1993-05-07

Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am extremely pleased to speak to this bill. That may sound strange, but this bill has been in the preparation stage for an awfully long time and I am pleased that it is now introduced in the House so we can deal with it.
This bill gives the government the authority and flexibility to deal with property which has been seized and restrained from the time that takes place until the property is forfeited under the Criminal Code, the Narcotic Control Act or the Food and Drugs Act.
This is a bill the importance of which will probably not be readily apparent to Canadians, but it will be greatly effective in improving Canadian society. It is an essential part of our law enforcement strategy.
This bill manoeuvres around technical and legal obstacles behind which organized crime hides the profits of the drug trade, international smuggling or other serious
crimes which attack our youth, industry and society as a whole.
Where criminals are able to conceal the profits of then-activities it is no secret this is used to further more crime. Organized criminals have long attempted to invest the proceeds of their crimes in legitimate business thus erecting a front for their illegitimate activities and providing a permanent and well-hidden camouflage for their crime-raised money.
Bill C-123 adds to the legislative tools given law enforcement officers from coast to coast in stripping criminals of their cover by facilitating the management of seized assets until they are forfeited and then facilitating their sale.
In 1989 the Government of Canada first enacted proceeds of crime legislation. The purpose of the legislation was to take action against organized crime, particularly drug trafficking and money laundering.
At that time we put a great deal of focus on the process whereby we seized property and forfeited it because we were concerned about taking away people's property. I think we got that right but this bill corrects the manner in which it is managed while it goes from the point of seizure to the point of forfeiture.
It is a weapon in crime prevention that we think will help to counter the growth of the drug trade because putting the profit potential of crime at risk will not only reduce the motivation for traffickers but will also undermine the ability of organized crime to use its accumulated profits to further finance trafficking endeavours.
From 1989 to the end of 1992 the RCMP seized some $76.3 million in suspected proceeds of crime. In the same period the courts forfeited approximately $17.7 million and levied fines of $12.5 million.
The types of assets that have been seized are what make this bill so important. There is no trick to managing a bank account. That is easy. What the RCMP and other police forces are dealing with are assets such as cars, airplanes, boats, homes and businesses. It is difficult to

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
manage them and maintain their value after seizure, before forfeiture and up to sale.
This act balances the Proceeds of Crime (money laundering) Act which was enacted in 1991 and which provided another set of measures to strengthen the ability of the government to use the proceeds of crime provisions effectively.
I have to say that despite the creation of these legislative tools the proceeds of crime policies have not been maximized, and that is what we are attacking in this bill.
One of the reasons we have not been able to maximize it is because there has been an absence of a coherent and effective asset management regime pending the forfeiture of the seized assets. The management of seized assets requires considerable human and financial resources, particularly where real property or ongoing businesses must be managed.
Unfortunately the proceeds of crime legislation did not clearly allocate responsibility for asset management, nor did it adequately address the need to allocate the legal responsibility for the maintenance of restrained property and the need for clear authority to advance funds as may be necessary to maintain property or compensate creditors.
It is one thing for Treasury Board to manage the operations of the government but it is quite another thing when Treasury Board is asked to advance moneys through the RCMP to make sure a ski hill is operating effectively. Those are some of the difficulties we are dealing with. What we are trying to do with this bill is to correct things.
As well as managing the assets I think it is fair to say there has been a strong demand for equitable sharing of the proceeds of crime, both domestically and at the international level.
My notes say that there is a perceived disincentive to co-operation on the part of provincial and local governments whose police forces have conducted long investigations in support of federal prosecutions. There is no question that it goes beyond a disincentive. It is something that has been advanced to me by municipalities across the country in my capacity as Minister of Justice in 1989-90 and as Solicitor General for the past two years.
I would not say that our police forces at the municipal, provincial and federal levels are not doing drug investigations the way they might. I would suggest that they see a much greater opportunity to put more focus on drug prosecutions and really turn the screws on these people who are making money at the expense of the public.
I want to point out that when the question of asset sharing with municipal and provincial authorities has come up, I have maintained two very strong positions. Number one, I believe that they should be shared according to the input into the solution of the crime with a certain amount for the financing of the bureau of asset management. That is fine. We are looking at 10 per cent there.
