rapist who probably committed over 100 rapes and was charged with something like 10 or 12. He was convicted on seven and he is behind bars now.
They felt that the moment they had talked to the investigating police officer and given him all the information they could, they were just cast aside from that moment on. There was nobody in the police station they
Government Orders
could get in touch with. There was nobody in the Crown's office they could get in touch with. They had no access to information. They had no access to know what was happening to the person who had been convicted, whether he was back out on bail pending trial. They were lost. They were forgotten. They were victims; tough luck.
That seems to be the approach that the criminal justice system takes.
I introduced a motion standing in my name, motion No. 18, that would have set up a new office. That is where I was ruled out of order and I accept that ruling. I am going to bring it back as a private member's bill.
I would have set up in this amendment a separate office called the office of the victim's advocate. We can spend money on the Crown attorneys and on the courts and on the prisons. We can spend a little money trying to help the victims. This office would have had agents or officers throughout the country, probably attached to or close to the Crown prosecutor's office. At least the victims could have received assistance, information, some compensation where it was obviously called for, and some kind of knowledge of what was happening to the offender as the offender went through the criminal justice system.
I see that my time is up. I want to end on this note. I am disappointed, as I said at the outset, that this bill only tinkers with existing legislation. It will not make our society safer. It will not add anything to the rehabilitative process, sadly lacking as it presently is, for offenders within prison, particularly those who suffer from a deviance in terms of their sexual life and their sexual activity.
It is a cruel hoax. While Stewart Ryan, who is now a retired member of the law faculty at Queen's University, did not call it a cruel hoax, he did say this before our committee at the beginning of our hearings: "Many people share a desire to secure that offenders suffer enough to satisfy the anger and resentment experienced by their victims as well as those who sympathize with their victims, and those aroused to anger by contemplation of the offence and its threat to the legal and social orders. This bill tilts the balance toward the satisfaction of the desire to prolong the suffering of the offender".

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
Surely it is about time that we directed our energy and our thinking and every resource at our command to getting at the real causes of crime in our society so that our streets will be safer for future generations.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to work with the hon. member for Brant for quite some time on the committee and I know that he put a lot of work and effort into this bill, particularly some of the motions that were moved at report stage.
In that short time he did not have the opportunity to address the situations of the correctional investigator and to whom the correctional investigator should report in his annual reports and any special reports that he may have.
I know the hon. member was concerned about this, as I and the other Liberal members of the committee were. We felt it was very important that the correctional investigator be given the power to report directly to the House of Commons so that the correctional investigator could give the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, if I could put it this way, the straight goods on what is going on in the prison system, in the penitentiary system of our country.
For reasons best known to the government, the government decided it would not do this. It decided that, notwithstanding the clear wording of the act, the report of the correctional investigator would be given to the minister and then the report would be given to the House of Commons. The government's position is that the reports will be expurgated or censored depending on, at least as it says, the Privacy Act.
The problem is that we in the justice committee have seen the problems in getting information when a minister or the bureaucrats can censor a report.
It was with that thinking that both of the opposition parties put forward amendments that would empower the correctional investigator to report directly to the House of Commons.
I want to give the hon. member for Brant the opportunity to expound on that by asking him if he thinks it is
important for the correctional investigator to have the responsibility to report to the House of Commons.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague from Scarborough West for his very kind remarks. We all worked very hard on that committee dealing with Bill C-36.1 also wish to commend him for a very fine speech that he gave a few moments ago. I wish I had had more time, I could have added more. I appreciate his putting that question to me concerning the correctional investigator because it now does provide me with a chance to extend my speech by a few moments.
One of my amendments at the committee stage would have made the office of correctional investigator responsible to the House of Commons, and it would have made the correctional investigator an officer of the House of Commons, similar to the Auditor General, in other matters. This way, the House would have had a direct line of communication with a senior bureaucrat, a senior officer, in the Solicitor General's office. We have a Solicitor General who is a cabinet minister and who is responsible to cabinet. We have the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is responsible to the Solicitor General. We have the Director of the Correctional Service of Canada, who is directly responsible to the Solicitor General. We have the Chairman of the National Parole Board, who is responsible to the Solicitor General. We have the correctional investigator, who is also responsible to the Solicitor General.
All of these senior officers, to say nothing of all the deputy ministers in the ministry of the Solicitor General, are all in a nice, tight, closed little shop. They all report, first of all and directly, to the Solicitor General. There is nobody over there reporting directly to the House of Commons.
I felt, and I am sure my colleague from Scarborough West shares this view, that we could have at least had one of those officers directly responsible to the House of Commons so that, as he suggested in his question, we would be getting his reports unexpurgated, not tampered with and not vetted by, first of all, deputy ministers and then the minister himself.
May 12, 1992

The government in its wisdom, I suspect under the heavy influence of senior bureaucrats, said: "Nix, you do not get it; we cannot allow the House of Commons to have direct access to an office such as the correctional investigator". After all, all he does is investigate incidents in the federal correctional system that require, in his opinion, an investigation. As my friend from Hamilton says, it is the thin edge of the wedge. That is obviously one of the reasons, one of the considerations. Senior bureaucrats say, "my God, if we give in to those democratically elected individuals over there in the House of Commons on this one, God knows what they will want next; they might even want democracy in this country".


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate at third reading this important bill dealing with corrections, the correctional investigator and the office of the National Parole Board.
This bill covers a great deal of territory that has concerned the Canadian public more and more over the last few years. I know there was a real sense in the jurisdiction that I represent in Ontario that there was a great deal of reform necessary.
There was some hope, as the government undertook Bill C-36, the amending bill to the Corrections Act, that those reforms would be embarked upon, that it would deliver more in terms of reform to the taxpayer who is demanding that the reforms take place.
A few of the complaints that are out there in relation to corrections and parole relate to matters that, strictly speaking, are outside the area of actual corrections and parole. For example, on the issue of bail, bail is a function of the Criminal Code, of judicial interim release prior to a conviction. The Corrections Act and this bill governing the National Parole Board deal with what happens to offenders after they are convicted and incarcerated.
The public was looking for a great deal and was hoping for a great deal. Even I was hoping for a great deal. What ultimately transpired was a bill that has been described by colleagues in my caucus as smoke and mirrors. It
Government Orders
might be more than smoke. There was some hard copy there to be sure. There were numerous amending sections, but the bill, with one or two exceptions, simply tinkers with the existing structure of corrections and parole.
In doing that, it is going to fail to meet the expectations of Canadians, or at least those Canadians who cared very much about reform in this area. One major area that the public had a concern about was the appearance on the streets of individuals who were sentenced, who were inmates. They were offenders, they were inmates, but were released on parole in instances in which those inmates committed crimes.
Those crimes range all the way from purse snatching to car theft or serious assaults and murder. Most of those offences, the commission of those, happened with a minority of inmates on conditional release and parole. The public takes the view and I take the view that when an offender is released on parole or conditional release, there should be negligible risk of a reoffence taking place.
There is a sense out there now that when offenders are released, the corrections administrators are not adequately measuring the risk and are taking risks for the public. They are foisting the risk on to the backs of the innocent public. There have been instances in which I think some the National Parole Board or Corrections Services Canada authorities did not properly measure risk and took risks, in some cases, resulting in tragedy.
In measuring the risk, the corrections officials have assured this committee that they have upgraded the administrative provisions for measuring risk, for ascertaining whether an inmate is properly released with minimal risk to the public, keeping in mind that the purpose of the release is to assist in the reintegration of that offender into society without reoffending.
I am certain that there are many people in the public who will now feel that the process of reform in terms of corrections has not been adequately carried out. I feel that a more structural reform, rather than the tinkering that has gone on, would have served the Canadian public better. I want to cite some of those now.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
I acknowledge that the bill has made some fine tuning corrections but it has also failed to address some other important areas, as other colleagues in the House have spoken to today.
The first part is the issue of the escorted temporary absence. That is when an inmate is released with an escort for a purpose. There is always a purpose, which is now described in the act. There is a long definition of it, but the bottom line is that there will be, there has been and there will always be escorted temporary absences for reasons such as medical treatment, participation in important courses outside the institution, or consultations outside the institution when it cannot take place within the institution.
When those escorted temporary absences, referred to in the field as ETAs, are considered it is critical that corrections authorities and the Parole Board have all of the information in front of them. While the statute does not directly address that concern I think that the committee has done its best to assure itself that Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board have upgraded and modified their administrative procedures.
I have seen the hard copy on this. There has been an improvement to ensure that proper, adequate risk-oriented information is before correctional authorities before ETAs are authorized.
The ETA has evolved historically. We can simply accept that 50 or 100 years ago the warden was king. He would decide when anybody entered or exited the institution. That has evolved to the present situation in which the warden, who is now called the institutional head, has that same kind of authority. I feel that the assessment of the risk of an absence of an inmate has become so complex, involving so much important information, that the warden should not be dealing with issues of release. The Parole Board ought to be dealing with issues of release. That is a body that was structured to deal with the issue of conditional release of inmates.
Now there are two groups deciding on release. There is the warden and the Parole Board. The government has decided to stay with that. Suffice it to say that in my work with the committee, with my colleagues on the committee, I have received some assurance that the wardens are sensitive to this concern. As a result they have built around them the necessary information systems and committee structures to ensure that no ETAs take place without the essential critical examination of the issue of risk.
Another area that the bill tried to address and did address in part was the issue of victims who up to now had been statutorily completely excluded from any consideration within the system. Victims now can at least take comfort in the fact that there is now a definition in the act of what a victim is. The position of victims can now be taken into account at the time of consideration of parole, or in fact at any point. There is nothing to stop the victim from communicating with CSC officials or the Parole Board at any time in relation to an offender, and administrative mechanisms to accommodate that have been created and hopefully will function well. I am sure that all members of the committee will keep an eye on the system in the future and continue to monitor it to see how it is working.
One thing that was not done is that there is no mechanism within government, within the institution to deal with the concept of victims to assure the public that the interests of victims are being adequately taken into account within Corrections Canada and the Parole Board. That, in the face of several other things, is unfortunate.
This act actually sets up the office of the correctional investigator to look into the concerns of inmates within the institution and it gives the correctional investigator a lot of power to do just that, to look after the concerns of inmates.
There is nothing in this bill, nothing at all, to deal with the concerns or interests of victims of inmates. Some say that it is not necessary but I think it would be a very useful addition. I am hopeful, given the extent of the committee hearings, that the government will make some attempt to institute some office within CSC or the Parole Board tcf monitor and advocate the issues of victims as they arise within the system. Some office is clearly needed within CSC to deal with the increased correspondence that may come from victims who may feel they have a continuing interest in the file of an inmate.
Another area that was left untouched was that of multiple sentences. I refer to the concept of the freebie where an inmate who gets a ten-year sentence is released at the one-third or one-haif mark and then goes out on the street and commits an offence that might be worth a two-year sentence. He or she can commit the offence, go to court, plead guilty and get a two or three-year sentence. What the law now provides, what this amending bill provides, is that the start date of the two-year sentence is the same as the start date for the ten-year sentence. The net effect is that it is a freebie. No additional sentence is served. In fact, in most cases that two-year sentence would be over before the inmate
May 12, 1992

got to the institution. That is an absurdity and it was not corrected in this bill, notwithstanding amendments put forward by the opposition.
Maybe the reason was that the government is committed to introducing sentencing reform legislation. In our view that should have been presented before corrections. In terms of time sequence sentencing clearly comes before corrections and parole.
In fact, the cart is before the horse. Sentencing reforms are going to come after corrections reforms. I regret that. The reason for that has never been adequately explained. It might be political, it might be administrative. We do not know. I hope these reforms in sentencing come soon. There are many other areas in terms of sentencing that have to be addressed which the public is concerned about that have not yet been dealt with. I would not want anybody to see the end of this debate and the subsequent vote and think that we had dealt with all the issues of criminal law reform that must be dealt with.
Another item is mandatory supervision, or statutory release as it is now called in the new bill. That is the concept of releasing every single inmate at the two-thirds point of the sentence subject to detention provisions that say that if a person is at a real risk of being a violent re-offender that person can be detained, but the burden is on corrections officials to make a case for detention. If they fail to do so, if they mess up-it is not as though they have never made an administrative error in this field before-or if they fail to adequately make the case, that inmate is out at two-thirds.
That concept of mandatory supervision has validity. As a society we do not want to be in a position in which we have to release an offender cold turkey at the very end of a sentence. It just does not make sense to release somebody into the general population. If we did that, that offender, regardless of the offender's intention, on the first day out would be on the Yonge Street subway sitting next to my kids or my family, my mother or my father. We do not want that. We need a time for integration. However, I question whether the two-thirds point is the appropriate point for that release in every
Government Orders
sentence. This issue may come up in the sentencing reforms. I do not know.
I wonder whether the two-thirds point of a 20-year sentence is the same conceptually as the two-thirds point of a three-year sentence. I simply leave that as a matter that from my point of view has been inadequately responded to in the provisions of this bill.
Another area I wanted to mention, it really was not dealt with in the bill but it is appropriate to mention it, concerns appointments to the National Parole Board.
In Toronto yesterday morning my leader and I met with municipal officials and others in the community, including a representational group from the black community. We had a conversation concerning representation of visible minorities in various institutions. This government is in the process of failing to achieve its commitments made to Canadians to hire and ensure reasonable representation of visible minorities.
It is failing in the area of the National Parole Board. Roughly 20 per cent of the population of offenders are visible minorities. That includes visible minorities of all groups. The percentage of Parole Board members who are visible minorities is 1.6 per cent. That 1.6 per cent figure flies in the face of a 5 to 6 per cent of our general population who are visible minorities, and it is terribly inadequate.
The government and the Parole Board have been failing in an area that is extremely important. I want to bring the government's attention to that issue and will continue to bring the government's attention to it until it gets it right.
The bill does not address the area of young offenders, and I guess the government feels it does not have to address it at this point. This is an area which is partially covered by the Young Offenders Act in terms of how young offenders are dealt with in the corrections system. Young offenders here would have to be in the adult system. They would start at about age 17 or 18 because some young offenders are tried in adult courts.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
I recently met offenders of that age group in federal institutions and they are looking at life sentences. I feel the corrections administration dealing with young offenders has been inadequate and this bill simply does not deal with that.
I am pleased we were able to get a bill that went this far through. It does make some changes to address perceived needs and real needs. However, most of it involves band-aids and does not go as far as I believe, and many colleagues in the House believe, it should have gone in structurally reforming and addressing changes in the field of corrections and the National Parole Board.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this particular bill because I believe it is an important one and it is a good one.
As was pointed out quite correctly by the speaker for the New Democratic Party, it increases the time that offenders will be spending in jail. It increases the discretion by the judge to increase from the present one-sixth and one-third provisions for day and full parole to half the individual's sentence.
Speakers from the New Democratic Party have made these comments before and they have made them again. They described the Tories as being harsh, being tough, in our efforts to crack down on crime and individuals who commit crime in this country.
The term harsh, describing us, who would bring in provisions that would keep people in prison longer than they presently are, we heard over and over again. I guess I am not too surprised. I heard the same thing when we brought changes to the Young Offenders Act. We increased the penalty for premeditated murder. We increased that within the Young Offenders Act and straightened out, in my opinion, the test for transferring individuals to adult court. Again we were called harsh and without feeling.
One member described how the Tories were not taking into consideration these troubled young people who have committed premeditated murder and we tough, bad Tories are increasing the penalty. We heard it then.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River talks about the gating provisions and the changes that were made in the Dangerous Offenders Act in the
summer of 1986,1 believe, in which we made it possible to keep dangerous offenders in prison for the duration of their sentences. We made those changes. Again we heard that summer the same arguments, primarily from the NDP, about how terrible what we Tories are doing. Again we were talking about the most dangerous elements of society presently detained and this government's concern about some of these individuals not being prepared and being released to the streets.
I heard all this again this morning. I am disappointed. I disagree with it but it does not surprise me.
There are a number of good points in this bill, one of which addresses the question of victims. We have had legislation before increasing the rights and taking into account the concerns and the rights of victims. I was pleased that the Solicitor General in his comments at third reading made reference to that fact. He said: "Many victims have told us that one of their greatest needs is for better access to information about those who have victimized them. This bill provides an entitlement to specified information at their request. Moreover, it ensures that should they wish, their views will be given consideration when conditional release decisions are taken." This is a good idea. This is the direction we should be moving in.
I was talking with one of my constituents not an hour ago who was worried about the position of victims and I told him the truth. I said that we are moving in that direction. The very bill that is being discussed in Parliament this morning takes the victims into account when a decision is being made to release an individual and that is as it should be. That is one of those things the big bad Tories are doing in the criminal justice system.
These are changes that I can live with.
One of the arguments made by some hon. members as to why it is terrible that the Tories are increasing penalties and detaining people longer is: "What is the deterrent value of this? Just look at Washington, D.C. It has lots of crime down there and it has tough penalties".
I suppose if we take that to its logical conclusion, why would we ever be detaining people who have committed premeditated murder? Why do we not take these troubled individuals and send them on their way or do something else for them? Why would we ever bother detaining anybody?
May 12, 1992

I disagree with that whole idea. I believe that part of the role of the Criminal Code and all the legislation in this particular area is to provide a deterrent value. I say that partly from experience and partly from what I think is common sense. I practised law for a number of years. I practised occasionally as a defence lawyer. I talked with individuals, some of them my own clients. I remember one individual who was sentenced. He broke into, I believe, 36 different homes in the city of Thorold, Ontario; breaking and entering. He was 16 or 17 years old, and in those days he did not come within the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, but within the Criminal Code. The Crown attorney proceeded, I believe, on seven or eight. The individual received six months in jail. Before I had my bill into legal aid, I was getting a call from the individual. I said: "Just a minute, I thought you just went to jail". He said, "I am out now".
He is out in four or five weeks and back on the street. I ask you, what kind of a message does that send?
We have penalties. We make provisions within the Criminal Code. We set maximum sentences as guidelines to judges because we are trying to send a signal. We send a signal to society as to what we believe is appropriate conduct and what is inappropriate conduct. There is a deterrent value. The members of the NDP and others will say it does not work for everybody. For some individuals a deterrent does not work.
There are other good reasons to keep those individuals for whom a deterrent does not work in jail. Some of the reasons are for the protection of the public. It was estimated that some of these dangerous and difficult offenders serving long sentences may spend four to five months on average. That was the estimate of the hon. member for the NDP. If a deterrent is not going to work before they commit another crime, it will be a little longer before they get the opportunity again. That is only part of what we are doing in the criminal justice system. We are sending out a signal, not only to people within the criminal justice system, but to law-biding Canadians who must have confidence in the justice system, just as
Government Orders
they must have confidence in the Parliamentary system that we inherited and adapted.
I will tell you what happens when people lose confidence. I read an article about a Latin American country. It said that in the parliament of that particular country, lots of wonderful beautiful speeches were made. It made a very interesting point. The people of that country have no confidence that their parliament can change things. Where were the changes being made? There were all being made out on the streets by means of riots and violence.
If people lose confidence in the British parliamentary system to be able to change their lives, that is where the decisions will be made. It is no different from the criminal justice system. If people lose confidence that the individuals who have violated them and who have violated the norms of society are not punished, if they believe that justice is not done, they will take justice into their own hands.
One of the things that always makes me nervous is when I read in North America and elsewhere of people who style themselves vigilantes, individuals who say they are going to protect their property. The courts will not do it, so they are going to shoot the next person who tries to rob their store. That should send a signal of fear to every law-biding Canadian because that is symptomatic of individuals who are starting to lose confidence that the criminal justice system can protect them.
I would say to hon. members that it is a terrible thing keeping these poor misunderstood individuals locked up a little bit longer. All I have to tell you is that you are right. There are many groups that will disagree very forcefully with what I say. Ask your constituents. Ask your next door neighbours how they feel about it. Can you live with the idea that if somebody victimizes you, your family, your home, your property, your city, these people will be detained within the criminal justice system? Can you live with that? Or will you tell me that I must be to blame if a crime is being committed? The blame should be on me so therefore you would not want to keep some of these individuals more than a few weeks or a few months.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
I know what the answer is. When I talk with my constituents in Niagara Falls, when I send them surveys and I ask their opinion, they can live with it. They can live with having some relationship between the level of sentence given by the judge and the time spent within the correctional service. I believe they can live with that. There are law-biding Canadians from coast to coast who can live with that. It is important for members to support legislation like this.
I know there are hon. members saying this is not perfect. It is the usual thing, you did not quite get that and you should have done this. I know it is the same thing. I have been involved in over twenty pieces of justice legislation in the last eight years. You always hear that you did not get the timing right, you did not go far enough, you could have done something else.
We are moving in the right direction and that direction is to maintain that confidence within the criminal justice system that is absolutely vital, just as it is for parliamentarians to maintain confidence from the people of Canada that this place too can work, that this place can change people's lives. Once you have lost that, it is all that separates peace from chaos.
If you do not believe me, check into countries in which people do not have any respect for the criminal justice system. Check into countries that have no respect for their parliamentary systems of government or whatever governments they have, and you find there is chaos and that law-biding people say: "Hey, if the system does not work then I am going to protect myself. I had better protect my family. I had better protect my community".
That is why I believe there is something in it for all members of Parliament to support legislation like this. For those hon. members who say: "You did not come in with this next bill and maybe this would have had my support if I could see what you are going to do down the road", we will have lots of legislation in the justice area. All of it will be helping law-biding Canadians. All of it will deal with individuals in a sensitive and constructive manner who get involved with the criminal justice system.
You are seeing it in other pieces of legislation before this House and you will get more. The sooner we move
this one out of this House and over to the Senate, the more opportunity there will be to debate other good pieces of legislation that will be supported by the citizens who live in the ridings of all hon. members.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, it is rhetoric at its best. Let us talk some facts. Let us talk facts and not rhetoric.
The hon. member talked about the law-biding members of his community and he talked about the community of Thorold. Let us talk about the community of Thorold and the client that he had who committed some 36 break and enters and how surprised he was when that individual called him again because he was out.
He said: "We bad Tories are being accused of being rough on people because we keep these people in prison and we make them serve their sentence". Let us talk about this client of the hon. member.
He had a provincial sentence of six months and he broke into 36 different homes. Sooner or later, if he continues to offend, he is going to get into what they call the big house, the penitentiary system.
What does this bill from the so-called big, bad Tories do? It says that individual, because he is a first-time offender in the penitentiary system, even though he has broken into 36 or 46 or 56 homes in Thorold, when he gets to one-third of his sentence, he must be released. If he is sentenced to two years in jail, he serves one-third of his sentence and then he must be released, even if the Parole Board believes on the best possible evidence that he is going to go out and steal a few cars in Thorold or that he is going to break into a few more homes and trash a few more homes and scare a few more elderly people.
This is the protection of the public. This is the protection of the law-biding citizen he is talking about. These people must be released.
We are not talking about the National Parole Board looking at the situation and deciding under certain circumstances that this particular person is deserving of being released. These people must be released. The very person he was talking about must be released after serving one-third.
That is in this bill.
May 12, 1992

What about the more dangerous offender that he is talking about? What about those people who commit a series of offences, repeat offenders? They must be released after two-thirds of their sentence.
There is no discretion in the Parole Board. I am not talking here now about the violent offender schedule one, schedule two. I am talking about break and enter artists. I am talking about cat burglars, car thieves, fraud people who defraud elderly citizens of their hard-earned savings. They must be released after two-thirds of their sentence.
How is that the protection of the law-biding citizen, I ask the hon. member?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Thorold is not in my riding, as wonderful a community as it is. I said the individual was accused of that. He was convicted of, I believe, seven at the time.
That being said, I am glad the hon. member brought up the subject of the National Parole Board.
If there is an institution which I have confidence in within our system it is the National Parole Board. As his colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River pointed out, the decisions overwhelmingly are the right decisions within the confines of the bill.
With respect to dangerous offenders, I do not agree that the individual who continues to commit crimes has to be let out after one-third. That is not what the bill says.
If the hon. member is pointing out inadequacies in other particular points of the bill I would be glad to examine them. He brought up a good point. He said: "I am not talking about dangerous offenders or offences listed within the schedule". Is the hon. member suggesting that he would like to add more? If that is the position of his party let him say so.
The hon. member will remember the trouble that we had during the summer in getting the changes that we did. His party, when it was in power, brought in the bill that offenders must be let out after two-thirds of their sentences. It did not make any difference whether they had stabbed 100 people or if they were in for as many violent crimes as they can count.
We made a change. Maybe I would have liked to have gone farther at the time, but I can tell the member that
Government Orders
we are moving in the right direction in all these areas. Just as on that summer day when we reconvened Parliament to get that particular bill, it is a step in the right direction.
However, it is always the same charge: "It is not perfect", or: "You did not go far enough. This is great but you did not attack the causes of crime".


Mr. Milliken:: You didn't have to recall Parliament.


Rob Nicholson: I can tell you that we have introduced close to 30 pieces of legislation since 1984 in the justice area. This particular bill is in the purview of the Solicitor General for Canada but it deals with the same particular area, the same problems within Canadian society. I believe that every one of them improves the confidence that individuals can have in the Canadian criminal justice system.
I believe that all of them are a step in the right direction. All of them have met with more or less resistance. Some of them went through very quickly with minor changes or minor suggestions, but generally the other parties-his party included-did not like what we were doing in all these areas.
I can tell the hon. member that if this bill gets talked, talked and talked or if the hon. member wants changes at this particular point that cannot be done or should not be done if this bill is to be in place before the summer then he is not being helpful in this whole area that he purports to have concerns about.
If the hon. member wants to give more discretion, put more discretion in the hands of those who are administering or setting penalties and terms for individuals, then support this bill. Put more discretion in the hands of the judges who will be looking at and sentencing these individuals. They are in a pretty good position to be able to evaluate.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the member for Niagara Falls said that there was a crisis in the public perception out there today with respect to confidence in the criminal justice system.
He said that he feels that by getting tougher in the sentencing and the parole system and by keeping them behind bars longer somehow confidence will be restored. I want to remind my hon. colleague from Niagara Falls that after the race riots in Los Angeles just a week or so ago over 7,000 people had to be processed within 48 hours in the court system.

May 12, 1992
I want to ask the member if he thinks that if those 7,000 people were each given a lengthy prison term for what they did-which was illegal, which I do not condone and for which they should pay-there would be no more race riots in the United States, there would be no more riots in the Los Angeles ghettos or in the ghettos of Washington or Chicago? Is that what he is saying? Is that how to restore confidence in the criminal justice system, by throwing them in jail and keeping them there and then ignoring the real causes of crime in society?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the member makes an interesting argument. Somehow I am supposed to sort out what they are doing in Los Angeles.
I believe very strongly in the criminal justice system as it works in Canada. I have spent the better part of my adult life involved with it. I have confidence in it. I think it works. I think every individual should have a fair trial and all the protections of the British parliamentary system. I have no idea what protections are in place in Los Angeles. I will respond directly to the hon. member's point. He asks: "Do you restore confidence in the justice system by giving lengthy sentences to people who commit crimes?"
I do not know, but I can make a pretty good guess. I can tell the member that if you take 7,000 people who commit crimes during a riot and turn them loose I know for sure that-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I did not say that.


Rob Nicholson: All right, slap them on the wrist, keep them in for ten days or two weeks. All I can say is that unless you give a sentence that is commensurate in people's minds with the seriousness of the crime, people will lose that confidence.
For the members of the NDP every sentence is a sentence that is too long. It is never quite possible to pin down what the appropriate sentence is.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I never said that either.


Rob Nicholson: I was not saying that applied only to the member, I am saying it in general about his colleagues.
In terms of what is appropriate for 7,000 individuals who commit crimes in the middle of a riot I am not prepared to say what-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member has just said that the NDP has said that every sentence is too long. Nobody in this party has ever
said that, and I never said that this morning. That is absolutely incorrect.


Rob Nicholson: I was referring to the hon. member specifically. However, if there is an example of one sentence that the NDP has thought appropriate in terms of individuals who have committed violent acts, let me know what it was. Generally, in my eight years in this place I have found that whenever the subject of increased penalties was discussed members of the NDP would say: "We are against that", or: "You are not dealing with the right question, you are not asking the right question".
Tell me when and where it is appropriate and I will be glad to listen to it, and probably would support it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is 12.58 p.m., and rather than have the hon. member start his speech and be interrupted by the lunch hour I wonder if there would be a disposition to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Therefore, it being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to announce the results of a report by the Conference Board of Canada on the high price of dropping out of school in Canada.
The federal "School First" project stresses the importance of a high school diploma if young people are to be successful on the labour market. The same study estimated that 137,000 students who dropped out of high school in 1989 will cost Canada more than $4 billion over their working lifetime in terms of loss of income and productivity and in terms of increased social spending. This is a serious dent in the Canadian economy.
May 12, 1992

According to the report, even a single dropout costs Canadians a lot of money. If Canada, which has a dropout rate of about 30 per cent, were able to bring this rate down to 10 per cent by the year 2000, it would save the economy $30 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this means that young Canadians who decide to stay in school will have made the right choice, for themselves and for all Canadians.


WOMEN'S CENTRES
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have received disturbing news from women's centres in Yukon, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Their funding from Secretary of State has been delayed for over six weeks.
The New Democrat government of British Columbia decided to fund women's centres there, but women's centres in other provinces are not as fortunate. Some of these centres operate on less federal funding per year than the Conservative government spends on one newspaper advertisement for the GST. These centres do not have the resources to cover long gaps without funding. They need to pay the rent, the phone bills and the few paid staff they have.
The money has not been forthcoming because of disorganization at Secretary of State. They call it an administrative overhaul. I urge the minister to overcome these problems of poor management and deliver the funding the women's centres need and deserve right now.


WESTRAY MINE DISASTER
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, two of the victims of the Westray mine disaster are from my riding, Harry MacCallum from Truro and Eric Maclsaac from River Hebert, Nova Scotia. I want to express my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of these men, in fact to all of those involved.
My riding includes Springhill, Nova Scotia, which was the scene of several mining disasters over the years, including those of 1956 and 1958. Even 30 years after the Springhill disasters the pain is still felt every day. This latest tragedy reminds us of the dangers that miners face each day on the job, dangers that very few of us must experience.
Long after the news is over and the world goes on to other issues, the sadness, grief and sense of loss live on. But they do serve to unite these mining communities in a very special and supportive way.


NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Tourism Awareness Week. At $26 billion per year, tourism is our third largest industry. It provides employment to over 600,000 people in all regions in Canada.
In the near north alone, which includes my riding of Nipissing, tourism generates over $200 million annually, and $1 billion across all of northern Ontario. In these tough times tourism represents the only hope for many communities. However, even this industry has fallen on some difficulties lately.
The government says that it wants to promote tourism. It has initiated a campaign that in the words of the minister "holds a mirror up to Canada as a tourist distinction".
Let us look at that mirror. The government has increased the tax burden on this industry, which includes a 7 per cent GST, it has cut VIA Rail, it has cut the tourism promotion budget to a miserly amount and it has given us high dollar policies which have discouraged travel to Canada and it has neglected our tourism infrastructure, particularly in smaller communities.
Is it any wonder that Canada's share of the world travel market has been cut in half over the last decade? Yes, I agree with the minister: We should hold a mirror up to Canada, but we should look at this vital industry seriously and not in the rose-coloured glasses that this government views it in.


REIFEL MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARY
[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1992
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and announce on behalf of the B.C. Waterfowl Society the opening of a new facility at the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary on Westham Island, in my riding of Delta, British Columbia.
The Reifel sanctuary is a very important stop on the Pacific flyway for millions of migratory birds, including the fabulous snow goose from Siberia.
The society has just completed the construction and renovation of a lecture hall, office, gift shop, and the gatehouse at the sanctuary. A significant portion of the resources needed were provided by local donors, including an outstanding bird collection by the Malfet family.
I attended the official opening this past Saturday and was very impressed with the new facilities. I am sure the sanctuary will now be even better equipped to provide for the environmental needs of the community. I commend the Reifel family and the B.C. Waterfowl Society for their vision and commitment.


ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ontario Provincial Police District Nine Traffic Unit from Belleville, Ontario, on being awarded the first national police award for traffic safety. This award was made in recognition of Unit Nine's outstanding efforts to improve safety on Highway 401.
I note that in 1991 we marked another leap forward in the struggle to reduce the fatalities on Canada's roads. A total of 3,654 people were killed in accidents on our highways; indeed, a very large number but the encouraging part is that is the lowest number since 1961.
At a time when the work of police forces across North America is being closely scrutinized and often criticized, it is important we also make the effort to identify those things that are being done right.
I wish to commend the officers in Unit Nine, police across Ontario and Canada, and most important, I praise Canadian drivers for their efforts to make our roads safer. Safe roads save lives.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, do you not just love political parties that take credit for government actions while at the same time lambasting the government at every turn. They say we are copying their policy.
A case in point. They are taking credit for an announcement we would not bring in a national publicly financed child care system. I wonder if they took time to read the 1987 report of the special committee on child care. Reference to the report entitled Sharing the Responsibility shows that it still stands as a solid study of the child care issue. It did not recommend a national publicly financed child care system.
I was part of that committee. I know its conclusions are still valid today. These same people now say they would keep the GST and use its proceeds to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt. This is already in legislation. I wonder just who is copying whom.


CANADA HEALTH DAY
Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, today is Canada Health Day which presents the opportunity to consider how we can progress farther toward a healthy population. Canadians appreciate our health care system and our concern that it continue to provide the high standard of treatment despite the continuing cuts in the federal share of health costs.
We must also pay more attention to determinants of health which include adequate nutrition, income, housing, and safe working conditions. Today a report on the health of homeless in Toronto shows that not only the homeless are far more prone to conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and arthritis, but are also subject to severe health outcomes such as mental illness, assaults, and traffic accidents.
On Canada Health Day the federal government must realize that the true cost to the continual eroding of social programs such as social housing, the Canada
May 12, 1992

Assistance Program and the war on child poverty is the health of Canadians.


THE DEFICIT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, for the past seven and one-half years the federal government has faced up to the deficit with a series of spending cuts and tax measures, every one of which has been characterized by the NDP as heartless and uncaring.
Now the Saskatchewan NDP government has made an important discovery. Here are some recent selected quotes from Chairman Roy.
If we fail to get the deficit under control we will soon lose the financial freedom to spend what we choose on vital public services.
Deficits are just deferred taxes. The bill has come due.
The important thing is we begin to chew away at the annual budget deficit so we can eventually balance the budget and pay down the principal.
These revelations are lifted right out of federal government budgets since 1985 and recognize both the necessity and the wisdom of federal deficit reduction policies; policies now seen as prudent, realistic, and responsible.
The federal NDP would do well to heed the admonitions of Chairman Roy.


CANADA HEALTH DAY
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, today is Canada Health Day, in a country where our health care system is under siege, driven to its knees by a drought in federal funding. It is no coincidence then that "Your Health, Your Health Care System: Protect Both!" is the theme chosen for today by the Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian Public Health Association.
Health care is a different reality for each of us. It may be the smile of an exhausted mother in a delivery room, newborn cradled in her arms; the rush of an ER team, pushing a crash cart down a hospital corridor, trying to pump life into a struggling heart; the relief of parents told their son's leukaemia has gone into remission; the
fear of a woman, lump in her breast, waiting for a mammography; the guarantee of a long and independent life for seniors.
Whatever medicare means to you, protect it. It is the most precious right of Canadian citizenship next to democracy itself.
Don't let anyone take medicare away from you.


CANADA'S 125TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning close to a thousand high school students and staff said yes to Canada. The rally I attended at Georgetown and District High School was called to celebrate and salute Canada's 125th birthday.
Initiated and organized by the students themselves, the event featured our national anthem, stirring words on national unity from senior students, a boost for the Kinsmen's flag-signing tour, and patriotic song.
All this took place in an auditorium covered with red maple leaves and historic national dates, which was the result of a weekend's work.
I would like to congratulate these incredible young Canadians for reminding us of all that is right about this country and to sincerely thank them for including me in this proud and memorable event.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all students at the high school in Georgetown for this magnificent celebration of Canada's 125th anniversary in 1992. These students from my riding said yes to Canada and, especially, yes to Quebec.


NATIONAL NURSES' WEEK
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Nurses' Week in Canada.
The Canadian Nurses' Association has proclaimed that this year's theme is Nurses-Partners in Change. Our health care system needs ongoing reform. These changes are best accomplished when nurses are engaged in partnership with others.

May 12, 1992
Oral Questions
Too often in the past, the expertise of nurses has not been adequately recognized. Nurses are ready, willing and able to play a more active role in shaping health policy.
I believe that the contribution of nurses will become increasingly valuable as our health care system is forced to deal with some very serious challenges. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I salute the nurses of Canada for their hard work, dedication and commitment to quality health care.


REFUGEES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last week I raised in this House a plea on behalf of the Aksamit family who came to Canada after persecution before the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989. They established themselves in Coquitlam, B.C. and put their kids in school in Coquitlam, got jobs. They then were ordered to be returned as not valid refugees.
Yesterday they were thrown out of Canada. It was a horrible scene. The boy, aged 12, was in shock; the young girl was crying. In spite of 200 calls, which is remarkable, to my constituency office the government wouldn't even let the two kids finish school this year. The mother turned to my assistant and she said: "What kind of country is Canada anyway?"
The minister knew. He was not blind-sided. I approached him personally, and I approached the Minister of National Revenue to work on this matter.
I do not do this often, but I rise in this House of Commons and I accuse the minister of immigration of an act of cruelty to these people, and I accuse this government of being blatantly hypocritical when it talks about brighter futures for the world's children.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, as Canada's constitutional process moves forward, the issue of Senate reform looms ever larger.
With the most recent recommendation of the Beau-doin-Dobbie report to leave ultimate legislative authority with the House of Commons, the effectiveness of the Senate seems to remain an advisory and reflective function.
In those circumstances, two questions come to my mind: Why should the Senate not be equal; or, why should the Senate not be abolished and be equally zero in all provinces?


THUNDER BAY FLIERS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Centennial Cup is the symbol of amateur hockey in Canada. I draw to the attention of this House the achievement of Thunder Bay Fliers this past weekend in winning the Centennial Cup in Winnipeg.
Thanks to the efforts of the coach, David Siciliano, and his staff, the entire team performed outstandingly, and more important, since this is volunteer month, the thousands of volunteer hours contributed by the citizens of Thunder Bay to make this a success.
In particular, I mention the contributions of players Jason Wright, Chris Bums and Mike Figliomeni who all received individual honours from the Centennial Cup committee.
Like everyone in Thunder Bay-Nipigon, we are all proud of the tremendous accomplishments that this team has made to sport in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, I spent the day in Toronto where I met with metro Toronto councillors. Regardless of their party affiliation-some were Tories, some were NDP, some were Liberals-they all said that the present government is ignoring completely the needs of Canada's largest urban centre. They talked to me about the problem of refugee support, infrastructure, law enforcement, housing and drugs. They are terribly preoccupied.
The largest city in Canada was known as "Toronto the good". What is the government doing to make sure that Toronto the good does not become Toronto the good, the bad and the ugly?
May 12, 1992


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the hon. Leader of the Opposition tries to degrade the reputation and the good name of Toronto.
It is one of the finest cities in North America. I think that Torontonians know that and Canadians also know that. Furthermore, this government has taken a number of initiatives in terms of the restructuring at de Havilland to ensure that the aerospace industry has a strong presence there. We have been engaged in the airport redevelopment program. These are all very important initiatives that will not only strengthen the city of Toronto but will indeed provide jobs and economic activity.
In terms of the aerospace industry, he knows that it is a competitive industry. Together with the government of the province of Ontario, de Havilland and Canadair, we have been able to put together-


Mr. Marchi:: When was the last time you were in Toronto?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When was the last time I was in Toronto? About one week ago. I will tell you what I was doing there. We were paying tribute to Laurent Beaudoin, the outstanding leader of Canadair for his leadership, not only in Canada, but internationally.
Toronto citizens paid tribute to him, as they should.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to visit the big shots but yesterday I met the street kids at a centre called Beat the Street.
I met there a young man of 19 years of age who has been on the streets for seven years. They are there together to try and get off the streets. They are trying to learn, to find jobs, to get a shelter and housing. It is absolutely impossible. They cannot find any part-time jobs for those kids who are on the streets.
I would like to know from this government what it is doing for these people who want to gain back their dignity, the 10,000 kids who are on the streets of Toronto today. They want jobs.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member visited Beat the Street, I hope he recognized that this is a federally funded initiative to meet and help not the big shots but those people on the streets.
Oral Questions
The hon. member refers to the youth of Canada. When he looks at the effort that the Department of Employment and Immigration has made in order to target more relevant assistance to these kids in Canada, the youth of Canada, he will want to correct the statements that were made in this House Friday by members of his party, alleging cuts to these programs for youth when the truth of the matter is that they have been increased.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem we are discussing is real. Young people have told me, for instance: "What good does it do us if the government spends $21 million on ads on prosperity, when we can't get jobs?"