I believe in sharing with the municipalities and the provinces. I do not believe in the provinces having any control over how much goes to the municipalities. We should have an independent authority saying: "All right, this crime had a third input each by the RCMP, OPP and metro Toronto police, and it should be shared that way". That is the way I feel about it personally and I want that clearly on the record of this House. It should be shared according to input.
The second point I want to make personally is the distinction. It should not go to the actual police force. It should go to the taxing authority that is in charge of the budget of the police force. It would not go to the metropolitan Toronto police force but to the metropolitan Toronto police commission or whatever. It would go to the body that funds the police operations.
In addition to the problems I have just spoken about, the current proceeds provisions in the drug area provide for the disposition of corporate proceeds by the minister of health and welfare. I think it is fair to say this is not a function of which the minister of health and welfare in any government would be the main focus of their activities. If we combine it in legislation which puts a better focus on it and more specific responsibility then we will have a better operation.
There is also a problem in cases which are prosecuted by the provincial attorneys general. Bill C-123 provides for a correction of that. The bill provides for the creation of an office within the Department of Supply and Services which will operate on a cost mutual basis and whose primary task will be in federally initiated prosecu-
May 7, 1993

tions to manage seized, restrained and forfeited property up until the time of its sale or other disposition.
The act also provides for the sharing of corporate assets within and outside of Canada. The office will be established by the Minister of Supply and Services to allow that minister to have custody and management of any property falling under the scope of this legislation.
Once the office has possession or control over the property it will have the power to manage it in the manner it considers appropriate up until the time the property is disposed of. This includes the advancing of money at a commercial rate of interest if that is necessary to maintain the ongoing operation of the property. It is also anticipated that the office will contract out to the private sector for most of the management services required.
I will give the House an explanation of this and how it will work. If for example the RCMP is about to seize 10 video stores in Vancouver, the idea is not that 10 bureaucrats from Ottawa will fly to Vancouver and operate the video stores while they are going from seizure to forfeiture.
My conception of this as a chartered accountant is that we bring in receivers in bankruptcy. They are in the business of doing this. If that seizure were to take place in the city of Vancouver one would go to a receiver in bankruptcy and contract with it to have people on the ground in that area who do it most effectively rather than create a bureaucracy to be able to jump in and do those kinds of things because the private sector is in the business of doing it.
As well, the office will provide consultative and other services in relation to the seizure or restraint of property in connection with designated drug offences or property that is or may have been obtained through the proceeds of crime.
It is also important that under authority of this bill we will have the ability to share the forfeited proceeds of crime with domestic governments or with foreign governments. This is important because we have to realize that international crime is just what it is, international crime. We co-operate with many other law enforcement bodies and as we receive proceeds it is important that we
Government Orders
be able to share with the international governments that have helped us.
In the past we have been the beneficiary of money. Specifically, last year we received approximately a million dollars in U.S. funds from the proceeds of a joint crime investigation. We have the ability to receive but we do not have the ability to reciprocate. I think that is very important.
I think we have the management down. I think we have a regime in place for the sharing of the proceeds and regulation will come forward on that.
As well, the legislation corrects an anomaly that currently affects the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. In most of Canada federal prosecutors conduct proceedings related to drug offences. However, in Quebec and New Brunswick drug cases investigated by local or provincial police are handled by provincial prosecutors. The new legislation will provide that where the prosecution of the offences commences at the instance of a government of a province or conducted by or on behalf of that province, any forfeited property will be disposed of as the attorney general of that province directs and not by a minister of the federal government as is currently the case.
I believe that this will be a very effective instrument in our fight against organized crime. We will be finishing off the proceeds of crime legislation that we have already passed and completing the task which will enable us to really put pressure on organized crime in their pocket-books. That will reduce their ability to continue in an activity that is of absolutely no benefit to Canada whatsoever.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Solicitor General for his remarks. This bill before the House today is well overdue. There have been a lot of shortcomings in the present legislation as the Solicitor General has mentioned. This bill goes a long way to correcting these shortcomings.
We have to look at this bill in committee. There are some questions which have to be examined. Nevertheless if the government is willing, we can move this bill along quite expeditiously.
While we can give careful study and due examination and allow the interested groups to make their comments, if the government is serious about this bill we can have it

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
passed by the time the House adjourns. I am hoping that is the case because as I said initially this legislation is well overdue.