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The problem, we have been told, is that some people used to be able to get along on part-time jobs, but now, it is apparently impossible, either in Toronto or any other Canadian city, for them to find even part-time work and be able to live their lives as citizens of this country with at least some dignity.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely astounding that the Liberals should all of a sudden wake up to the problems of Canada's youth, problems we started to address two years ago with our "School First" initiative, which is aimed at encouraging young people to stay in school.
We restructured the Labour Force Development Strategy to give these young people a chance to get the kind of training they need to make a more effective transition from school to the job environment.
Today, the Liberal Party would have us believe there are no programs at all to help these young people. Mr. Speaker, the government has urged provincial governments, the private sector, employers and unions to work together with us to help improve the effectiveness of these programs. He is complaining about unemployment, and I remember in 1984, when I ran for the first time and he was in the government, he wasn't complaining-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member for York North has the floor.

May 12, 1992
Oral Questions


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
By now the Prime Minister must understand that our youth are faced with a serious national crisis, a crisis of opportunity. Overcrowded, underfunded universities are turning our young people away. The economy is shutting them out, the 30 per cent high school drop-out rate is robbing them of a bright future.
How many wake-up calls does the Prime Minister need before he will act?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is scary sometimes to sit on this side of the House and watch the opposition slowly but surely wake up and realize that we have a serious drop-out problem.
What the Liberals on the other side do not seem to understand is that first of all, education is a provincial responsibility. Two and a half years ago, we started a massive stay-in-school program, trying to help provincial governments deal with the drop-out problem in Canada.
By the way, the study that the hon. member referred to yesterday was funded by Employment and Immigration with the Conference Board of Canada and aims at doing just that, increasing the level of awareness among Canadians to the importance of reforming our education system.
All I can say to the Liberals is this. Welcome to the challenge. Wake up. Yes, we have a problem.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Young people in this country are saying to me that there is a crisis in leadership. They want someone to show them a future, and the present Prime Minister has failed.
Given the serious nature of this national crisis, will the Prime Minister abandon his government's policy of neglect and immediately introduce innovative and effective community-based programs that will give relief to the over 400,000 young unemployed Canadians and the many more thousands who have been denied a rightful opportunity to housing, to training and to education?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, maybe the posturing of the Liberals today would have more credibility if the hon. member came flat out and said: "Yes, we the Liberals were wrong when we laughed and made a mockery of the Prime Minister when he stated that we had a drug problem in Canada".
Now they stand in the House and complain about the problem which they downplayed then. The government recognizes its responsibility in assisting students to reach their full potential, to assist the youth of Canada. The job entry program, for example, runs projects specifically for youth. The objective of this program is to help youth make a successful transition from school to work. More than $122 million has been put into the job entry program this year.
I could go on and list other programs because $400 million of the department's budget is targeted toward youth in Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Statistics released today indicate that in 1990 the incomes of those people who were working were severely reduced, the worst decline in after-tax income since the Liberal recession of early 1980s.
If the government wants to see the devastating effects of the recession I suggest it look at today's The Montreal Gazette, where some 7,000 people have put in help wanted ads. These range from skilled people, professionals, to carpenters and labourers.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what his response is to those Montrealers and all those other Canadians across this country who simply want the dignity of the chance to work?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, referring to the article in the The Montreal Gazette, the member is not referring to the job search program that is under-used. Sixty 60 per cent of the members in this job search program are employed within three months.
May 12, 1992

We see big headlines inciting Montrealers-

-to believe that there are no opportunities, when in fact there are. The federal government, through our Labour Force Development Strategy, has increased funds for training Quebec workers to nearly $680 million this year, Mr. Speaker. This is significant funding from which Montrealers, Quebecers and Canadians throughout the country can benefit. So we can try to be gloomy and see only the dark side, but let us look at the strategic investments that the federal government is encouraging in Montreal and there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister. The minister speaks of economic strategies and strategic investment and I would like to suggest something concrete that this government could do.
If we look at the ads in The Montreal Gazette we find help wanted ads for people who are skilled in welding, engineers, sheet metal workers, carpenters.
I want to ask the minister why this government, why this minister, why the Prime Minister do not invest in these people and put into effect a co-operative municipal infrastructure program that would help the city of Montreal and other cities across this country, that would address the environmental problems and would put people back to work? It would not solve the whole problem but it would certainly help a large number of people.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I often speak about coherence and consistency. Maybe the first thing is that the NDP should reverse its policy of opposing the activation of the developmental use of the money under UI in order to train unemployed Montrealers and Quebecers and Canadians to be able to fill those jobs.
Mr. Speaker, she talks about the help wanted index. An interpretation of that index shows that some 300,000 jobs went unfilled in Canada in 1991. That is why the
Oral Questions
reform of Bill C-21 was so important. We can take this passive money and put it to use to help unemployed Canadians so they can train and obtain those jobs. If this is a change in the position of the NDP I welcome it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister is just using bafflegab on all of this. What we are trying to get this government to say is why, in fact, it has not made it possible for people already with training to get jobs. Yes, more training is important, but there has been an increase of 77 per cent in those with post-secondary educations who are unemployed in the last two years.
I say to the minister that-

-according to Statistics Canada, the income of singleparent families headed by women declined the most. Average income dropped over 6 per cent in a year for one-parent families.
Mr. Speaker, what programs will the minister put in place to fight this crisis, especially in terms of job creation, child care services, training for single mothers, and help for poor children? Child poverty has increased 15 per cent.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as far as women as a group are concerned, I would remind my dear colleague of the following facts. First of all, some 800,000 more women are on the labour market this month than in September 1984, and 73 per cent of the jobs created for women since 1984 are full-time. This is not the recipe of the Liberals or the socialists in business suits who throw money at the problem for a few months and then put people on unemployment. These are full-time jobs. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not congratulated the government on the initiative we just took in New Brunswick. With Premier McKenna, we will target some $200 million on one-parent families, women and the needy. Once again, we will activate passive funds from unemployment insurance and social assistance in order to help these Canadians.

May 12, 1992
Oral Questions


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade stated yesterday that if the United States refuses to allow the softwood dispute to go to the dispute settlement mechanism panel then it would be, and I quote, "a very serious thing."
In fact, it would be more than a serious thing, it would be a violation of the North American free trade agreement.
What exactly does the government intend to do in this specific instance of softwood lumber? Does it intend, in the North American free trade agreement, to seek an improved dispute settlement mechanism?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International IVade):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is at all productive to speculate on what might or might not happen if this or that might occur.
I have made it clear what our general response would be, but let us see what the process develops and what the final outcome of the softwood lumber dispute would be. If it is appropriate to go to a dispute settlement panel, we have made it very clear that that would be an option we would take in the event we were not successful.
In the NAFTA, the question of dispute settlement is a matter that is under review to see whether it is appropriate to involve Mexico in the same type of dispute settlement arrangements that we have with United States. That is an objective of the negotiations; to ensure, if it is possible, to improve upon what we have. We will certainly try and do that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, amidst the continuing uncertainties about a North American free trade agreement, Chile, which already has a free trade arrangement with Mexico, is now approaching the United States to enter into the free trade agreement that Canada is negotiating in North America.
Should Canadians assume that we shall enter into free trade with any other country of the western hemisphere
which Washington may decide it wants to do a deal with, or does the government have its own independent trade policy. Do we set out our own priorities with regard to freer trade in the western hemisphere?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have enumerated what our trade policy is on a number of occasions. Our number one priority is to get a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round of the multilateral negotiations.
That, as my hon. friend is aware, is in some difficulty right now. As a second track, if you will, we are seeking to expand our access into growing markets. The first opportunity to do that was with the United States with the free trade agreement with our largest trading partner.
The second opportunity to come along is with Mexico, a market that is very promising because of the economic reforms it is has undertaken and the fast growth that is under way in that economy.
If it is appropriate to negotiate further expansions to that, which I think my hon. friend would support, the proposal is to have a broad range of free trade arrangements in the world today. I am not sure if the rest of his caucus supports this position but I understand what his position is.
We are open to discussions with a country like Chile if that is appropriate but right now we have negotiations under way with Mexico and we will continue to try and draw those to a satisfactory conclusion.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of industry and international trade.
Last Monday I received a letter from Adriana Schiro, a constituent of mine which says: "I am 23 years old and held a position in the textile industry for over four years. My prospects for maintaining this position are very dim because of the recession, retail bankruptcies, cross-border shopping, GST, but mostly because of the possible free trade deal with Mexico".
She feels betrayed that this country and this government cannot secure her future.
May 12, 1992

Will the minister assure Canadians like Adriana that he will not accept a trade deal that threatens the heart and soul of our textile and clothing industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that my colleague's constituent has expressed a view about the NAFTA negotiations which we share. There is some concern right now that if the proposal that is on the table between Mexico and the United States stands without any changes to reflect the particular concerns and position of Canada, then he is correct and she is correct. It would be unacceptable.
We have been negotiating with our trading partners to see whether we can enhance the position so that the position of the clothing and textile industry under the NAFTA would be even better than it is under the free trade agreement with the United States.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian clothing industry says that the agreement as it is now proposed could wipe out this industry with one stroke of the pen.
Can the minister assure Canadians that he will not sign this agreement and that he will protect the textile and clothing industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question in my previous answer. The basis on which we are negotiating with the Americans and the Mexicans is to have a special access to the United States market which would be greater than the access provided under the free trade agreement.
The negotiations are being carried on with full consultation with both the textile industry and the clothing industry to ensure that we are getting the full benefit of their views and understand fully their concerns as to how the negotiations are proceeding.
As I said, I believe it will be possible to demonstrate that we will have a good result here and hopefully a
Oral Questions
result that will be an improvement upon that which we have in the free trade agreement with the United States.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General has yet to deny that CSIS or, for that matter before CSIS, the RCMP are using paid informants within registered political parties in Canada.
I would like to ask the minister why CSIS and the RCMP feel the need to spy on registered political parties in this democracy?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I reject out of hand my hon. friend's allegation that CSIS or the RCMP are spying on registered political parties.
I made the point yesterday in the House. The point was made by the Minister of Justice that the CSIS act precludes any interference with lawful political action or dissent and I can assure my friend that neither CSIS nor the RCMP, as I have been assured by them, is spying on lawfully registered political parties in Canada.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. What is the difference between spying and collecting information? How does the minister explain that the collecting of information is not in fact an interference, a direct interference, in the lawful activities of a political party?


An hon. member:: Debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I agree with whoever hollered "debate".
If my hon. friend wants to ask a direct question, as he did in his first question, I would be pleased to reply.
CSIS and the RCMP operate under the laws of Canada.
My hon. friend knows that the McDonald commission had a full inquiry. As a result of that we have the CSIS act. For any political party that is involved in lawful political advocacy or dissent there are absolutely no problems and there is no need for any investigation.

Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT MOBILITY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The minister will know that the budget for mobility assistance for unemployed workers in western Newfoundland, one of the highest unemployment regions in Canada, has been cut by over 80 per cent over the last two years, from $500,000 to less than $90,000 in mobility assistance in an area where 23 per cent of the work force in unemployed. The result is that unemployed skilled workers available to fill jobs that go unfilled elsewhere in the country remain unemployed, remain unproductive.
Why does the minister of employment have $21 million available for an advertising campaign to advertise the so-called prosperity initiative but no money available to assist skilled unemployed workers to move elsewhere in this country to fill jobs that go unfilled in Canada today?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if I had had notice of the question, I could have checked into the facts that the member alleges are happening in that part of Newfoundland.
I can assure him of one thing today, and I can do this on the floor of the House. Under that program, if there are qualified workers in that part of Newfoundland and Labrador who need that kind of assistance to fill jobs that are vacant some place, he has my assurance today that the funds will be in place to ensure that.
If the hon. member can point out to me the need there, I am ready to revisit the allocation of these funds and ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not penalized because of a lack of funds in this mobility program.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I assure the minister that not only have funds been dramatically cut in western Newfoundland, they have been cut in the riding of the member for St. John's East and in the riding of the member for St. John's West. They have been cut in Gander-Grand Falls. They have been cut in Labrador. I have not confirmed it yet but I am awaiting confirmation: they have been cut in all of the regional offices in Atlantic Canada. That is why I assume the minister knew about these cuts.
Can the minister tell the House today then that, if these cuts are in place, they are in place without the
knowledge of the minister, that they do not reflect the policy of the government and that funding levels for mobility assistance in Canada will be restored to the levels experienced two years ago, that is four or five times the amount available today? Will the minister give us that assurance?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that because if the constituency of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also been cut then he will not accuse me of patronage.
Employment and Immigration is a highly decentralized department. The regional office decides which amounts of money are targeted to different programs according to the needs.
The assurance I have given the hon. member is that if there is a need under the mobility program to help people in Newfoundland and Labrador travel to other areas of Canada to get jobs then I will make the changes so that it is funded.


JOB CREATION
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In response to a question yesterday regarding unemployment in Manitoba, the Minister of Finance argued that his prosperity agenda has been working. However, in Winnipeg alone, at the end of last month we had over 40,000 people actively looking for work.
Could the minister explain, in detail for Winnipegers, exactly how he is about to create 40,000 jobs for these people?


Bernard Valcourt: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that we could in the Liberal way increase taxes, maybe borrow more, increase the deficit, throw money at the problem or create make-work projects.
Rather we are going to keep on working with the essential features of an economy that creates sustainable jobs. We are going to keep the fundamentals right in the economy. We are going to continue our prosperity initiative. We have asked Canadians to participate in developing an action plan wherein the issues of training, education, the competitiveness of our industrial sectors, learning, taxation and spending will all be looked at in order to provide these people with hope in the future.
May 12, 1992

I do not like the hon. member picturing Manitoba as a waste-basket.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right. Despite his reference, it is not a waste land.
My supplementary question is for the same minister, and I have already given him notice of this question. The minister will know that there has been a great deal of difficulty in getting the aboriginal Pathway Employment Program off the ground in Manitoba.
A coalition of 31 groups, the Winnipeg Pathway steering committee, has approached the minister with a very good solution to the problem. Could the minister indicate to the House whether he is prepared to accept its suggestion to get this program off the ground?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, so that colleagues know, Pathway is a program of my department aimed at training aboriginal Canadians to obtain jobs. Some $200 million are targeted to the needs of these Canadians.
Regarding his specific question, I have just received the joint proposal of the Manitoba chiefs and the Manitoba Metis Federation. I will keep in mind the hon. member's comments and those of Mr. Helgason who has been in contact with my office.
In a matter of probably days I should be able to give an answer to that joint proposal and see to it that Pathway serves aboriginal Canadians in Manitoba the way it is serving them all across Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
As we all know, Canadian forces bases such as Gage-town make major contributions to local economies. One major area of this economic contribution is through the continuing transfer process and relocation activities of these bases related to real estate, legal professions, and so on.
I understand that the Department of National Defence has now engaged a master contractor to administer
Oral Questions
all relocation business, that local firms must now pay real estate commissions to that firm, and that the legal business is assigned on a selective basis from that central contractor.
I would like to ask the minister: Is this information correct? If so, what is the role of the DND administration at local CF bases at this time?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for this excellent question. I can inform him that ERS in Toronto was one of eight companies that bid on the contract. Its bid was accepted because the company was in a position to offer the largest number of services required. These services include putting the homes of members of the forces on the market, the search for a new residence, making travel arrangements in this connection, as well as negotiating legal fees and providing financial advice.
By co-ordinating relocation activities through this firm, the department will save about $10 million.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday, in light of the widespread brutality and violence of the Serbian dominated Yugoslav army in Bosnia, violence which is directed at the Croatian and Muslim communities and which has resulted in over 1,300 deaths since February, European Community foreign ministers recalled their ambassadors from Belgrade and demanded the withdrawal now of all Yugoslav troops from Bosnia.
I want to ask the minister: Will she join with the European Community? If she will not show leadership, will she at least join with the European Community in these important steps as well as consider economic sanctions to send the strongest possible message to Belgrade that this widespread violence and bloodshed must end now?

May 12, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be releasing a statement shortly on this very topic. We will be joining with the European community in many of the steps that have been taken, except the recall of our ambassador.
I am not at this time prepared to recall the ambassador because we still have some Canadians in the region and we have 1,100 peacekeepers in Yugoslavia and on their way into Yugoslavia.
I want to ensure the channels of communication are kept open to all parties. We have been calling for a peaceful resolution of this for some considerable time. I think for the moment it is important that our ambassador stay there. The European ambassadors obviously are closer to home than ours. I want to make sure we have a capacity on the ground to deal with problems that might arise there.
We have economic sanctions already. They remain in place. They were not lifted earlier when some other countries lifted them. We have been in the forefront of action, calling for an end to the violence and taking strong action where it is needed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, one month ago the minister in a statement said: "The violence must stop immediately. The Serbian led Yugoslav army must be brought under control". That was a month ago and nothing has changed. The killing goes on.
Given the situation of the people in Bosnia who desperately need food and medicine, humanitarian aid such as insulin, I want to ask the minister: Will Canada support the very urgent request by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for United Nations troops to protect a humanitarian convoy which will be able to bring in food and medicine to the people of Bosnia?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have supported the UN High Commission for Refugees throughout this entire process. I want to assure the hon. member and the House that we have given $2.3 million worth of humanitarian aid ourselves through various multilateral agencies.
I will of course be looking at the request from the UN High Commission for Refugees on anything additional that is required.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
At their recent meeting in Halifax, all federal and provincial representatives agreed to adopt the Beau-doin-Dobbie Committee's constitutional recommendation that guarantees, and I quote: "the vitality and development of the language and culture of French speaking and English speaking minorities throughout Canada."
Can the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the federal government still maintains this position, this commitment to language minorities?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has always defended the interests of language minorities, wherever they happen to be in this country.
At this very moment, the minister is discussing with his colleagues a number of constitutional provisions that could further improve the situation of our minorities.
I have the impression the House will be asked to consider all proposals at the appropriate time, and I think the general position of members will be to offer more assistance to Canada's language minorities.
[English)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister commit himself to convincing the provincial premiers to adopt the Beau-doin-Dobbie wording on linguistic duality? Will he promise not to sign any agreement which does not include this wording?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of convincing the provincial premiers twice to sign a unanimous constitutional document whereby they all undertook to do certain things, and even that was not sufficient to bring about a deal.
May 12, 1992

Obviously the question to which my hon. friend refers is one that has been actively considered by the right hon. member for Yellowhead and his colleagues, has received a great deal of attention, and I suspect will receive more.
Hopefully, given the life-long commitment of my hon. friend to the question of protection of minorities and the interest of most, if not all, members of the House of Commons in enhancing and strengthening the position of our linguistic minorities across Canada, we will collectively, by our leadership, persuade the provincial governments of Canada of the benefits not only of bilingualism but of the requirement to protect our minorities, thereby allowing them and encouraging them to conclude a constitutional arrangement of which this would be an important part.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The outright aggression by Serbia has turned it into a renegade, outlaw state in the world community.
The minister today in the House said that she refuses to take any specific tough action to give the message that we do not condone this aggression.
Why is it that the European Community, which also has peacekeepers in that region, is withdrawing diplomatic sanction but Canada refuses to do so? Why is it that we think it is sufficient to send polite diplomatic notes when over 2,000 people have been killed? When is Canada going to stand up against the outright aggression by Serbia in that region?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have been among the strongest and most consistent in our actions within Yugoslavia in our condemnation. I do not think there is anything polite about the exchanges that have taken place between myself and the foreign ministers of the countries concerned, or between our ambassador and what is left of what used to be the Yugoslavian government. There has been nothing polite about it.
Oral Questions
Although there are some European countries some members of the community with peacekeepers in the region, not all of them have and they are obviously much closer to their home base than we are.
In the interests of our own peacekeeping forces, in the interests of Canadians within the region and in the interests of many Canadians of Serbian, Croatian and other origins from what was Yugoslavia, it is important that we ensure we have a way of getting our messages through. We have chosen to do that through leaving our ambassador there.
Let me be as perfectly clear, as our ambassador has been to the people he is meeting with, that Canada condemns very strongly what has happened within Yugoslavia. While the Serbians may be the strongest force at the moment, they are not the only ones who have been perpetrating some of the evils and we are there, speaking to all parties concerned.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is effective action, not symbolic, minuscule action. We are talking about something that will stop the aggression.
Under article 39 of the UN charter, the security council has the responsibility to respond to acts of aggression. In the past year we have seen how the UN has been effective in doing this, but in this case there is no action at all.
Will Canada specifically make a request of the security council that it take this act of aggression by Serbia to the security council to determine what specific action the UN and the security council will take to stop the killing?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it is the United Nations that has sent in the peacekeeping force in which we are playing a leading role. We have more people in the UN peacekeeping force within what used to be Yugoslavia than any other country.
I would also remind the hon. member that we were the first country to ask for security council and United Nations action in that area.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are out to
lunch. You do not know what you are talking about.

May 12, 1992
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: If the hon. member would choose to listen, which he is not doing at the moment, I would explain to him that we will continue to take a leadership role in the security council in dealing with violence in other regions and the civil war in other regions of the former Yugoslavia as we did in the last case. I am sure the hon. member would agree that we have been among the strongest in that connection.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take a single question from the hon. member for Shefford, followed by a single question from the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.


CANADIAN REFERENDUM
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In the past few days, we have learned that the government is holding secret meetings to rig the rules of the referendum in an obvious effort to load the dice. My question for the Prime Minister is this:
Of course I know that he can fool his caucus, but how does he think he can fool the people and international opinion by holding an Albanian-style referendum that would be as futile as it is unnecessary?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see the member for Shefford. I thought that he would resign so a by-election could be held, but he is still here.
Of course, the government House leader has initiated talks and in due course, a referendum proposal will be tabled so that we can consult the Canadian people. Everything will be done democratically. There will be a debate, votes will be held and hon. members will decide what they think of this proposal to consult the people.
Nevertheless, I was intrigued while the hon. member was speaking, because he already commented on the last referendum. Allow me to quote what he said in the House on July 17, 1980: "In commenting on the result of the referendum, I think my colleagues and I have all
worked very hard to get a no majority in Quebec, and in particular I am thinking with admiration of my colleague Jean Chretien."
He said that in 1980.
He went on: "I think there is only one obstacle to that quest for renewal, and it is perhaps the presence at that table of PQ ministers who are acting every day like offended virgins and want to have us believe after the results of the referendum that they have become federalists and want to improve the federal system."
The hon. member in 1980 was describing himself in 1992.


EMPLOYMENT
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Self-Employment Incentive Program has been very successful in my riding in helping people get off unemployment insurance, but it has recently been announced that it is going to be cancelled and replaced by the SEA Program, Self-Employment Assistance Program.
I wonder if the minister could assure us that there will be no delay in switching from SEI to SEA and will the new program have the same broad coverage as the old program?


Bernard Valcourt: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes and it should be improved to help the people in his riding.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Michael Moore, former Prime Minister and presently Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
May 12, 1992


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today was certainly not the time in which to ask questions concerning the Westray coal mine, but I would like to advise the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and all other ministers and agencies of the Government of Canada that we on this side of the House expect the government to be open and co-operative in providing members of this House with all documents, including studies, reports, letters, correspondence, consultants' reports and all other information with regard-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not at all sure that that is an appropriate point of order. We have finished Question Period. If the hon. member wants to raise that matter on the floor of the House I think it would have to be done at the appropriate point.
Serious as the matter may be, I do not think it is appropriate to raise it at this point.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Chair should be advised that this subject matter will be reviewed at Question Period at subsequent times. We wish to extend a courtesy to the government in order that the appropriate documentation can be made available.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: No matter how important this matter may be, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is, I think, out of order in raising it in the way he is doing.
The hon. government House leader.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point. We had today 50 minutes of Question Period in which he had an opportunity to get on his party's list to ask any questions. He chose not to and used the bogus point of order to grandstand. I do not think it is an appropriate use of the House time and I agree with your ruling.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, this member will accept the decision of the Chair with regard to my point of order, but I wish to inform the Chair that this subject matter will be raised at a subsequent time.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: It may be. I am not taking anything away from the subject matter and I hope that hon. members and those who are watching understand that. I am just bound by the procedural rules which I must apply. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could offer a solution. We all appreciate the very sensitive issue that my hon. colleague raises. It is a serious request.
May I suggest that since the House leaders will be meeting in a matter of moments it is something that we can pursue there as a way of obtaining the information.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Kamloops. It is, of course, not for me to suggest that but I think the suggestion bears some merit, if I can go that far.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English\

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very learned dissertation and discussion by our critic and associate critic that crystallized many of the concerns we have with respect to this legislation. It is interesting that the government is concerned about the options in talking about law and order but not really delivering on substance when it comes to this particular bill.
What we see in the legislation is nothing more than tinkering, a little of the smoke and mirrors. The fundamental flaw, which is something that we have talked about before but it bears repeating, is that the government has the cart before the horse again.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
It is dealing with parole, it is dealing with conditional releases, it is dealing with temporary absences, escorted and non-escorted, but it does not deal with sentencing.
Obviously if you are dealing with the back end of the system without dealing with the front end of the system, we do not know whether it is going to work and to mesh. What is absolutely essential is that this legislation wait until the sentencing legislation has been dealt with. But the government, using its majority, in forcing this issue has gone forward with this legislation without the sentencing legislation, although the Minister of Justice has promised that sentencing legislation will be coming down almost any day now. In light of that I wonder why the haste.
We had numerous witnesses come before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General and ask us to wait for sentencing legislation. I would like to quote two paragraphs from the submission of the Canadian Bar Association:
Bill C-36 purports to be aimed at "public protection and restoring public confidence in the corrections system." However, nothing in the package can have a lasting effect on public protection or confidence, because it does not address the deficiencies in the current system. Rather than advancing the objectives of reform, Bill C-36 maintains many of the current inadequacies.
It went on to talk about the fact that sentencing has not yet been dealt with. I quote again from the CBA report:
The major point that we would make is that all of these commissions recommended an integrated approach to this corrections and condition of release area. What you are doing is starting with corrections and conditional releases and deferring sentencing until next year. When we go to court, the first thing that happens is that we stand up in front of a judge and we make submissions on sentence. We don't make submissions to the parole board first or to the prison authorities second and then to the judge; we do it the other way around.
I think that crystallizes the basic flaw in the government proceeding in the fashion that it has. We on this side, as the House is well aware, moved an amendment and asked that this bill not go forward.
We were even prepared to complete clause by clause study, then hold it so that it could come back for amendment if necessary, pending the government coming forward with sentencing legislation. Now we will
have to wait for the sentencing legislation and then try to make it work with what we will make law today. That is absolutely backwards.
Some things in the legislation have merit. We heard testimony from a number of witnesses, especially the victims of Larry Takahashi. Mrs. de Villiers talked about having victims included in the process. The bill does that. It would be of benefit if the House heard what some of those witnesses had to say as to what happened to them and why we, on this side, feel that it is important that victims are part of this process, that they have a say in what happens to them.
Some will argue that once the crime has been committed it is the end of it as far as the victim is concerned. The state steps in and the victim is just a side bar issue. We on this side feel that the victim should be involved in the process all the way through. The obvious reasons are things like the fact there may be a release and a victim may bump into the person who committed the crime on the street. That is a straightforward reason which is dealt with. There are other reasons why the victims should be involved. We should talk about the victims for a while.
I quote from some of the Takahashi victims.
This is another issue that should be dealt with fairly. It is grossly unjust to the victim to have his or her charges dropped because the courts cannot afford to prosecute. So we want his entire record to be considered here, not just his sentence and his conviction. Ihkahashi was charged with seven counts but the counts he committed were much higher.
What the victim is talking about is the allegation that this gentlemen may have committed over 100 rapes in the Edmonton area. All he was charged with and convicted of were seven. We are concerned as to the ramifications of that both as to sentence and as to eligibility for parole and eligibility for temporary absences. He is the same gentleman who was out playing golf. There are concerns about that. If victims are out on the same golf course it may be a shocking experience for them if they are not aware of what is going on.
Again I quote:
When we started the process we didn't see one, but as we've gone along we have learned to live with rehabilitation, yes. The truth of the matter is that he will be out of prison, it's a fact. We all know that. If he's in any way rehabilitated and is not the same person he was when he went in, that fact gives us all peace of mind.
May 12, 1992

If the victims are involved in the process, and they know what types of programs this particular person has been in in prison and outside of prison on community based services and they know he has been making progress in dealing with the particular problem, in this case, a problem with sexual assault, then the victims have some comfort that when this person comes out he is least likely to commit the crime again. The victim wants to be involved in that and to have that assurance.
The other side of the victim issue is one that was near and dear to my heart back when I was in my other life as a municipal politician. We put a victim's assistance program into our police department. When the police went to the scene of a crime involving sexual assault or even a break and enter, they also had someone with them from the police department to help the victims get over that sense of violation when it is a break and enter, and the emotional strain and the problems of a sexual assault.
I again quote from the Takahashi victims.
The police treated me really roughly. They gave me heck for fighting back and standing up for myself after the assault. One of the girls who isn't here had her bed sheets delivered to her two years later with holes cut out of them. They said, "Here you are: here's your evidence".
It shows that the justice system is an unfeeling system and has no concern for the victims if these types of things are allowed to happen.
If we do not put into the system something that carries the victim from the commission of the offence all the way through the process until they are rehabilitated- and hopefully the perpetrators are rehabilitated-we are going to be facing problems. We have an obligation to victims to give them the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.
The legislation does do things for victims. We are going to have to wait and see how far it gets, what it accomplishes and whether victims' assistance works.
As well, we must expect the other levels of government, down to the municipal police force, to have that commitment to victims' services. That commitment should be made all the way through the system and we should not just say that it is a federal responsibility, a provincial responsibility or a municipal responsibility. It is everyone's responsibility.
Government Orders
We also heard testimony from other groups who are working with offenders-the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society and a number of aboriginal offender group-and who are trying to establish community based services both within and without the institutions. They told us that the major problem in our institutions is drugs. It is a serious problem. It is a continual problem. No matter what they have tried to do they have not been able to deal with that particular situation. It is not just alcohol abuse but it is all forms of substance abuse.
We have to wonder whether our corrections system is working if that type of problem still exists within our institutions. We have built walls to keep people in prison, but yet they have ready access to drugs. One must wonder.
A second concern which has not really been fully dealt with in this legislation is the problem of illiteracy. The statistics that we were given showed that about 40 per cent of all the prisoners in the institutions are functionally illiterate. How can we do anything with any other program that is available if we are dealing with somebody who is functionally illiterate? This legislation does nothing to improve that particular area and provide the types of programs that are necessary in that area.
A large portion of our prison population is made up of sex offenders. The testimony that we heard said that there are very few programs to deal with rehabilitation for them. Again, our system is sorely lacking in that area and there is a lot more that needs to be done. This legislation before us, Bill C-36, really does not help.
We heard time and time again about the special needs of aboriginal people, aboriginal women and other women in the institutions. I think society and the government feel that everything will work fine. All we have to do is just throw them in jail, leave them there for the prescribed time and when they come out everything will be fine.
However, experience tells us that is not the case, the reverse will happen. If we do not have the necessary programs and the necessary rehabilitation to deal with the whole gambit of problems involving inmates then we are going to face a far greater problem five or ten years down the road.

Government Orders
We have to rethink what we are doing with the whole system, rather than tinkering with minor little things here and there and trying to throw a sop to those people who think every criminal should be put in jail while at the same time throwing another sop to the others who think nobody should be put in jail. We must come to grips with the fundamental problems and this piece of legislation does not do it.
There are some things that we do like in the legislation. We tried to be constructive as this bill went through the committee and we are trying to be constructive again today. We believe that the fundamental principle that is now clearly in the bill because of the amendments we made is that the protection of society is the paramount raison d'etre for the correctional services. We think that is good. We also believe that victims should have rights and that they should be involved in the process. As well, we believe that inmates have rights and there are sections in the legislation which guarantee the rights of inmates.
In that broad context, we are supportive of those efforts in the legislation. However, when they are translated into what has been done all this bill does is firm up and crystallize existing practice without making any changes, and all acknowledge that the system does not work.
I will refer the House to what the Canadian Bar Association had to say so that members can realize that is the case.
We were pleased that the government moved on the issue of temporary absences. I know from my own personal experience of the problems we had with the escape of Allan Legere, which occurred on an escorted temporary absence.
We know of the problems with Daniel Gingras. Time and time again we have heard of the problems with temporary absences and how they are dealt with. There is no question that temporary absences have a lot of success in reintegrating people into society. They are necessary.
At the same time the government had to go forward with the Pepino report to try to remedy some of the problems that exist around temporary absences.
We think that we might have solved some of the problems in this legislation and we are supportive of the government in that area, but there is still much to be done.
We also agree with the idea of classification of offenders. I have some difficulty with the colour coding because the worst criminals are coded red and I had suggested that it might be blue but the committee members did not see their way clear on that issue. The idea of classification, so that there is a higher classification for those who are higher risks and then on down the scale, is something that we on this side put forward to the government about a year and a half ago. Needless to say we are pleased that it is in the legislation and that the government has seen the wisdom of the opposition's point of view.
We have also been calling for and agree with some of the measures involving aboriginal and women prisoners or offenders. This is a very trying area. It will be interesting once we see what happens with the new prison system that is contemplated for women so that all women are not separated from their families and children. As new institutions come on the scene they can be closer to their families.
It is clear that some of the initiatives concerning native people in the institutions are having some success. They are having success because we are involving native people in the process.
The message that came out is that we need more of that, and we on this side are supportive of those types of endeavours. However, this legislation does not move much toward that type of change but really reinforces the status quo.
As was commented earlier, there is a lot of tinkering and a lot of technicalities, but nothing which gets to the root problems.
The big question that a lot of people are asking is whether this bill will really do anything to make the public feel secure.
That is where we have to draw the line and say: No, it really is not going to make that much difference. It is not really going to accomplish that much. It is the classic example of a Canadian compromise: just a little bit here, a little bit there and hopefully it will all go away. That is what this bill does.
May 12, 1992

It does not really do anything to get to the root problems. We need sentencing reform. We need community based services both working inside the system and outside the system. We must have a war on drugs, both inside the institution and outside the institution. We need to do something on programs dealing with education and rehabilitation. We must rethink the whole process from a sentencing point of view, which is going to come in the future, as well as parole, conditional releases and the like.
It is really a sad day because the government had an opportunity to come up with some constructive, positive legislation which would give people back the confidence that they had a system that worked and would keep those violent offenders off the streets and keep our streets safe, while at the same time rescuing some of those disadvantaged people who find themselves on the opposite side of the law but can be salvaged.
This legislation does not do the trick, so we face that reality. We try to make improvements and there is still much to be done. Hopefully this is one step in a process that will see, ultimately, good and proper legislation in the area of parole, corrections and most of all, sentencing.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a brief comment and then just ask my colleague a question.
I want to let the House know that during the committee stage of Bill C-36, in addition to myself and my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, the hon. member for Moncton took a very active part in all of the hearings, including travelling to Edmonton and Vancouver, listening to the witnesses, questioning, commenting, suggesting amendments and improvements to the bill.
He worked very hard and demonstrated obvious commitment and concern with respect to this area. It is important for the people of Canada to know that he was instrumental in putting whatever amendments the Liberal Party had forward to make this bill as good as it can be under the circumstances.
He was talking in his very excellent speech about support services. He was talking about the number of sex offenders we have in the system today and the fact that there are not those support services out there to help them be rehabilitated into society.
I want to ask him to turn his mind for a few minutes, if he would not mind, to the support services for parolees
Government Orders
in general. I am thinking, in particular, of what used to be mandatory supervision but will now be statutory release. I wonder if he might comment about what he heard and what his feeling is in connection with whether there is going to be the kind of supervision and the kind of help after parole that there might be in the prison system.
It is my understanding that the department is understaffed and will be releasing a lot of offenders on parole. There will not be that ability of the department to help them reintegrate into society. When we were in the Edmonton institution, as my hon. friend will recall, we were told about the revolving door syndrome of inmates who come in, get paroled and they are right back in again. It was the prisoners who were talking about it in that way.
I wonder if my hon. friend might spend just a few moments talking about the after-parole care, if there is any.