The bill establishes a federal program to share forfeited proceeds of crime with other jurisdictions. These are the jurisdictions that are also involved in drag and other criminal prosecutions. It would include foreign governments as well. This would be in cases where the crime is international in nature and the police forces involved have been Canadian as well as from other countries. The question is: How are these funds to be shared? I think the Solicitor General said that a lot of this is still under review.
It is important that we get at least the basic parameters of how these funds are to be shared set down so that when we pass the bill and in the discussion of the bill we are able to give this very important aspect some definition to the people of Canada, particularly the police forces of Canada.
The individual police forces would not receive the money under this legislation but rather the municipal and/or provincial governments which fund the department would be the recipients.
I was encouraged by one thing the Solicitor General said. He stated that money would not just be given to the provinces and the provinces allowed to pass it on to the municipalities. I think that is absolutely necessary and is a very good point. We have to be sure that the municipal police forces receive an appropriate share of the proceeds of crime. I would be interested in more definition of how this is to be done, but I welcome the Solicitor General's unsolicited remarks in that regard.
Also, this bill will establish an office in the Department of Supply and Services to manage seized and restrained assets which have been seized in federal crime cases. Cases prosecuted by the provincial attorneys general are not covered by this legislation.
Special allowances, as the Solicitor General has said, will be made for Quebec and New Brunswick. Where the attorney general of a particular province has instigated the action, then the attorney general will have the say over how the assets are to be disposed of.
It is also important, as the Solicitor General has said, that those managing the assets be the proper people. He is aware that the RCMP cannot run ski hills very well. No reflection on the RCMP, but I think that goes without saying. There will be an advisory capacity for the minister's office and probably the Department of Justice, which I think is important.
Canada has had proceeds of crime legislation since 1989 but all the moneys and assets collected reverted to the federal government. This has been seen as unfair to the provincial and municipal governments which assisted in solving these cases, many of which were under investigation for long periods of time and which were very costly to local and provincial police departments.
What we are doing in this bill is equitably giving financial assistance to these police departments. I think the Solicitor General agrees that these departments are entitled to this because they have played integral roles in solving these very important cases.
In the past, problems have arisen with respect to the cost of managing seized and restrained assets and the Solicitor General has alluded to those. As I mentioned, there have been situations where the RCMP has found itself running pizza parlours, hotels and ski resorts. Needless to say this is problematic and they have to be addressed.
The idea of trustees in bankruptcy is a good one. It means there are going to be a lot of trustees in bankruptcy moving to coastal communities if the drug trade continues the way it has. Fine, that is free enterprise.
It is true we have not taken the initiative in obtaining and seizing these assets of crime that perhaps we should have. This bill is going to give the incentive to do that.
Where municipal and provincial police forces feel they are going to be making money for the federal coffers, they do not have the initiative to go that extra step, do that extra amount of footwork and the long and boring surveillance work that needs to be done to solve these cases. Now they have more initiative. There will be initiatives by the forces and their respective provincial and municipal governments. The assets must be managed, as we have said.
May 7, 1993

There is one thing I did not hear the Solicitor General mention and that is recommendation three of the report on crime prevention in Canada by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General where the committee recommends: "that a share of the moneys forfeited as proceeds of crime be allocated to crime prevention activities and that the federal government allocate 1 per cent a year of the current federal budget for police, courts and corrections to crime prevention over a five-year period. At the end of five years Canada should spend 5 per cent of the current federal criminal justice budget on crime prevention".
Maybe the federal government intends to do it through the federal budget. However it is important, even though we are giving the money to the municipal and provincial governments, that it go back into police work. There are financial constraints today. The problem is that we do not want our criminal justice system to suffer as a result of these financial restraints when we are seizing property that is the proceed of crime. That funding should go back into our criminal justice system, to the police departments for crime prevention. I think more attention should be given to this by governments.
There has to be a concerted effort not only by the federal government but by provincial and municipal governments for a meaningful thrust toward crime prevention in Canada. The whole idea of the sharing of the proceeds of crime is a good one.
The Liberal Party has been supportive of this for some time. We recommend that the proceeds of any crime operation be split among all the parties involved in a case, the percentage of which would depend on each party's level of involvement in the particular case. For us, and I am sure for others as well, this is a basic means of sharing.