George Saunders Rideout: I thank my colleague for his question.
My colleague is actually quite correct when he talks about the revolving door syndrome and the testimony that we had at committee. That points to the real problem.
On the one hand, we see prison populations going up. The cost is astronomical when you analyse it and I am sure my colleague will recall that we have about 13,000 people in institutions in this country. Corrections Canada employs about 11,000, so we almost have one person for every prisoner or inmate in the system and still it does not work. Our whole thrust is aimed, as I gather, at keeping them in the institutions and letting them do their time and then letting them go.
The programs are overtaxed. A lot of the inmates and a lot of the witnesses told us about the problems of getting on to programs. Sex offenders, in particular, sometimes have to wait months and some get in the institution and back out even before they have had a chance to get on any program at all.
What we are facing is a situation in which our emphasis is in the area of control without the other attachment to that which is in the area of rehabilitation. We are going to face greater problems as time goes by because we are going to keep people in longer. There are going to be more people in the institutions and there are going to be fewer dollars available for programs.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
There will be less done to try to prepare people to re-enter society, less done to try to help them with then-mental problems in dealing with many aspects of life and, as a consequence, they are going to re-offend.
Some of the prisoners and some of the guards told us that they almost run a lottery to try to pick the time when the inmate will be back after he has been released. We know the end result and they know the end result. The are asking: "Will he last a week, a month or maybe two months"? That is symptomatic of the problem.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice on debate this afternoon on this important bill.
My colleague from Brant, who is our critic in this area, and I are the only ones so far in this debate who can claim to be non-lawyers. That gives a different perspective on the confidence one has in the criminal justice system. Those of us who have not been trained as lawyers have an additional degree of scepticism about the criminal justice system.
Most Canadians do not have the confidence in the criminal justice system is going to protect us. It takes much more than a criminal justice system to do that. This bill is quite a callous attempt at fostering that confidence in the criminal justice system that is not merited.
It is the whole view, the myth, that if a crime is punished, the crime has been addressed. It has not been. There are the victims, the community concern and the fear. It is not only the victim of the crime who is affected, it is the whole community that is affected.
I also want to address the view that New Democrats are soft on crime and that we are bleeding hearts. That is a common perception. I would like to dismiss that as a myth as well. We are not soft on crime. We certainly may have a different approach to addressing it. This bill is another example of what I call the curse of linear thinking. If there is a crime committed, you catch the criminal, you punish him and therefore it is done. It is not done.
If we are going to make our communities safer and have the criminal justice system protect us, we have to
put resources into crime prevention. We have to put resources into poverty alleviation and reduction. We have to put resources into day care. There has been research in the past, both here and in the United States, that has amply demonstrated that those who are in prison have been subjected to child neglect and often abuse. This government does not seem to see the connection between providing for the children of Canada and the reduction in crime.
There also has to be a reduction in drug use. I am not only talking about drugs we see on crime shows. I am not talking about cocaine, heroin and marijuana. I am talking about drugs generally, including alcohol. As someone pointed out, there is a perception that alcohol is outside the realm of drugs. It is not. There is a selective moralizing about what actually leads to criminal acts. When judgment falls by the wayside, people are more likely to commit crimes.
This bill does nothing to make us safer in our communities. It certainly does not give us any further confidence that we are going to be safer. Women are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than men. It makes sense. They would rather pick on someone who is not as physically intimidating.
As my colleague for Brant was pointing out, this bill is actually a hoax. The timing of the introduction of this bill is interesting. Obviously, the government is wishing to be re-elected. If it takes a firm law and order stand, it thinks its chances of being re-elected might be heightened somewhat, but it is the linear thinking.
Why can we not just look at our community and see what addresses it? As a parent I know that if my children committed a wrong, they were punished, but it was not just punishment. There was some other work alongside of that. Why can we not run our communities like that? Why can we not inject a little common sense into how we conduct our society? It seems beyond the ken of this government that that would be an approach.
As I said, there is the myth that we in the New Democrats are soft on crime. I know the member for Niagara Falls on the government side made a contribution to this debate. He said: "The New Democrats always want shorter sentences".
May 12, 1992

I want to give a few examples that will dispute that. A couple of weeks ago in Nova Scotia a woman died at the hands of her former partner. Her name was Lorraine Mills. Another fact is that often times it is the victim's names that get lost in this and it is criminal names that are given some profile.
Lorraine Mills died. She was knifed by her former partner. The first time he had beaten her senseless, he was put on probation. She used the criminal justice system, she charged him, he was put on probation. The second time it happened, he was put in jail for 30 days. The third time he killed her.
We in this party have consistently called for just sentences for criminals. That man was a danger to that woman. She used the criminal justice system and she is dead. Let us not make any bones about it, this bill would not have prevented the death of Lorraine Mills nor many of the other deaths of women.
It is one of the curiosities in this country that it seems to be that crimes against property have a greater priority than crimes against women. As part of that group that seems to be so dispensable, I felt a sense of outrage at that.
This is not what this House should be doing. This is not what this government should be doing, introducing a bill that is really a sop to those. It gives us a false sense comfort, a false sense of security. I am no safer if this bill passes than if it does not. Nor is any other woman in Canada.
As the previous speaker indicated, one of the greater proportions of our prison population are sexual offenders. There is a prison in my province called Matsqui. This is where most of the sexual offenders are housed. There is no rehabilitation scheme of any purport in that system. Once again there is a false sense of security.
If a sexual offender is sentenced to Matsqui, most of us believe, and I believed until I looked into it, that somehow these dangerous men who had attacked women in a violent way were going to be somehow rehabilitated. They are going to be seen, their behaviour looked at and changed. There were to be some alternatives to incarceration because we as women know they will once again be on the streets at some time and that is scary.
I know it is a small proportion of men in society that actually commit these kinds of crimes, but the ones that do are very frightening. Corrections Canada does not
Government Orders
have statistics on the recidivism rate for sexual offenders, for those who have received treatment or those who have not. Why is that? It is because it is not a priority. This government does not make it a priority to do that kind of research. I am really offended by that. What is the role of government if not to make its citizens more secure, if not to do that kind of research?
We just warehouse these dangerous men and at the end of their sentences we let them out on the street again so they can probably do it again because they certainly have not been treated and rehabilitated.
This is a political bill. The timing of it is to give us confidence that this government is in control, that we are a law-abiding society and that this government is going to be tough. It is going to be tough, but it is not going to make us safer.
I am certainly not soft on crime. My cousin for a good while was an officer in the Vancouver city police force. It was the violence of that city that finally got him to seek another career. There was no structure. He was just going and putting band aids on the problems. The most dangerous situations, he told me, were those domestic disputes where he would have to go in and try to intervene. There is no mechanism from this government to try to assist those police officers. They go into these dangerous situations and risk their lives, but there are no structures to support them.
I know that police officers have given testimony before the committee on this bill. They seemed to have a greater understanding than the officials who drafted this bill, this government.
I want to quote from the testimony of one of the police officers. This is from the Canadian Police Association brief. He said: "We must educate our youth about all drugs and the dangerous results for them personally. If they abuse these substances in order to accomplish this goal someone is going to have to jar the federal, provincial and municipal governments into providing funds to deal with this danger. Responsibility is passed from federal to provincial to municipal authorities with no additional funds being granted". It is another way of off-loading, which is a term I know that we are becoming all too familiar with in this government. It is that belief that the municipalities, by increased police expenditures, will be able to do the job.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
They are not going to be able to do the job if this government does not take action in poverty alleviation, creating jobs, getting people employed and with day care so that we can reduce the incidents of child neglect and abuse, with funds for education and retraining, to give those people some hope. Crime is a result of despair, when they have had no other choice but to commit a crime in order to earn a livelihood one way or another, by fair means or foul.
This bill is sadly lacking in vision and absolutely shot through with the curse of linear thinking. We cannot support the bill in its present form. I just hope that those watching from the government side will consider some of the suggestions that we have made because I think that as opposition parties we have a responsibility not just to criticize bad legislation, and this is certainly in that category, but also to put forth alternatives. It is not going to be one bill on the Correction and Conditional Release Act that is going to do it. I encourage the government members to look at the big picture, to see the kind of social policies that it could enact to be able to make our community a safer place for all of us.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Saanich for her intervention this afternoon and very fine speech. I was particularly interested in hearing comments from a female member of Parliament, but also one who is not a lawyer and one who I presume has not worked in the criminal justice system as a professional.
I have a question I want to ask her. It has to do with treatment within the prison system in Canada. As she knows, at the present time there is little or no meaningful treatment going on within our prison system to address the specific needs of the criminal sexual offender, or the sexual psychopath as we used to refer to them.
These are in most instances, if not all, very ill people. We know that they almost always come from a violent background, that they have had sexual violence done to them, usually in their youth or childhood and consequently sexual violence has become almost a way of life with them. They cannot express their feelings or their love in any way other than in a violent way.
Would the member be prepared to see in legislation like this even longer sentences, sentences where eligibility for parole would not come until almost the very end of a sentence or indeed no eligibility for parole if there
was an ironclad guarantee on the part of the government that while that inmate was in the present system, that inmate was able to obtain good treatment programs of a variety of natures, programs that we know exist in the United States, that exist in Europe but do not exist here. Would the hon. member be prepared to accept that proposition?


Lynn Hunter: I thank the member for Brant for his question. I think that is a very good suggestion. What we want is a safer society.
I have seen television programs on this kind of suggestion from the United States. When these people who have committed the crime, most of whom who have been terribly brutalized in their own lives, actually confront themselves with what they have done to normally women, but it is oftentimes young boys, and victimizing them, that is the breakthrough. Then they realize that they are human beings. They have been so dehumanized by what has occurred to them in their own lives that when their humanity is shown to them by confronting them with the nature of their crimes and the kind of wreckage that they have left behind them, that is a way of having them rehabilitated.
This takes a long time. We are not putting band aids on these people who have been so badly brutalized in their own lives. It may take years. I would rather that happen than have them just warehoused as they are now and then let out on the street to commit another crime.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the hon. member, particularly to her comments with respect to sexual offences and offences against women.
I would seek her comments as a non-lawyer specifically with respect to what this bill talks about in terms of what happens for example to a sexual offender. As I am sure she is aware, if a sexual offender has reached two-thirds of the sentence, this bill requires that that sexual offender be released, regardless of whether or not there has been any rehabilitative therapy, regardless of whether or not that person has benefited from that therapy, unless-and here is where we have in clause 129 detention during period of statutory release-the board shows that the offence that was committed by the sexual offender caused the death of or serious harm to another person and, second, that there are reasonable grounds to assume that it will happen again.

One of the problems that we saw was the definition of serious harm. That could be psychological, but is it likely to be treated as psychological? There is no definition.
The concern that I have, and I am wondering if my hon. friend could comment, is that the Parole Board must show first that there was death or serious harm, whatever that phrase means, caused by the sexual offender and that he is reasonably likely to reoffend. Unless they can show both of those, the offender must be released at two-thirds, regardless of whether treatment has been given and whether that treatment has been effective. Does she agree with that portion of the bill?


Lynn Hunter: I do not agree with that. I would rather have the criminal warehoused than out on the street. It means that he will have to serve the full term of his sentence in order to keep the community safe, and we are talking months in most instances. I would rather have him there for months rather than out on the street for months.
On the term harm, anyone who has been the victim of a sexual attack can judge whether there is harm. Most women statistically have had some incident of sexual attack. I know I have and if you get a group of women in a room, each will give her experiences one way or another. Who decides what is harm? Is it the Parole Board made up of mostly men? That is another consideration that should be incorporated in this type of bill.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, as referred to by other hon. members, is one that deals with changes to the parole and correctional systems and also legislates the position of the correctional investigator; that is, entrenches in legislation the status and role of a correctional investigator who is an ombudsman for prison inmates and for issues that arise in prison.
Government Orders
We in the Liberal Party oppose this bill and we oppose it basically for three reasons. We do not believe that it improves protection of the public as alleged in clause 4 of the bill.
Clause 4 states that the purpose of the bill is to improve the protection of society. We believe that the further provisions in the bill do not move in that direction sufficiently to support the principle.
Second, we do not support the bill because the bill does not at the same time deal with sentencing and I will discuss this at greater length in a few minutes.
If you are going to deal with some radical changes or important changes in the parole system such as changing the conditions for varying sentence or varying the administration of a sentence, then you should also deal with the policy on sentencing at the same time. Originally, this package of legislation was supposed to deal with both sentencing and parole and it does not. It deals only with parole. The other half of the equation is not there. Consequently, we feel that the legislation is lacking.
Third, we oppose the legislation because the position of the correctional investigator is not established as an officer of Parliament, as the Auditor General and the Commissioner for Official Languages are. As set out in this bill, the correctional investigator reports to the Solicitor General, who in turn with his officials can bury such a report before it is made public in Parliament.
Those are the principle reasons for opposing this bill. I would like to discuss those at greater length.
I said that one of the reasons we oppose the bill is that it does not deal with the new policy on sentencing which was supposed to accompany this bill. There is a very close relationship between sentencing and parole.
As all hon. members know, when an individual is charged with a crime and found guilty by the court, the court applies or gives out one of the sentences that is set out in the Criminal Code for that offence. In most cases, those sentences are definite sentences. They are for two years, five years, seven years or 10 years.

Government Orders
I would say that well over 90 per cent of those people who are sentenced by the court are sentenced for definite sentences. It is only by exception for certain very serious crimes such as murder, for which you are given a life sentence or when you are found to be a dangerous offender, that you are given an indeterminate sentence.
Since the sentencing policy and the sentencing provisions are set out in the Criminal Code, they are modified to some extent by the parole legislation. The parole legislation determines when you would be released from incarceration as part of your sentence and serve the rest of your sentence outside prison, either in a halfway house or working under control with a parole supervisor.
As I say and as the critic of our party has said, to deal with simply the parole part of that situation and not the sentencing part is not to present us with a very complete package.
By the way, parole is only one type of conditional release. Another type of conditional release are temporary absences, either escorted or unescorted. The escorted kind is usually for medical reasons or for humanitarian reasons. Such humanitarian reasons may be, let us say, the father or mother of an inmate dying. They will then give the inmate an escorted temporary absence to attend the funeral or something of that nature.
There is also what is called earned and statutory remission, by which you earn early release by good behaviour in prison or by simply serving the time.
In the statement of the Department of the Solicitor General, it says with respect to parole: "The National Parole Board, by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens, contributes to the protection of society".
The purpose of parole is to put back into society people who have committed crimes in a controlled, supervised way, rather than releasing them at the end of their sentences in a cold, unsupervised and unprepared fashion. It is believed by people who have studied these matters for years and years that it is much safer for the public to gradually release an offender back into society with conditions, with supervision and with control, rather than have that person serve in prison until the very end of his sentence.
Let us say that individual had a three-year sentence in prison, rather than have that person serve the full three years in prison, totally out of touch with society, and then at the end of the third year release him into society without any control or supervision whatsoever, it is safer to release an individual under control and supervision.
Let us make it clear that parole is not the cancellation or the reduction of a sentence. Many people believe it is and they criticize it as such, but parole is not the cancellation or reduction of a sentence. It is simply a different way of administering a sentence.
A sentence can be served in a maximum security prison with walls and with fences within the prison, with locked cells and so on. That is a maximum security prison. If it is in protective custody, there are very few programs. The individual is in his or her cell all the time without much communication with other people.
The inmate may be in a medium security prison in which there is security on the perimeter of the prison but very little security in the prison itself. The prisoners can leave their cells during the day and go to classrooms, to workshops, they can visit with their counsellors and so on.
There are minimum security prisons in which there are no walls or fences but these so-called prisons are more like halfway houses. While there are programs, supervision, education and so on, there is very little perimeter security or internal security.
Then there is parole. When you are on parole, you are released into society but you are still under sentence and you will always be under sentence. For example, if a person has a six-year sentence for committing a certain crime and is released on parole after three years, the sentence continues to apply for the remaining three years. It applies while the person is on parole, which means that they are subject to certain conditions, subject to control and supervision by a parole office and must report to the police periodically. The sentence is not terminated.
I already referred to the fact that the overwhelming majority of sentences handed down by the courts under the criminal justice system are for definite, limited periods of time. That means that when the sentence is up the prison system must release that individual whether it likes it or not, whether it feels that the individual is rehabilitated or not.
May 12, 1992

For example, if the person has a six-year sentence and there has been no parole, for certain reasons there has been no mandatory supervision because it was cancelled, and the end of the term comes for the sentence that individual must be released. If the great majority of sentences, the overwhelming majority, are definite sentences in which the offender must be released, how should we approach that eventual release date? Should we have a system in which we simply throw people into prison for six years, for example, and then forget about them and at the end of six years release them cold into society? Would that serve society? Would that serve the protection of the public? No, it would not.
We have had parole of one type or another in Canada since 1899. Therefore, for a long time in this country the principle of gradual supervised release has been considered to be the best and safest way to put a person back into society.
There are conditions for parole and those conditions are usually that the individual must reside in a certain place and stay in that place unless permission is given to move from that place. The individual must take a certain job that has been arranged or go to a certain school that has been arranged. If the individual has had a problem with drinking or with bad companions they must avoid those places where the bad companions are found. They must report to the police periodically and report changes in their family life, job situation or education situation et cetera.
If an individual has had a problem with narcotics or alcohol the Parole Board may say that they must attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous.
While on parole the parolee is still under sentence and he or she can be returned to prison if he or she either breaks the conditions of parole or commits even the most minor of offences. Therefore, if the individual is on parole and breaks the conditions of the parole and it is discovered by the parole officer or the police he or she is put back in prison.
To return to my example, if the person on a six-year sentence is put on parole after three years and at the end of the fourth year it is discovered that he or she had left the country for one reason or another, they decided to
Government Orders
visit the United States without consulting with the parole officer, that can lead to the cancellation of parole. Then they are put back in prison and they would have to apply for parole again.
I want to make it clear to the House and to the Canadian public that in principle parole is a method of better protection for the public because it is a method by which we gradually release people into society under custody and under supervision.
I was very surprised and very disappointed by the speech of the hon. member for Niagara Falls this morning. He stated in his speech that without the changes put forward in this bill there was a risk of chaos in the country. He painted a picture in which Canadian citizens would be taking justice into their own hands, a vigilante justice, to retaliate against offenders if we did not adopt the changes in this bill.
That is a great exaggeration. We have had the rule that people are eligible for parole after one-third of their sentence for most offences. That rule has been in effect in Canada for a long time, and for the most part parole has been a very successful operation.
Yes, there have been failures. There have been failures, but how many more failures would there have been if we did not have parole and people were kept in prison to the last day of their sentence and released without control or supervision?
We have had many fewer failures. The inmate returning to society is better prepared and has more support under a system of parole than otherwise.
We should also make it clear that the parole eligibility date of one-third of sentence does not mean that the Parole Board grants parole automatically. Not at all. The Parole Board has to be convinced that the inmate applying for parole has been rehabilitated and is no longer a danger to society. If he does not demonstrate that to the Parole Board he is not given parole.
In many cases, inmates continue to apply for parole and are not released. Of course, very often they are released on mandatory supervision. This is based on the principle that it is better to be released under supervision and control than released cold without any such control or supervision.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
I also mentioned that even before release on parole within the prison system itself inmates are continually reclassified, depending on their good or bad behaviour, between the maximum security institution, the medium security institution and the minimum security institution. People earn that right by their good behaviour and their commitment to their rehabilitation program. They are gradually given more and more freedom, because when they get into society they will have to know how to live in freedom. All of us have to live in freedom and control our own behaviour. We must have some way to impart that discipline to inmates in prisons. That is the purpose of a good rehabilitation program in prison.
There are other good reasons for parole. I mentioned that one of the major reasons is that it better prepares the inmate to return to society in a more responsible way and it provides protection and control. Elowever, the fact that parole is possible and prisoners can work for it is an incentive for good behaviour in the prison. It reduces tension and misconduct in prison. It makes it safer and more manageable in the prison for prison staff, guards and teachers and so on. The fact that the inmates know there is a parole system, that at one-third they can get parole if they behave well, is an incentive for good behaviour. It makes it easier, less tense and more manageable in the prison system.
Finally, parole reduces the cost to the prison system. It means that we place in less expensive parole conditions inmates who are able to go into such a situation. Instead of keeping people in very highly secured prisons, which are extremely expensive, we release them into either a minimum security prison or put them on full parole, which only involves the cost of a supervising parole officer. The expense is much lower, therefore it is much more cost effective. It has been proven to be successful in the great percentage of cases. It is a much better way of handling people who have committed offences of all kinds than keeping them in very high cost, highly secured penitentiaries.
I want to say a bit about the correctional investigator. When I was Solicitor General I introduced the position of correctional investigator for the first time. It was as a result of a very serious riot that took place in one of our penitentiaries. I set the position up under the Inquiries Act because I wanted to put the position into place immediately and could not wait for legislation. Therefore, it was created through an Order in Council under
the Inquiries Act. I announced in the House at that time, in the mid-seventies, that it was my intention to legislate the position as soon as possible.
It was also my intention to make the correctional investigator totally responsible to the House of Commons as the Auditor General is, as the Commissioner of Official Languages is. He would be an ombudsman in every sense of the word to investigate abuses against inmates or between inmates or other issues that have to be investigated in the prison system by a person who is independent of the prison system.
Unfortunately I was transferred out of the position of Solicitor General. I never had an opportunity to put in the legislation. All these years have gone by and now we are finally getting the legislation, but unfortunately the government has not listened to the views of those who are experts in this field. It has not listened to the views of many members of the House of Commons that the position of correctional investigator should be one in which he reports completely and entirely in the first place to the House of Commons and not to the Solicitor General, who can, under the way it is being done, expurgate, correct or take out parts of the report.
I simply want to conclude by repeating that in principle, parole is a means of protecting the public. It has been a part of our Canadian criminal justice system for a long time. We oppose this bill and the changes in this bill for three reasons: one, it does not really improve the protection of the public; two, it does not deal with the whole question of sentencing which has to be considered in conjunction with changes to the parole system; and three, the bill does not make the correctional investigator an officer of the House of Commons.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I listened extremely attentively to my hon. colleague, particularly because, as he told us in the latter portions of his speech, he is a former Solicitor General.
Then he told us something else which was very interesting. Not only is he a former Solicitor General but he was the Solicitor General who established the office of the correctional investigator. The interesting thing that I found is that he advised us that it was in the 1970s. He advised us that at that time he could not wait for legislation but that his intent was to make sure that the
May 12, 1992

correctional investigator reported to this House of Commons. That was in the mid-seventies, he told us.
What happened? Right up until last Thursday when we had report stage of this bill, the Liberal Party had put forward amendments calling for the correctional investigator to be able to report directly to the House of Commons. I only mention this in passing because sometimes the government tends to accuse the Liberal Party of shifting its position, shifting with the wind and shifting with public opinion. However, here is a perfect example of the very minister who brought the correctional investigator in, advising that his intent at that time was to have the correctional investigator report to the House. Here we are, many years later, with the Liberal Party bringing forth the same amendments requesting that the government permit the correctional investigator to report to the House of Commons and the government rejecting them.
I want to ask my hon. colleague a specific question so that I give him an opportunity to continue with his remarks with respect to the correctional investigator. In clauses 192 and 193 of Bill C-36, the correctional investigator is required to report to the minister. The wording is: "and the minister shall cause every such report to be laid before each House of Parliament". The minister will get a report and then he will cause each such report to be laid before the House.
We were concerned on this side of the House that it might not be the same report, even though the wording of the section is clear. That was confirmed by the hon. member for Lethbridge who said: "In terms of clauses 192 and 193, the report that the Cl gives to the minister will have information that will not ultimately come to the House of Commons because the minister has to respect the Privacy Act". What other acts or other concerns he has, we do not know.
I would appreciate if the member could comment to us about his reasons for wanting the correctional investigator at the time that he brought in the correctional investigator to report to the House and how important it is that the people of Canada can hear the reports of the correctional investigator through their elected representatives.
Government Orders


William Warren Allmand: As I said when we brought in the position of correctional investigator, it was as a result of an inquiry that was made into a very serious prison riot. I believe it was at Millhaven penitentiary.
In the report on that incident, the inquiry recommended we set up such a position because it appears that when the riot took place, there were a lot of complaints that had been developing, tensions had been building up in the prison. While the inmates tried to get their views through to certain prison authorities, the views were not going anywhere. They were not ascending up the order to the political level. They recommended there be some kind of ombudsman or correctional investigator.
I consulted with my officials and it was felt that we should try and put something in place as quickly as possible. The legislative timetable was very full so we did it. We set up the position under the Inquiries Act.
When I did that I announced in the House that this was a temporary measure and, although the position was not legislated, it was my intention that the reports of the correctional investigator would be presented in the House. They would come to me as the Solicitor General but they would also be given completely in the House.
I must say the types of people we appointed would not have tolerated any sort of change in their reports. The person I have in mind is Inger Hansen, the correction investigator for years and who is now a judge in one of our courts in Canada. She was an outstanding correctional investigator. She published several key reports on situations and conditions in prison and they were tabled in the House completely as she had put them forward.
I cannot recall when I was a Solicitor General any tampering with those reports but there was no legislation that said we had to do that.
As I said, I was in time switched to the ministry of Indian and northern affairs and other individuals came into the position of Solicitor General. Then there was the change of government, Mr. Clark's government took over, and then back to Mr. Trudeau and then to Mr. Mulroney. This has not been legislated until now.
It was always our intention to make the position of correctional investigator independent and really meaningful. It had to be something like the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
In those cases in which the Auditor General investigates a situation, you can imagine what would happen if the Auditor General's report had to go to the President of the Treasury Board in the first place. We would get a very expurgated version of the report.
If the Commissioner of Official Languages, investigating certain departments or Crown corporations of the government, found there was abuse of our Official Languages Act, that could not be reported directly to the House of Commons and to the public so the public could find out really what was going on.
In prison it is so difficult to get the facts. There are so many layers of security between an individual who may be abused by other inmates, who may be abused by certain guards. There is tension building up that could lead to a riot or lead to hostage taking. In the past people have been killed in hostage taking incidents in our prisons. That position must be one which is independent and therefore responsible to the House of Commons.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised this evening at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa West-Human Rights; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Fisheries; the hon. member for Mississauga East-Taxation; the hon. member for Willowdale-Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, this is a very complex issue for me to be speaking on, not only because I am not a lawyer, but also because I am tom in terms of the process we use of rehabilitation in this country. In the south comer of my riding there is one of the oldest jails in Canada, the Don jail. It is a provincial institution. I have been in this institution to examine the conditions in which the prisoners live at this institution. One must wonder whether there would ever be any hope that the people experiencing life in the Don jail could ever be rehabilitated. It is a jail that one would imagine in some
Third World country in which there are absolutely no human rights at all.
As I walked or ran by the Don Jail-which is near the Don Valley, on the western side of my riding-I often thought about the fact that our rehabilitation system in this country is not really working. I wondered why we could not develop systems in which these people could get out and work in the community, work in the valley, plant trees, or clean up the garbage so that something productive was being done with their lives.
I have a natural leaning toward taking the approach that my colleague from Montreal, our former Solicitor General, talked about earlier today. I listened attentively to our critic from Scarborough West who with a very strong sense of logic was fair to certain aspects of the bill, while measuring whether the protection of society was really being covered in this bill. He deduced after reading every line in this bill that it did not meet that test.
I want to relate to the House a personal experience that I had. A letter was written to me by one of my constituents back in January. It concerns Christopher Stephenson and came from the lawyer. It states:
Dear Mr. Mills:
Further to our recent discussion you are aware that we represent Jim and Anna Stephenson, parents of Christopher Stephenson who is the eleven year old child who was raped and murdered by Joseph Roger Fredericks, a certified psychopath and paedophiliac. As you know from recent press reports Mr. Fredericks was murdered by a fellow inmate at the Kingston Penitentiary on January 3, 1992.
During our discussion about this terrible tragedy and the upcoming inquest into Christopher's death, I expressed to you my concern that the Stephensons were going to have to re-mortgage their home and even sell some of their assets in order to pay for the costs associated with retaining legal counsel and actively participating in the inquest. I urged the Stephensons to seriously reconsider whether it was truly in their best interest to proceed with the inquest. The inquest could only force them to re-live a horror which commands all of their strength and discipline to overcome-
Moreover, the evidence will disclose that this senseless and brutal murder was avoidable had government officials used a scintilla of common sense. Knowing how avoidable this crime was can only result in further frustration and despair-
Nevertheless, the Stephensons responded by telling me that the horrifying reality of their son's death will be with them forever. A day does not go by where they do not think of Christopher. However, a terrible tragedy would be made worse if they did not
May 12, 1992

demand that the inquest proceed with their full and active participation.
This situation has been written about in Saturday Night magazine. There was an article by Patricia Pearson entitled "Frankenstein's Orphan". In this article she writes: "It is simply beyond comprehension how government officials allowed Joseph Fredericks back on to the street". The purpose of this upcoming inquest is to provide the answers.
She writes:
Joseph Fredericks spent his childhood in foster homes, his adolescence in an institution for the severely retarded (when in fact he was not retarded), 24 years of his adulthood (1959 to 1983) in a hospital for the criminally insane and in his middle age in Ontario prisons. Mr. Fredericks suffered from paedophilia and psychopathy. Mr. Fredericks had committed numerous rapes on little children.
In 1954 when he was 11, Children's Aid concluded that he was simply unmanageable. As a teenager he learned how to molest children smaller than he was. He spent time in a maximum security hospital for the criminally insane where he was kept, certified annually as a danger to others until he was 40 years of age.
In 1963 he raped 3 children before the authorities caught up with him, while only minimum security privileges were in force. It was well documented by federal authorities that Mr. Fredericks could: "con the gold out of an old lady's teeth". In 1983 he attempted to rape another little girl but fortunately her father came to the rescue, however on the same day, another young child had been sodomized.
Government records confirm that Joseph Fredericks was a walking time bomb, explosive, extremely dangerous and incapable of rehabilitation!
By 1988 there was a political problem with respect to dangerous offenders being in halfway houses and Solicitor General James Kelleher ordered that all sex offenders be removed from halfway houses without taking into account where these people would go. Joseph Fredericks was one of those people. Through a paper shuffle, federal officials lost track of where Mr. Fredericks was with one thinking that the other was responsible. It was during this period of time that Christopher Stephenson was abducted at knife point from a Brampton mall, terrorized, repeatedly raped and murdered.
The night before Christopher was abducted, his father Jim went to his son's bedroom to wish him goodnight. Christopher said to his father: "Goodnight, Dad, I love you". The next day Christopher was abducted and later his father had to identify his only son in the morgue.
The system failed. The system failed badly. The public is outraged and horrified by what happened to Christopher Stephenson.
This upcoming inquest will be one of the most important inquests that has ever taken place in this country.
Government Orders
It is an example like this that brings the complexity of this bill to life for me. I am sure there are times when people in Canada, as they are listening to these debates, wonder just what the day to day meaning of the various clauses that we are debating is in a bill as complex as Bill C-36.
It is only when we hear about a case like Christopher Stephenson that we must realize that if this bill is flawed, if it does not meet the protection of society test that my colleague from Scarborough West talked about so logically, precisely and thoroughly, if it does not meet this test then it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to withdraw it, fix it, repair it and not bring it back until it is correct.
I support everything that my colleague from Scarborough West put forward in his presentation. This is a very sensitive issue because when an inquest like this one comes to the public forum often some of the people directly involved, in this case the parents, do not have the resources to retain counsel to help them through the inquest. In this particular case the Stephensons are in that position. They do not have resources.
This is the case of a public inquest. Everything that will go on in that inquest will have a direct bearing on things we do in finishing this piece of legislation. It has to because it was real life. It was not theory. It was not probability.
This was a situation where someone slipped through the system, someone who should not have slipped through the system. The system was negligent. He got out and he murdered and raped a young 11-year old boy.
It is this kind of action and this kind of breakdown in the system which leave most people in the country today wondering whether or not our judicial system is really working.
Earlier this week my leader, my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River and I were in Toronto to meet with some Toronto metro councillors. All the metro councillors were saying there is a feeling that the judicial system in this country is not working right now.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
Imagine the situation that happened on Yonge Street last week. Close to 1,000 people participated in kicking in windows, breaking windows, or whatever. As of two days ago there was only one charge that lead to a jail sentence. It makes it pretty tough for a police force to operate with some of the rules, regulations and influences we are putting on them.
We are reviewing this legislation, but we will have to review more legislation in this House as it pertains to law and order. We have to ensure that we give our police forces the necessary tools to protect the society they are mandated to protect.
I want to return for a minute to the Stephenson case, which is directly related to this bill. The Stephenson family should not have to lose its home or mortgage its home in order to be fully represented by counsel at the inquest. Many other organizations that are part of this inquest are receiving help with their lawyer's fees from government institutions.
The parents of this 11-year old victim deserve support as much as any of the organizations represented there, whether they be the John Howard Society or federal institutions responsible for putting forward their side of the case.
Could we imagine the institution responsible, which is a government institution, coming to an inquest without legal counsel? Why cannot we make sure that legal counsel for the Stephensons is covered by the taxpayer of Canada? I do think there would be a single person in this country who would not support the Solicitor General assisting the mother and the father of this young 11-year old boy who was tortured, raped and murdered by a man who slipped through the system because our system broke down. I do not think there would be anyone in this country who would not want that family to have proper counsel and proper support during such an important inquest.
I appeal to the Solicitor General. I appeal to the Government of Canada. We have spent taxpayers' money in this Chamber on many other things, some of them much more questionable in terms of their worthiness than this.
Because it is something that will not only benefit this family but hopefully their input in this inquest will allow us to make a better piece of legislation, I think it is
incumbent upon the government to react to that request which has been put to it.
I started off by saying I find this to be a very complex issue. I tend by nature to feel that if we are to rehabilitate people, we are not going to rehabilitate them by having them locked in cages like the Don jail where people do not have a chance to rebuild themselves. They do not have a chance to go out and breathe fresh air. They do not have a chance to put their hands to work or put their minds to work. Right now in the Don jail people cannot even paint or clean floors. It used to be that prisoners in our institutions did things that gave them a sense of productivity at the end of the day. A few years ago even that exercise in the province of Ontario was done away with.
We have much to do in this community in terms of planting trees and cleaning up valleys. With proper supervision that could be the beginning of rehabilitation. At the same time I will always remember the letter that I received from a constituent on behalf of the Stephenson family because someone slipped through the system, someone who had a known track record as a serious sex offender, got into the community and tortured, raped and murdered an 11-year old little boy.
It was a flaw in the system. It never should have happened. It is important that we craft this legislation in a way that that kind of thing will never happen again.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment my colleague for the way he expressed a very sad case. That incident like so many incidents unfortunately happen throughout our country because someone happens to fall through the system. Lives are ruined and/or lost because we are not just quite as good as we should be in implementing the safeguards we have built in.
I am wondering if my colleague from Toronto who represents the riding of Broadview-Greenwood would comment on what he was talking about with respect to the rehabilitative process. How does he envisage legislation like this? Such legislation should not be triggered by time but should really start to be put in place when the person who is serving time has shown, in the assessment of the people who administer the system, that he or she wants to be rehabilitated. Once this is shown there is a possibility of rehabilitation. Then the system of parole should enter into it but not until that time. I would like my colleague to comment on that issue, please.
May 12, 1992


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon for the question.
First, the Don Jail is in my community. This institution was originally designed and constructed for 400 inmates. Last weekend I had a chat with someone who works there and currently it is holding more than 750 people. For starters our institutional set-up is all wrong.
We do not have enough funding for therapy in this country to provide the programs for proper rehabilitation. The programs have been designed but we do not have enough resources to make sure that those people who require those programs have a place to go. Therefore we are stockpiling all of these people, especially the sex offenders. I think one of my colleagues talked about this earlier. We do not have enough resources to look after these people.
As I said in my remarks, unless we go back to basics and put it all on the table and realize that unless we provide the proper therapy and the right amount of resources to meet all of the conditions we face in our rehabilitation system, then we will continue to exacerbate the problem. It is almost inevitable, by avoiding facing the problem head on, we could have further breakdowns in the system that could create another Fredericks.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to make a few remarks on Bill C-36, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
As I was preparing for this bill and listening to the various comments of the speakers, it occurred to me that the bill itself appears to be, once again, emotional response legislation, the emotional response I have seen in other pieces of legislation which I feel does not solve any problems.
I thought back to early morning hours some 10 or 11 years ago when I got a phone call from the local police in my small community advising me that a person who had been released from prison some 36 hours earlier, in this case on a writ of habeas corpus, was suspected of having murdered and sexually assaulted one young woman and having sexually assaulted and attempted to murder a second woman travelling with her.
I remember the feeling I had in those early morning hours as the police told me what had happened and my
Government Orders
own knowledge of the earlier release of this person who was being held on a second sexual assault charge.
It was in the summer, it was warm, the windows were open, the sliding doors were open in my home. I had two young children, both daughters at home at the time. My response was to close everything up to ensure the protection of those around me, even though I knew the person well enough to know exactly what he would have done and as an ad hoc prosecutor, gave the police instructions as to what I felt they should be doing.
But my response was the usual response of people who have been hurt, people who cannot quite believe what is happening to those around them, even though I did not know the two young women. As the person who carried through and prosecuted that case I eventually did get to know the young woman who survived. I remember reliving through my interview with her, through the preliminary hearing and through the jury trial her feelings as she was stabbed 17 times, her feelings as she was sexually assaulted, her expression of her feelings as she watched and heard her friend being bound, sexually assaulted and stabbed, and yes, her feelings as she heard the last gasp of her friend as she died out in the barren sagebrush in British Columbia.
The wish for reparation, the wish for punishment is strong when we are touched personally by any such event. I have heard other stories over the course of my legal career of similar situations. I have defended and prosecuted on both sides of the fence, and the most wrenching ones are those in the area of sexual assault, particularly sexual assault of young boys and young girls. The feeling is always there regardless of what side of the fence you are on, whether prosecuting or defending, the feeling of throwing away the key and never letting those people back into society.
As we hear about the more celebrated cases, if you will, throughout Canada and the United States and the publicity surrounding these, we have a tendency to lose sight of the fact that we in Canada in particular are a very humane, a very caring society. We have a tendency to lose sight of the fact that even though the things that some of these people have done would state otherwise, they are human beings that we ourselves have to deal with and care for, whether they be next door neighbours, whether they be acquaintances or whether they be people who we have only read or heard about, we have a duty to these people as well as to the victims.

May 12, 1992
Government Orders
The victims are not just the victims of the crime itself, but victims in a broader perspective of the families, the friends and the acquaintances, and in fact the people in the communities of those people who have been the subject of the violence of the person accused.
I tell these stories to emphasize the point that in spite of the fact that we may think these people are inhuman because the very acts they have committed are inhuman, we still have a duty to look at what the causes were. We still have a duty to look at how we can prevent the same sort of thing happening again. We have a duty to the victims of the crimes to help them overcome the horror they have experienced.
We are not going to do it with this bill. This bill does not do what it purports to do. It is a response to that inner feeling of hate, of revenge that we see in a minority of people in our country, crying out for something to be done. They need direction. I suppose the initial response is one of revenge when you have been hurt. You want to strike back.
We are legislators. We have to go beyond the initial animal instincts to strike back at someone who strikes at us. We have a duty to the people of Canada to think through what we as legislators are going to do in the legislation that is going to affect Canada for some good number of years to come.
Have we done it in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act or have we simply thrown out something to those who are crying for blood? I believe we have only thrown something out. We have not got to the root cause.
If we look at what is in this bill, it is no wonder that people are cynical of some of the moves that this government has made. Clause 203 essentially gives the sentencing judge the power to postpone the eligibility date for full parole of an offender from one-third to one-half of the sentence. The statistics speak fairly clearly on that, in fact that is what is happening now. Forty-seven to 52 per cent of those presently incarcerated are spending that amount of their term before even having their case looked at for eligibility for parole.
What have we done by putting it into a statute? Have we done anything at all? We have allowed the judge to have a look at it.
I have appeared in front of a good number of judges, some good and some not so good. I have a great deal of respect for the judiciary. They have worked hard to get where they are. They have studied hard to get where they are. In most cases, I respect the decisions they make. They are human, in spite of what people think, and they do make mistakes.
However, the National Parole Board has been set in place and it is made up of men and women who also can make mistakes. Over-all, with proper training and with what they have already been given within the National Parole Board, it seems to me that they may be better positioned in a full hearing to listen to all sides of the story about whether a person should be released or not. It should not be thrown in at the time of sentencing when the judge is considering how the victims have been affected at that time, the evidence that was before him or her at that time and what sentence should be meted out to the offender that would adequately punish and/or rehabilitate the person.
It seems to me that clause 203 of this bill is misdirected, that we are better off going back to the National Parole Board under the present system that could be properly shored up.
It is interesting also to see that the government has allowed a major loophole to remain in the bill. It has forced the National Parole Board to release proven non-violent offenders in order to make room for those violent offenders coming into the system.
It seems to me, and I know some of the other speakers here today have spoken about this, that it increases this revolving door syndrome. What have we solved? We should be looking at where we want to go once again in the future. We should not just be looking at the bottom line, the bottom dollar line. Let us look at where we want to go and where we have been. Let us learn from our past mistakes. Let us look at rehabilitation and education.
May 12, 1992

We are throwing good money after bad in doing what we are doing because if our recidivism rate does not drop, if our offenders are those who have come back time and time again, we as society have lost out.
For each time we have to go through a trial, each time we have to reimprison someone who has already been in the system, it is a cost to society as a whole. Let us look at the root causes of what we are doing.
There are some good things the government has done, not necessarily in this area, but in the area of corrections.
I refer specifically to a plan which the city of Merritt in my riding is looking at in trying to get a correction facility for offenders within the native community in which it offers as the final step, before going into the parole system, a chance for retraining within the system.
It has a small facility in a smaller community that offers much to the native community with its technical school run by natives and with a strong and progressive native community with five different bands in the area that are very supportive of the concept. If this area is chosen, and I hope that decision will be made soon and Merritt will be the site of this facility, it is a positive step.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was totally correct when he talked about the system of parole as it was set up being re-entry back into society as a whole. If we drop the parole system, if we drop the system of retraining within the system itself, then we lose that buffer zone between being in prison and being out in society as a whole.
As such, once again we are going to run into problems. The recidivism rate goes up and we end up with that person back in prison once again.
What we look at in sentencing in criminal law is protection of the public, rehabilitation, reparation to the victim and the punishment aspect. I suggest that those four things also have to be looked at in the overall picture when we are releasing people back into society.
We have to also in each case look at crimes of violence, sexual assault crimes and crimes against property somewhat differently. We have to look at the education and training of these people and try to make sure that those who commit crimes of violence, if they need psychologi-
Private Members' Business
cal help, medical help or retraining type help, receive that sort of help.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about one of the things that the government has not addressed in this bill and that is the basic education of people as a whole. It looks at how society sees criminals and how society can get around it. I would like to leave on that note.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5 p.m., 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 S-7, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Royal Society of Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill shall be deemed to have been read a first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Brightwell:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Governor in Council should amend the regulations made pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act to provide that importations under authority of General Import Permits No. 1 (dairy products), No. 2 (chicken), No. 7 (turkey) and No. 8 (eggs) shall be subject to a mandatory 48-hour stay of the importer in the country from which the goods are imported.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say a few words on the the motion put forward by the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo which was moved in the House on April 8, 1992 and on which we are taking up the debate.