Since 1989, $60 million in assets have been seized through the current proceeds of crime legislation. It is imperative that the government work more closely with law enforcement agencies in the provinces and the municipalities to find ways of making this legislation work. The Solicitor General referred to that, and rightly so. With this legislation this may happen automatically because there will be more incentive for these police agencies to work to solve these crimes if there is going to
Government Orders
be some return for their police work in their respective jurisdictions.
However it is not all going to happen automatically. More of the crimes can be solved and more of these assets can be distributed through dialogue among the police forces and perhaps some liaison work done among the police forces to ensure that everything is being integrated, everything is being shared and there is a co-operative and good attitude toward a full assault against crime and the proceeds of crime.
I do not exactly know on what basis we are considering the sharing with foreign countries. I do think that is a fair proposal. If we are going to work with other countries, the incentive for police forces in other countries has to be the same as we have for police forces in our provinces and municipalities. The only thing I would say is that we should have some parameters on an international basis for how we share them. I think it should be reciprocal. I do not think, if we have a situation where another country does not share funds with Canada, we should through largesse share funds with them. Perhaps there can be international understandings with other countries and I think it is in the interest of other countries.
There can be a formula agreed to. It does not have to be a rigid formula, but basically a formula on cost sharing of the proceeds of crime. This would be welcomed. It would certainly be welcomed by the people of Canada. As has been alluded to by the Solicitor General, crime and particularly the drug trade is very much an international business. It is through international co-operation that we will make the biggest impact on solving these crimes.
We want assurances, from the Minister of Justice in particular, that the proceeds of crime will indeed find their way back to local and provincial police departments. We want assurances that this will be done but, as I said earlier, we need some parameters and some regulations on the matter. I know the Solicitor General feels the same way and he will be working to this end.
We want to be certain that provincial and municipal governments will not keep the money to build new roads and pay down their deficits. We want to be certain that their police forces, their crime prevention and criminal justice activities will benefit and that the criminal justice

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
system will benefit. It is very important that justice on a municipal and provincial basis will benefit from the proceeds going back to the municipal and provincial governments.
Police departments are already suffering from severe fiscal restraint. They need these funds to keep up their wars against crime, particularly the war against drugs. It is so insidious today that we need every tool to fight this war on drugs. We cannot at the same time let down our guard on the rights of citizens, on our principles of law and our principles under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must, in ways that do not infringe on the rights of our citizens, do everything we possibly can to gain an upper hand in this war against drugs.
With respect to the new office to which I referred in the Department of Supply and Services, we want assurances that it will not evolve into a bureaucratic nightmare, making it very difficult for local and provincial governments to have access to the money from the seized assets the office will be managing. We need more clarification from the government of the exact function or role of this office. I hope this will be forthcoming. It will not be a difficult procedure, but maybe it will take a little time to circulate some regulations, a discussion paper or just an information sheet. It would go a long way toward not only informing but also promoting the program the government wants to foster.
We would like to know who will be paying for the operation of the office. Will its expenses be covered by the money and assets it is managing and sharing with the other levels of government? Is that how it is to be paid for, or is it to be paid for via the estimates in estimate costs? Will all three levels of government have a share in its operating costs? That is the question. The Solicitor General shakes his head indicating that they will not. That answers that question. Flow will an office, presumably located in Ottawa, manage assets seized in Vancouver or Halifax?
The Solicitor General has talked about trustees in bankruptcy, which is important. The network of liaising with trustees in bankruptcy is also important. I agree we should not be sending public servants to Vancouver or Halifax to manage the proceeds of crime from a drug bust, for instance. However there should be some idea of how the network of control and management is to be developed.
All the questions we want answered by the government are really questions of procedure. Nevertheless they are important as this process and legislation evolve. I also want to mention a couple of points to the Solicitor General who is very kindly sitting through my speech, as painful as it may be. They relate to the services presently being provided.
I will just use the RCMP as an example, but not as a scapegoat or because I feel it is going to happen. There has been a great deal of concern in Nova Scotia and certain other parts of the country that the RCMP will place its laboratories on a cost recovery basis as a means of cutting federal government expenses.