May 12, 1992
Private Members' Business The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Governor in Council should amend the regulations made pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act to provide that importations under the authority of General Import Permits No. 1 (dairy products), No. 2 (chicken), No. 7 (turkey) and No. 8 (eggs) shall be subject to a mandatory 48-hour stay of the importer in the country from which the goods are imported.
This motion is very timely because many communities across the country have suffered dramatically because of cross-border shopping. As many of the studies have shown, often the trigger mechanism for cross-border shopping is due to very low prices for gasoline. In companion with that is very often the price of milk
The fact that this motion is passed in the House does not necessarily mean that the government will pass an Order in Council to implement the recommendation of the House. It certainly gives some expression of the will of the House. It would have quite a dramatic effect.
In the community of Sault Ste Marie, cross-border shopping has been estimated to have cost approximately $140 million per year in lost sales and something like 1,000 jobs.
What happens in this case is that not only are the taxes much lower for gasoline, but often retailers use a product like milk as a loss leader in order to bring customers across the border to get into more extensive shopping.
The resolution before the House by the hon. member today is that this importation is provided for under the general imports regulation permits which provide for the importation on a regular basis. It is not only once a day, but more often if required for some ten kilograms of turkey or turkey parts, nine kilograms of chicken or chicken parts, $20 worth of milk and some two dozen eggs.
We have a supply management system in this country which has served both producers and consumers well. It has provided a very important industry to the country. The importance of that industry can be brought to measure by the magnitude of the rally on Parliament Hill on February 21 of this year. That was a bright sunny morning. There was about one foot of freshly fallen snow on the lawns of Parliament.
Some 40,000 farmers, suppliers and rural people right across this country came to Parliament Hill to talk to the Prime Minister, although he did not show up. The
Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP were there. The farmers came to tell politicians and the Government of Canada that the supply management system has worked well for Canada. There is no question that you can buy practically any commodity on earth cheaper some place else in the world if you want to do it. If you do that, you destroy the fabric of rural Canada.
This motion today would have a profound impact on maintaining that supply management system, certainly in areas like the Algoma district where we have lost something like 40 per cent of our production to crossborder shopping. That has now spread out really throughout the dairy producers in northern Ontario.
This motion has a profound influence. I must say that it could have a profound influence. I am not very confident that even if the motion passed here in the House the government would implement it.
I put the question to the Minister of Agriculture a couple of weeks ago. I asked him if he supports this motion put forward by the chairman of the agriculture committee. He said he will support it in the House but he does not have responsibility when it comes to government. That is the kind of forked-tongue approach that we have come to know and which really makes us wonder how relevant the House of Commons is. The House of Commons passes a resolution and the Minister of Agriculture says he will support it in the House but when it comes to the cabinet table to pass an Order in Council or a regulation he would not make any commitment there. That was somebody else's responsibility, the Minister for International Trade or the minister of external affairs. They have the responsibility for the Export and Import Permits Act and so he really would give no real commitment.
I guess we really question the commitment of the government because we know what happened in the free trade deal. In the negotiations in 1986 and 1987, the Minister of Agriculture at the time, Mr. John Wise, said: "You have no concern. We are going to protect the supply management system. When we reduce the tariffs on processed dairy products, we will simply put all those products on the import control list". When he made that announcement in Toronto in January of 1988, the chairman of the finance committee of the United States Senate, Lloyd Bentsen, said: "You will not do that. If you do that, which is not in our deal, we will take you to the GATT".
May 12, 1992

As soon as the government put processed dairy products on the import control list in late December of 1988, the United States immediately took us to GATT on ice-cream and yoghurt and struck down those moves to put those processed dairy products on the import control list. The government agreed to it in December of 1989.
You have the situation in which the government says one thing-and the Prime Minister has said it many times here in the House-but does another and that terrifies Canadian farmers.
We have a resolution here that would strengthen and support the dairy and poultry industry. We have already been telegraphed by the Minister of Agriculture saying that is a private members' motion. When it comes up in the House, as a private member he will support it. What happens to it in the cabinet chamber? What happens to it when an Order in Council is drafted? He will not give any commitment there. That is exactly what happened in our whole supply management system.
When the government signed the free trade deal with the United States, the United States government kept its GATT waiver from the 1954-55 period of negotiation, but the Canadian government did not gain a similar import control authority.
Therefore, this is a one-sided deal in which the United States has one thing applying to it and the Canadian government has something else applying to our producers. That is why they are very concerned. I hope that this resolution will pass. I hope that the government will be able to implement it because it would stabilize that whole supply management system, which is what the government claimed it was going to do but we are not sure whether it will.
I think it is an important resolution. I hope that the government will allow it to come to a vote and will vote for it. Clearly, if you examine the various sectors of the country you will see the taking of a very substantial portion of the Canadian market as a result of the present configuration of this regulation of the Export and Import Permits Act.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk about Motion No. 633, offered by one of my colleagues and neighbours here in the House of Commons, the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
Like the former speaker we are all graduates of that fine institution of agriculture, the University of Guelph. That training has come to serve us all well. However, I would like to say at the outset that the member's comments concerning the Government of Canada, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, were spoken with a forked tongue.
I would like to begin my remarks by concentrating on that. The Minister of Agriculture has come down very firmly on this question. Earlier, in the winter, he took a strong stand in favour of supply management in Canada. He carried this position forward to the GATT round of talks and made sure that Canada's position to maintain supply management was maintained.
I do not think there was any misdirection in his intentions, either as a member or as the minister responsible for agriculture in this country. I think of his support, I am sure that my colleagues from Guelph would appreciate this, of the George Morris Centre at the University of Guelph. It is a centre dedicated to enhancing agribusiness competitiveness, both within Canada and in terms of Canada's position internationally-
This is very important. In fact late last month there was a major conference on this very issue in Ottawa. Canadian producers and government officials are seized with this question and are working together very positively on it.
There is no question that the motion would help to preserve the integrity of supply management as it relates to agriculture. One must keep that in context with the whole issue of cross-border shopping. Shoppers are indicating that they want to go across the border to buy goods and services. They resent the long line-ups at the border. Shopkeepers in Canada would certainly prefer that they would buy in Canada.

May 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
This bill would give pause to single-day trippers. There are two ways to view this. Farmers in Canada certainly want to protect the marketing board system and would say anything to discourage anything that would take away from a system that has been firmly in place since 1971.
One must look at some of the positives, and ensure that Canadians are acquainted with some of the positives that have come out of the Canadian context. For example, milk prices have performed well at both the producer and retail levels. A major study that was presented to the Dairy Farmers of Canada annual meeting in Newfoundland this year showed this.
Another interesting result of this particular survey and research study showed that producer prices have risen more slowly than consumer incomes since the introduction of the long-term dairy policy. This implies that consumers can better afford to buy today's dairy products.
What we have in place in Canada is a positive program and we cannot jeopardize it as it is coming along. All of us are concerned about productivity gains in Canada in all walks of life and the study shows that Canadian producers have made significant productivity gains. They compare to or surpass those made by other producers in other countries.
That is very significant, as is the fact that the rate of decline in farm numbers under supply management has been comparable to U.S. figures for farm numbers.
It shows that we are very much in a competitive position with our neighbours to the south. I think that Canadians are slowly coming to realize this. They are coming to realize that the food prices in this country, as rationalization occurs and as our better understanding of the market occurs, are coming more in line with those in countries with which we compete and with the United States.
At the same time we are able to maintain a system of agriculture, a supply management system, which enhances-it has been a way of life since 1971 that has served us well for the reasons I have given. It is starting to show major productivity gains for Canada at a time when we are forced to be competitive in virtually everything we do.
These are very positive signs. I cannot understand the member opposite saying that these signals are not being accurately and consistently given by the members of this government and particularly the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture has come out very strongly on this particular issue. He has shown its importance to the Canadian infrastructure, not only to agriculture but to our whole economy. Agriculture is the driving force in our economy. It has been since the country was formed. It always will be.
This fact must be driven home to the members opposite. The fact is that we have agriculture, and in this particular case, supply management well figured into our over-all strategy as we deal with the rest of the countries in the GATT negotiations. We are not going to compromise our position which has shown tremendous gains since its introduction in 1971.
I will call on members opposite to rethink some of that great education they received from the fount of all knowledge of agriculture in this country, the University of Guelph, and examine those positions that the University of Guelph and those interested in agriculture are putting forward at such centres as the George Morris Centre. I ask them to come to the new realization that this government is on the right track not only with agriculture and the future of agriculture as it relates to a world interlinked economy but is on track in doing what is right for the citizens of Canada for today and for the future.
I would like to close with those few comments. It is a very important argument which has been brought up here today. It furthers what I said in this very place in February when I talked about the importance of getting the message out to Canadians and to the world about what farming means to Canada.
Supply management is one of the building blocks that we have made to give us a future. We do not want to turn back on that. This government is committed, and it has shown its commitment since my earlier speech in the House, to stand firm on this issue with the countries of the world. I am proud that the government has done this. This Minister of Agriculture has certainly never let Canadians down.
I am sure that the mover of this motion, himself the chairman of the agriculture committee, knows how
May 12, 1992

strong the Minister of Agriculture is and I know that he supports him in every way.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the remarks of the hon. member who just preceded me. On the one hand he said that the chair of the agriculture committee knows how hard the Minister of Agriculture has worked on behalf of Canadian farmers. On the other hand he is opposing the motion put forward by his colleague, which we are debating today.
It is too bad that the government cannot find it in its wisdom to support this motion, because I think most Canadians would find it very supportable.
On first blush, many Canadians, and certainly Canadians in my riding, do not want to be told where they can shop. There is no doubt about that. It is not a popular thing for a politician to rise in the House of Commons and suggest to Canadians where to shop. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to those people we represent to provide them with the information so that they will better understand the implications of the decision they make. The choice is theirs, but one should be making choices with full knowledge of the implications of one's choice.
Therefore, I rise today to give full support to the motion put forward by the hon. member. It calls for a 48-hour period of time in the United States before someone travelling from Canada can bring back supply-managed products such as milk, butter, eggs, chicken and turkey.
Currently, Canadian General Import Permits allow Canadians on same-day shopping trips across the border to bring in small quantities of these foods, which at the border are lower-priced food products, for personal use. However, the reality is that many Canadians, and for some very good reasons, are hurting economically now and have found a less-expensive source of milk, eggs, cheese, et cetera. As a result, they are going to the United States on a weekly basis and purchasing enough of these products to provide for their families for the entire week.
The implication of that fact is that our Canadian milk producers are losing $25.5 million annually to crossborder shopping, for example. Fifteen per cent of the milk consumed in British Columbia is purchased across the border. Those lost sales to our British Columbia dairy farmers are enormous. It also has a direct impact
Private Members' Business
on their quota, in terms of the amount of milk that they are allowed to produce.
Lost cheese sales annually in Canada amounted to $7.5 million. In the turkey industry, including producers and retailers, there is a staggering $23 million loss to the Canadian industry.
These food items are often used by the Americans in border communities as loss leaders to encourage Canadians to come across the border to buy those products, and while there hopefully spend money on other items.
It has been my experience and the experience of a number of people in my community, in addition to the supply-managed industries, who have visited communities that are a little further south of the border-and in British Columbia I will give the examples of Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington-that in those communities these products-milk, cheese, butter, eggs, chickens and turkeys-not only met the price but in some cases exceeded the price of Canadian producers and retailers.
When we are talking about this tremendous crossborder shopping we are not only talking about the impact on our farmers. If our family farmers lose their dairy farms, lose their turkey farms, or lose their chicken farms, for every farm that is lost we are one step closer to a loss of sovereignty. In addition to that terrible loss we are also facing loss of jobs in the Canadian retailing industry. There is loss of jobs in the packaging of milk products, in the distribution of these products and at the retail end.
For the government to say that the Minister of Agriculture is doing his absolute and very best is just begging the question a tiny bit.
We have had several debates in this House about the government's responsibility at the GATT and the arguments pertaining to supply management around article XI. Yet we still do have a conclusion of that. It claims that it is trying to protect our farmers at the GATT and some of us question just how hard it is trying. Now that we have a copy of the draft document for the North American free trade agreement, we have the ominous possibility of supply management being gone under the NAFTA.
On the one hand we are fighting for protection of our farmers at the GATT. As I said, many of us question just how hard we are fighting. On the other hand we have the prospect of possibly losing supply management under the North American free trade agreement.

May 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
I along with many of my colleagues very much respect the right of Canadian men, women and families to shop at the place of their choice. I also very much believe they should be aware of the dramatic loss that decision is going to have down the road. I would hope that Canadians who do not need to shop in the United States would consider the implications of taking their money and their business across the border to an industry, I might add, that is very highly subsidized by the American government and is subsidized in a different way than the subsidies Canadian farmers enjoy under supply management.
In fact there is not a lot of subsidy going on in supply management. What we have is supply management, very good management of our industries that ensures our farmers are adequately and fairly paid for the products they produce.
In many instances in the United States the government is buying up the surplus-and the farmers are not getting an adequate price-and then dumping the product not only on the American market but whenever possible in Canada.
I would urge all members of this House of Commons to support the hon. member's motion to protect Canadian dairy and poultry industries on behalf of the farmers and the retail workers in this country who will be affected.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to stand before the House today to speak to the hon. member's motion. He is suggesting changes in the import permits act that would require Canadians to stay in the United States for 48 hours before they could bring back dairy, egg or poultry products into Canada.
I would also like to say that it is a disappointment to me government members do not see fit to support this motion. It is my understanding that there is no mutual agreement. I do not know whether they are going to show dislike for this motion by absenting themselves or whether they will have the strength to stand in then-place and be counted if that is truly the way they feel.
I had hoped the conditions of uncertainty that exist today in the agricultural industry, and in particular the
supply management industry of dairy, eggs and poultry production, would have caused the government to amend the regulations in the Export and Import Permits Act to require that people who wished to bring these products into the country would have to be out of the country for more than the 48 hours. As we know we have to do this with many other products. We have to do it with clothing, cigarettes and alcohol. I see no reason why food products have to be exempt from that regulation.
The Minister of Agriculture recently told the Standing Committee on Agriculture that though he supported this motion personally it was not up to him to implement it. In the interest of a strong, healthy, economically viable agrifood industry in Canada, of the major roles these primary producers play and of other parts of the processing sector, et cetera, the minister should employ every possible opportunity he can to fulfil the requirements of this motion.
The present rule allows the importation of dairy, eggs and poultry products of a value that does not exceed $20. In the case of chicken one can bring in over nine kilograms, and I think it is one turkey or two dozen eggs. One can do this as often as one wants. If one is close to a border point and wants to do that several times in one day one can do so.
I do not think many Canadians realize the damage this can do with the increasing levels of cross-border shopping. We must keep in mind that the original intent of these regulations, general import permits Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8, is not relevant today. Times have changed. We hear this every day from the government when it talks about how it should be.
The Conservatives stand and laud the supposed all beneficial and no negative effects of the free trade agreement with the United States. They say we must look at these changes. We must look at how the world is changing and make these adjustments.
I beg the indulgence of the government. I beg the understanding of the government to realize that this is another place we should change. In border communities Canadians have used and abused the rule. I do not think anybody over the years has begrudged if someone has crossed into the United States a couple of times a year, or three or four times a year, to bring back some products. We know it is just generally accepted.
May 12, 1992

At the same time Canadians want the medicare privileges, the support we have here, our educational system and all such things that Canadian society provides for them. They are being very short-sighted. It does have a major effect.
About 3 per cent of fluid milk or the milk that is consumed in Canada comes in from the United States. On might say: "What is 3 per cent?" When we go into specific areas such as border communities in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia, the percentages in many of those areas is much higher. This places an incredible pressure on the local agrifood industry, from the primary producer right up to the retailer.
I remind the House and I remind all Canadians that the agrifood industry in Canada is a $43 billion industry which employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Canadians are attracted to shop in the United States for these products by the promise of cheaper product. Having been somewhat involved, not in the dairy industry but in agriculture, I know that different stores and different suppliers use what is referred to in the trade as loss leaders. If they can get you in the door, maybe even taking a loss on one product, they hope that you will pick up the rest of your grocery basket while you are there. What I have jokingly said over the years with a mixed operation, what you lose on the bananas you hope to make up for on the peaches. As long as the grocery cart goes out the door, as a store owner you are at the same end point. However store owners, especially those just across the border, find the weak spot. They find some items and in many cases it is dairy, egg, and poultry products. They get the consumers to come over for those and hopefully they will buy others.
When we look at the facts we see the U.S. product in most cases is either equal in price or more expensive when we look at the grocery basket. I am talking not about specific items. Every once in a while there will be specific items, but we should look at the full grocery basket.
There was a study done by a Food Marketing Institute in Washington in May 1991, so it is not very far out of date. It is only one year ago. I do not think things have changed that much in that one year. It discovered that in Ottawa Canadians spent $56.75 for a 15-item grocery basket and that was converted to U.S. It was the
Private Members' Business
cheapest among other cities including Washington, Tokyo, Bern, Canberra, Mexico City, London, Rome, Paris, Madrid, Seoul and Stockholm. Canadians were reported to be spending the lowest percentage of average weekly income on food of the 15 countries surveyed at 14.2 per cent. The only other cities which are even close in range as a percentage of the average income are Washington, Bonn and Canberra.
I checked this morning and a major retailer in Cornwall sold a four-litre jug of milk for $1.89 Canadian. Across the St. Lawrence River at a discount U.S. super store milk was $1.89 U.S. It was more expensive; the same price plus the exchange, therefore making it more expensive.
Canadians still continue to cross the border. They are being penny wise and pound foolish. Supply management and dairy, egg and poultry farmers in this country have been the backbone of our agrifood industry and one of the strong parts of our Canadian economy. One in twelve Canadians are involved in the agrifood industry.
I think we have to realize the repercussions of what we are doing because those producers have a reasonable level of profit. They are able to practise and to carry on management practices that we all want them to carry on as a society.
Beyond that this is an issue of sovereignty. A country that is dependent upon another country for its food is not a sovereign nation. I have said and I will continue to say, as goes agriculture so goes the economy of any country. I beg the government to make this change to give our producers, our society and our country the protection they need so we can continue to have a strong agrifood industry in Canada.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the December 5, 1991 motion of the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo to amend the general import permits regulations on dairy products, chicken, turkey and eggs.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for his interest and initiative in bringing this motion to the House. From my experiences living next to him, his riding is next to mine, he has listened to these people extremely well and he represents them well. This is a motion that hqs grown out of his conversations with them to address both that difficulty and the question of cross-border shopping.

May 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
This motion relates directly to the impact of crossborder shopping on Canada's dairy, chicken, turkey and egg producers. While the government is sensitive to the needs and concerns of the producers of these products and to the interests of the constituents the hon. member represents, and some of those overlap into my riding, it is not prepared to support the motion at this time. But it does like what the member is getting at and is addressing that issue now and will be in the long term.
I would also like to assure the House that the government is actively engaged in addressing the complex issue of cross-border shopping. Before I outline our activities in this area, I would like to briefly address the government's reasons for not proceeding further with this motion at this time. Just before I do that, the New Democratic Party member for Mission-Coquitlam in her comments to this motion raised a point that too often we hear raised without any response. The member raised this fear-mongering type of question and said that of course in the North American free trade talks that are under way now, supply management is at risk. That simply is not true. That may be debatable, but it simply is not true.
People can raise those points and say them, and some think that if you say something often enough it becomes true. I want to make a point of saying that it is not true. This government is committed to the supply management programs and we are doing everything possible, both at the GATT and with our free trade agreement with the United States and in the NAFTA talks, to preserve the supply management system.
First of all, with regard to this motion, we are dealing with a very complex issue and must consider its implications for all Canadians. Under the terms of the general import permits regulations, Canadians can import, for personal or household use, dairy products, chicken, turkey or eggs without import permits in the following quantities: dairy products, the value of goods imported cannot exceed $20; chicken, the goods imported cannot exceed nine kilograms; turkey, one turkey or up to 10 kilograms of turkey parts; eggs, two dozen. All applicable duties and taxes must be paid on these imports.
A very important consequence of the hon. member's motion is that it would add a new layer of complexity to the administration of the border and to customs' operations. It would also inhibit the ability of the government to perform these functions in a responsible, cost-effective and efficient manner.
Another key implication of this measure would be the inevitable increase in potential delays at the border. This would aggravate the problems of border congestion that have been experienced by so many in recent years. Such delays would harm the tourism industry by deterring American visitors to Canada and would also cause problems for Canadian manufacturers that manage then-business on the basis of just-in-time inventory delivery.
The federal government has clearly stated that it will not tell Canadians where to shop. Canadians have the right to make these decisions themselves. However, this motion indirectly says to Canadians that they would not be allowed to shop for dairy products, chicken, turkey or eggs across the border. It is that complexity that must be addressed.
I would like to now provide an overview of the government's approach to cross-border shopping. This is a complex, wide-ranging issue and there is no one policy or simple quick solution to the problem. The cornerstone of the government's approach is to provide ongoing support for the national task force on cross-border shopping, which is a private sector initiative that brings together business, labour, consumers and federal, provincial and municipal governments. Its objective is to work co-operatively toward finding practical, short and long-term solutions to the complex problem of crossborder shopping.
Key areas where federal officials are co-operating with and supporting this task force include competitiveness and communications projects. Through its competitiveness committee, the task force is overseeing a study of Canadian and U.S. distribution industries which generate valuable information about cost structures and operating strategies in both countries. The findings are expected to be released in late May of this year, 1992 and will identify major factors contributing to retail price differences and will provide the basis for the development of both independent and collaborative action plans by the private sector and by governments.
May 12, 1992

This project is a follow-up to a pilot study completed for the government last year concerning the price competitiveness of selected Canadian and American distribution channels. The results indicated that the relative strength of discount outlets in the United States, fewer steps in the United States distribution channels, lower operating and overhead costs, and economies of scale are just some of the factors contributing to lower American prices.
Through its communications committee, the task force is examining a wide variety of specific communication products and initiatives. TTre committee is being supported by federal communication experts and has undertaken a major consumer research project to better determine the characteristics and motivations of the cross-border shopper.
The results, also expected to be available in late May 1992, will provide the basis for development of communications strategies.
The task force's customs and tariffs committee is also following a number of border issues, including new customs initiatives at many busy border crossings, collection of sales tax at the border, and finance's review of and reduction of some tariffs.
The problem of cross-border shopping is shared by many and it is clear that the federal government alone cannot solve the issue. However, the government has acted and on February 12, 1992, it announced a series of measures. One of them was the immediate elimination of duties on 25 consumer products. Another was an offer to collect provincial tobacco taxes at the border as well as provincial alcohol taxes. Another offer was to collect the provincial sales tax on travellers' imports for provinces.
Perhaps we could get them to harmonize with us, as has taken place in the province of Quebec. If Ontario and British Columbia were to co-operate that would also ease the difficulty.
There were additional measures announced to reduce smuggling of tobacco products.
In concluding, let me say that I want to thank the hon. member for bringing forward his concerns and his suggestions to the House after listening to his constitu-
Private Members' Business
ents. I want to commend him for that. In the long-term I am sure that much that the member is recommending will find its way into some of the solutions to this issue.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Perth-Wellington- Waterloo.
My riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, in the south central part of British Columbia, is a riding that is substantially affected not only because of the supply management situation but also because of the fact that the majority of the riding hugs the United States border. The people in the United States, being the opportunistic entrepreneurs that they are, have built large stores directly across the border at all border points, encouraging the flood of Canadian shoppers into the United States.
I have spoken on this issue a good number of times in the House of Commons but I think it bears repeating what is happening in small communities such as Grand Forks, Midway, Oliver and Osoyoof, communities right on the border. When I speak to the proprietors and managers of grocery stores in these areas they point out that particularly over the last few years the dairy sections within their stores have shrunk from 15 feet in one store down to some eight feet.
When you walk across the border at the Osoyoof/Orville border crossing into the main store down there, you will find a whole long section, some 45 to 60 feet of dairy products, milk, and cheeses. That is because of the Canadian cross-border shopping. They target their advertising into the small communities along the border, as far north as Penticton and Kelowna. I have noticed over the past two years, in particular, a lot more traffic on the roads leading from these communities up the valley down to the United States.
You cannot knock people for wanting to get the best value for their dollar. People will shop where they feel they will get the best bargain, but I wonder whether they realize the ramifications to Canada itself and to my province, British Columbia, with that sought after good bargain.

May 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
If we look at some of the figures as to what is occurring, we see that the cross-border day trips into the United States have gone up from 1987 to 1991 from 32 million to 59 million. Milk producers in Canada are losing $25.5 million annually to cross-border shopping, that lost cheese sales amount to $7.5 million annually and the Canadian turkey industry is staggering under losses of some $23 million a year to the cross-border shoppers.
When speaking to the grocers in my area, it is interesting to note what is occurring to them around Thanksgiving, Easter and Christmas time. Where they used to stock 1,000 turkeys in a small store for a small community and most of the sales to the community went from that store, last year that merchant sold under 100 turkeys. Everybody else went across the border and purchased their turkeys at various times as these turkeys were used for loss leaders by the grocers and entrepreneurs in the United States.
In an article provided by the member who sponsored this motion, the headline reads: "Food may be least expensive right here", referring to Canada and saying that a recent survey has disproved the stories that food is cheaper in the United States than in Canada. The survey was completed by the Research Department, Food Marketing Institute in Washington, D.C. reporting on food price comparisons.
The market basket is a sample of the same 15 basic commodities priced at local supermarkets in each major capital. The survey showed that a similar basket of food was less expensive in Canada than in the United States. In Ottawa for instance, Canadians spent $56.75 on a basket in 1991 compared to $59.12 in the United States. It was $70.11 in Paris, France and $145.49 cents in Tokyo, Japan.
I use these figures to point out to people that although they may be able to pick and choose some articles, over-all they are better off shopping in Canada. This is only one part of the equation.
In my area, the Okanagan College has just completed a study which surveyed cross-border shoppers asking the reasons why they were shopping in the United States. We have seen studies from southern Ontario that show that it is the lower gasoline prices while in this instance this study was very clear. It showed the reason that people were going across the border in such increasing numbers now was because of the goods and services tax.
Most recently, seniors have been flocking into my office in Penticton, British Columbia, phoning me at home and writing me letters over the cutbacks in their guaranteed income supplement as a result of a glitch in the government system. These people tell me that they have to go where their bargains are best. What they are saying to me is that by cutting out that extra $8 or $9 a month which they have depended on, the government is forcing them to go where they feel they can get the best deal for their dairy products, their poultry products, their chickens and turkeys.
We have to look at where the problem is. If we look directly at home we see that taxation on gasoline, the goods and services tax, cutbacks in things like the guaranteed income supplement for our old age pensioners force people to go across the border, force people to go where they feel they get the best value for their dollar.
I know that it is not the correct route. I know that over all it is going to hurt the Canadian economy when you look at the massive job losses. In our area, for instance, Dairyland has just cut back some 35 jobs in the southern part of British Columbia because of the cross-border sales of dairy products. I am concerned about that because jobs right now are simply too valuable to lose, too valuable for the Canadian economy to lose, and we cannot afford to have those people going on unemployment insurance and ultimately applying for social assistance. Those people want to work and they understand that in order to make their dollar here in Canada they have to spend their dollar here in Canada.
I find it unfortunate that many of the people who have been interviewed in some of the television interviews do not look a little bit further than their noses in deciding on where they are going to shop and where they are going to spend their money. These people have to realize that we have a lot more with our social programs here in Canada than they have in the United States. There is a cost to those programs but that cost is spread out over the 27 million people in Canada. It is not simply picked up by the others who are able to pay. Whereas in the United States there are over 50 million people who are not covered by a medical service plan. We have that in Canada. We have learned in Canada to share and I suggest that this is one route to stop it but it does not get at the core cause of cross-border shopping. We have to look at our policies, our monetary and fiscal policies, and our taxation policies in order to ensure that people stay at home.
May 12, 1992

We also have to depend on the education of those people to understand that if they shop at home they will ensure that Canada remains viable.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I stand and speak to the motion of my colleague from Perth in connection with what he sees as a problem, not so much with cross-border shopping, but with same-day shopping. Certainly same-day shopping involves the buying of supply management types of products in the dairy and poultry industry.
Coming from Sarnia-Lambton, certainly same-day shopping is a particular phenomenon that is going on. Cross-border shopping has been going on for years and years, but the incentive for same-day shopping has developed for a number of reasons, not only for people to purchase supply management types of products, but in the province of Ontario it is certainly multi-faceted. Not being able to shop on Sunday is certainly one of the reasons. The province of Ontario not collecting the provincial sales tax or having it collected at the border is another reason. The difference in the price of gasoline is one of the reasons that we have this situation.
In connection with this particular motion to restrict persons to stay 48 hours in the United States before they can bring these products back, this is laudable. A number of members in this House have spoken positively about this motion but there are many other factors in connection with this motion as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pursue my question to two ministers concerning pay equity in the Public Service. As Canadians will now know, the government launched a major attack on human rights in the budget this year and one of those was by saying that no matter what the Human Rights Commission determines, the Government of Canada will not provide pay equity to the women in its employ.
This is the latest in a long series of onslaughts on women in the Public Service. It is a series of attempting every legal means possible to resist the obligations of the Government of Canada to do what every other private employer in Canada is required to do; namely, paying an equitable salary to women who perform work of equal value to groups of employees that are predominantly male.
I do not need to emphasize how women are compressed into the lowest paying categories of employment, both in the private sector and in the public sector. For example, in the public sector, as the Public Service Commission's report of today shows, women still occupy over 80 per cent of the lowest paid administrative support positions and less than 16 per cent of the highest paid management positions. The higher you go on the pay scale, the fewer women there are.
However, that is a separate issue from pay equity which simply demands that women performing equal work get equal pay. It has been the law in Canada since 1978. It was reinforced by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it was adopted in 1982 and yet as of this day there are 80,000 women working for the Government of Canada who are owed over $1.2 billion in back pay. The government will claim that it is paying equal pay. It is paying about one third of what would be equal pay. Even then it is not paying it as salaiy. It is paying it as token equalization payments which can be withdrawn at any time by the government if equality becomes economically inconvenient.

May 12, 1992
Adjournment Debate
In the budget this year, the government had the nerve to say that although the Human Rights Commission may rule in favour of these women who have had a case before the courts for over eight years, although it has abandoned its commitment to jointly resolve this issue with the unions representing our employees, no matter what is decided by the Human Rights Commission, it will not pay women their back pay. Even what it is paying is not included in salary. It is a little extra bonus tacked on at the end. It is as though they do not really deserve it.
The government, above all, should be a leader on this issue. It is a matter of public policy, and until women have economic equality, they simply will not have social and political equality.
I ask the government most seriously to consider what it is doing to human rights in this country with this kind of action.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the public is often unaware of the significant efforts and resources expended by the Treasury Board to ensure equitable treatment of its employees in the predominantly female groups.
Since the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we have worked closely with the unions and the Human Rights Commission to settle a number of such situations. In 1985, the President of the Treasury Board, together with the unions, launched an extensive study of pay equity.
This joint study involved all 13 Public Service unions. Over 4,000 jobs were sampled from 62 different occupational groups. It was the largest study of its kind conducted anywhere in the world, funded almost entirely by the federal Treasury Board.
The unions withdrew from this joint initiative on equal pay for work of equal value without attempting to reach agreement upon how the results should be implemented.
In light of this, the employer decided it was necessary to take action. The Treasury Board president announced on January 26, 1990, measures designed to fulfil the government's commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. These measures included
retroactive lump sum payments of approximately $317 million to over 73,000 employees.
In addition, equalization adjustments of roughly $80 million continue to be paid annually. To date, a total of $467 million has been paid by the government.


TAXATION
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, on February 19, the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization was clearly unprepared when he thoughtlessly denied that his government had shifted much of the burden of taxation off the corporations and on to the backs of individuals.
Perhaps the government's actions have been so offensive that even he cannot come to grips with them. The minister said that day that the facts supported his argument. Upon reflection, I am confident he will want to correct himself today.
I know the minister will regard his own government's Department of Finance's quarterly Economic Review Special Report dated March 1992 as a source of fact. These facts tell us that the share of total federal taxes collected from corporations has declined by 25 per cent since 1984-85, the year this government took office.
Over the same period, the share contributed by personal income taxpayers rose by 17 per cent. In February, when I first raised this issue, I concentrated only on the sins of this government since 1986. But the present regime's first two years in office deserve even more scrutiny as it is clear the course was already set.
In effect, the government has orchestrated a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary workers to the shareholders of large corporations. This government is rich with ideas on how to serve its friends on Bay Street, but rich only in cutbacks when it comes to ordinary families. The minister said our tax rates in Canada must be comparable to our competitors. I would think that he would view Japan as an industrial competitor.
Let the record show that Japan's corporations contribute three times as much as Canadian corporations as a percentage of total government revenue. During the Tory regime, Canada had the lowest corporate taxes among G-7 nations but among the highest personal income taxes.
May 12, 1992

The tax revolt that simmers across Canada is as much a reaction to unfair taxation as it is to excessive taxation. Canadians have seen the government cut the effective corporate tax rate while engaging in at least 10 separate schemes to squeeze more tax from ordinary workers.
Perhaps the new Tory thinking believes that it is possible to get blood from a stone. The Tory big business, small grocery basket agenda has left families with less to spend on their basic needs while more corporate profits were left untaxed for distribution abroad.
These same Canadian families can measure the government's impact on competitiveness as they witness the weekly migration of shoppers to the U.S. border. Perhaps the government hopes to slow cross-border shopping by siphoning money at the source and leaving Canadians with less to spend.
I ask the minister to repent on behalf of his government for the injustices exacted on Canadian families to serve corporate interests. Does the minister now realize the error of the government's ways and will he undertake to relieve Canadian families of the unfair burden placed upon them by a government harnessed by big business?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to my hon. friend's question.
I would like to give a straightforward observation. The increase in personal share and decline in the corporate share of total federal revenues is explained in large part by economic trends and not by policy decisions on the part of the government.
Since 1984 federal personal income tax revenues have increased in large part due to the strong growth in personal incomes. Personal incomes grew on average over 7 per cent per year between 1984-85 and 1991-92.
In contrast to that, corporate profits declined over this period by over 7 per cent per year on average. Despite this important decline in profits, corporate revenues decreased by less than 2 per cent on average over the same period. Corporate revenues declined less than corporate profits because many of the policy changes introduced by this government have been directed at increasing the share of total taxes paid by corporations.
In tax reform the government eliminated or reduced many of the special tax incentives and deductions avail-
Adjoumment Debate
able to corporations. In addition, in 1989 the government introduced the large corporations tax which raises approximately $1 billion annually.
In terms of the over-all tax burden on individual Canadians, Canada's tax burden is consistent with that of other modem industrialized economies. In fact, Canada's tax burden is below the average of OECD countries. According to an OECD study, the Canadian who is earning the average production wage and has a family paid less in federal and provincial income tax and social security contributions in 1989 than workers in 18 other countries in the OECD, including the U.S. and all other G-7 nations except Japan.
In conclusion, in its recent budget the government announced that it will begin lowering the tax burden on Canadians. Over the last six years the government has followed a consistent economic and fiscal plan designed to restore its financial position and establish the policy environment to place the economy on a solid, more competitive footing. The tough decisions are paying off.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto industry is its major manufacturing sector, its major investor and largest supplier of exports to the United States.
This industry has built itself up since 1965 when Canada entered the auto pact. The auto pact said very simply that if the big three, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, wanted to import cars duty free into Canada, they had to create jobs here. For every car they wanted to bring in duty free, they had to create one car here or its equivalent. This is fair.
What has happened since this government brought in its free trade agreement? The auto pact, yes, technically is still in place. What will happen by 1998 when the tariffs are all phased out under the free trade agreement is that they will no longer have to produce one car in Canada for every one they bring in duty free. They will be able to move all their production to the United States.
The only incentive that will remain for them to keep any plants or jobs in Canada is the fact that if they do meet those old auto pact requirements, they will be able to import duty free into Canada from third countries, a very small benefit compared to what we have in place under the full-fledged auto pact.

May 12, 1992
Adjournment Debate
What have we seen since free trade came into Canada's auto sector? Canada has lost about 28,000 or 22 per cent of all its automotive jobs in just over the three years of free trade. The government will say: "But the Americans have lost auto jobs as well". They have lost 9 per cent of their auto jobs. We are losing ours at two and one-third times the rate of the Americans. This bodes very badly for Canada.
The government has an opportunity now at the NAFTA table to tty to rectify some of the harm it has done. One of the harms that it could undo is to ensure that we do not lose any more auto jobs by restoring something similar to the auto pact.
We have asked the government previously to look at one of the major problems we face too as North Americans. Japanese and other non-North American manufacturers now control 37 per cent of the North American market. In the European Community, they are debating whether by the year 2000 non-European manufacturers will have either 15 per cent or 17 per cent of their market.
Just a couple of weeks ago the Japanese announced that they would cut back their sales into Europe by fully 6 per cent. Is there anything happening in the NAFTA negotiations to stop this penetration of our market by foreigners who have 37 per cent of the marketing yet produce only 3 per cent of our automotive jobs? This is a challenge we present to the government.
What about the North American content rules? What are they going to do about that? What are they going to do to ensure that this industiy, which is the pride of Canada and has been built up under rules such as the auto pact, is not wiped out as they have started under the free trade agreement and, if this government has its way, may continue to be wiped out under the NAFTA negotiations?


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and U.S. auto industries are affected by the recent world-wide recession and strong competitive pressures from off shore manufacturers. The Canadian industry
has, nonetheless, continued to outperform its American counterpart.
During the period 1982 to 1991, employment in the Canadian automotive industry grew by 29 per cent. The Canadian share of total Canada-U.S. output has gone from 14 per cent in 1982 to 16 per cent on 1991; in motor vehicle assembly alone, the Canadian share of the Canada-U.S. market is almost 18 per cent.
The North American free trade agreement represents a useful opportunity for strengthening the Canadian automotive industiy within North America. In fact, approximately 90 per cent of over all Mexican automotive exports already enter Canada duty free under the auto pact. Yet Canadian exports in this sector to Mexico are significantly impeded by numerous trade barriers in that country.
Mexico is projected to have the greatest market growth potential in North America in the auto sector. As the restrictives in place in Mexico are removed, Canadian automotive companies will have an oportunity to share more fully in that growth.
The NAFTA also provides an important opportunity to clarify the rules of origin governing preferential trade throughout North America, including into the United States. This clarification will help secure markets for the Canadian auto sector.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, Canada has also insisted, as it did in the FTA, that the auto pact be maintained within a NAFTA agreement. The auto pact is a key policy instrument. Canada is not prepared to contemplate any changes to the auto pact, unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that there would be a net benefit to Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the two other members who had indicated they would raise questions are not in the House, it is my duty to conclude the debate.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 13,1992