I do not want that to happen because funding is to go back to the RCMP. I do not want the government to undercut present funding for our police forces at the same time as they get the proceeds of crime. It is not only a question of taking funding away if cost recovery of the laboratories of the RCMP is demanded. It gets to be a problem of law enforcement in Canada.
Provincial and municipal police forces now have access to the RCMP laboratories. In order to save funds perhaps they will start using laboratories in the United States that may not cost as much or may provide the services at a lower rate, but they will not give the results we have been used to getting from the RCMP laboratories. We will get a lower standard of laboratory services for our police forces. Therefore we will have a reluctance to utilize the laboratory services. We will have a problem verifying a lot of what we want to verify in our fight against crime. I would ask for that not to be the case.
I would also suggest to the Solicitor General that if we are to make a meaningful assault on crime, particularly the drug trade, we have to examine some items that have already been cut. As an example I would use coastal surveillance boats in Atlantic Canada. The RCMP has operated in Nova Scotia three small boats along the coastline. It has managed to speak to fishermen and residents of the coastal communities in Nova Scotia, thereby getting a good deal of information that has led to drug seizures, to convictions and ultimately to the seizure of assets and proceeds of crime.
These boats do not operate now. The RCMP will say that they do, but actually the boats are there and no one is assigned to them. For a boat to be put in the water a complaint has to be received from a person first. The boat is brought on a trailer down to the water, launched and taken to the area of concern. The persons investigated could be in Panama by the time the RCMP coastal
May 7, 1993

cruiser gets to that particular spot. That is not the answer.
Also, the dialogue with the communities must be done by RCMP officers while they are doing their other functions, such as traffic control or whatever else they are doing. I think that that is not fair. The result is that if it is optional work, in most cases the RCMP officers do not have the time to do it. They are not doing it because they have other concerns. If they do not look after the job they were assigned to do and if that job is not done then they will be criticized and perhaps reported. They have to do the job they were assigned to do first, even though they may feel that something of an optional nature may be more important in the long run.
I would like to see RCMP officers assigned back on coastal surveillance and have these boats staffed by men and women of the RCMP on a regular basis as was the case before so that we can have this information flowing back the way it once was.
I want to just finish by saying that I think this bill is a major step forward. I think I have stated the questions I have and that our party has regarding this legislation. I think that with information at committee stage we should be able to answer some of these questions and I welcome that.
We are going to be recommending certainly the passage of this legislation on second reading and the opportunity to examine it, not exhaustively, not without reason, and certainly not to delay the bill in committee stage, but to get some feedback by groups that we think can provide information.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to say that we are happy that the Solicitor General has brought this legislation forward. To my recollection this is the third piece of legislation in this law enforcement family that will enable law enforcement officers and others to have a little better chance of fighting and combating crime in the country, particularly when it comes to dealing with drug dealers and those people who participate in that business.
Government Orders
I also would like to say to my hon. friend who just spoke that I appreciated his remarks as an indication of support for this general initiative taken by the government. I want to say on behalf of my party that we support this initiative. It is a little late but that is the way the world is sometimes. We appreciate the Solicitor General's work on this. I understand that it was the Solicitor General's recommendation that when we proceed to the next stage of this legislation it will go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. It seems to me that that would be a good idea and would facilitate its passage because the people there have done all the necessary preliminary work in the reports that they recently made public.
I must say that the publication Crime Prevention in Canada: Toward a National Strategy, which is the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General may turn into a best seller in the country. People have been anxious to get copies of this because it is a very comprehensive study of the problems associated with crime prevention and more important, it lays out a whole number of recommendations that people on balance find very progressive and very useful.
Today we are moving in that direction. There is a little work to do on this legislation and I will get to that in a moment. However, I want to say to the Solicitor General that we would be prepared to see this referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General to ensure that its passage is completed in a most expeditious way and to ensure that it becomes law before summer. I want to say again that the Department of Justice says that the bill is aimed at promoting co-operation among all levels of law enforcement, especially when dealing with drug trafficking and smuggling.
I remember a day last August when a van from the province of British Columbia was stopped in Winnipeg. In the van 244 kilograms of high quality marijuana were found. Obviously it was confiscated. The people involved, the RCMP and the officers from the local force who, if my memory serves me, were part of a new integrated intelligence enforcement unit that was created, really did some excellent work and need to be congratulated.

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
This is an example of the kind of effort that we can achieve when there are different levels of law enforcement and different groups of people working to combat the spread of the drug trade. They combine their efforts, talents and energies and come up with these kinds of seizures and arrests.
Let us face it, we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg in this whole process. When we start looking at the extent of drug trafficking in this country, the amount of drug abuse and the amount of smuggling that takes place, particularly on the two coasts of Canada to say nothing about crossing over the land border with the United States and Alaska, we have really just begun to fight this incredible and sinister aspect of our society.
Two weeks ago I had a chance to meet with a number of people who are involved with drug enforcement in my community and representatives of agencies that deal with people who suffer from drug abuse and in their own way attempt to combat the importation and sale of drugs. They are almost at a point where they are throwing their hands up. The court system does not seem to be designed to handle it. There is an overwhelming demand on the time of present law enforcement officers. They can only seem to react to the most serious initiatives. There is a real level of frustration.
I want to say to my friend the Solicitor General that I think everyone will find this initiative to be not only a welcome one but very helpful. We appreciate this initiative.
I want to say that the bill will establish a federal program to share forfeited proceeds of crime with other jurisdictions involved in federal drug and other criminal prosecutions.
I think the Solicitor General made some important remarks in his speech today. I read from the list that goes back into August of this year some comments by the inspector of vice in the Winnipeg police force. He was delighted when he heard about this initiative because he felt this would assist them in their budgeting and provide funds for the police force.
As my friend has said, this is not quite the case. He went on record to say that the proceeds of crime will be divided up to reflect the amount of participation of the
various levels presumably in the undercover work, investigations and the actions leading to arrest.
As he said, if it is one-third federal, one-third provincial and one-third municipal then that is the way the sharing would be. I think he would admit that is not in the legislation now and that is one thing we can presumably do by regulation and so on. I think we all find his remarks comforting in that respect but I will have something more to say about that in a moment.
I also want to say that the bill will establish an office within the Department of Supply and Services in order to manage the seize and restraint assets that are subject to forfeiture in the proceeds of crime in these cases that are prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada. That is helpful to know.
To reflect some of the comments made by my colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke, we will have to ask how this office will be set up and who will support it. Will it be from the proceeds that will be collected? Will it be from just regular federal government operations? Will it be on a cost-sharing basis? This is something that is rather minor in this whole initiative and something that hopefully we can work out either again through regulation or while we are in committee dealing with this issue.
Let me go back and say that when the government introduced the proceeds of crime legislation that came into effect back in 1989, we in the New Democratic Party greeted it with some enthusiasm. It was a major step forward and a very important step.
At that time our justice critic, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, had this to say when we discussed it at second reading: "I am pleased to rise to debate this important legislation that will ensure that Canada finally takes the long overdue step to recognize that those who profit from organized crime in many cases are able to use weak and inadequate legislation as a means of laundering the profits of crime. We in this party certainly support effective legislation that will deal with the proceeds of organized crime".
While praising the principle of that legislation, which in effect gives police and the courts the ability to confiscate the profits of crime, we raised examples of how the legislation would not be improved by this and we suggested a number of improvements.
May 7, 1993

Most significant was the concern that the legislation did not encompass banking and financial institutions. I remember that I raised that point myself at that time and said that as long as the banks and financial institutions are not involved to stop the laundering of drug money, it is going to be almost impossible because there is where their main problem exists. We have all sorts of stories about how banks and financial institutions that are unscrupulous have been involved in drug money laundering of one kind or another.
At that time the Canadian law enforcement agencies were not allowed to access information about bank accounts suspected to be conduits for laundering schemes, unlike the United States where financial institutions were required to report their deposits over certain amounts on a regular basis. I suggested that for Canada this legislation be amended. It certainly would have had our support at least.
Unfortunately that change was not made until Bill C-9 that was passed in the House of Commons in June 1991. I wish that our voices had been heard a little earlier but we are proud of the role that we played in the eventual passing of that legislation that resulted in banks and financial institutions being involved in helping law enforcement agencies identify money laundering particularly associated with the drug trade.
We also brought forward some other concerns. What is now section 462.47 provides for the disclosure of tax information in cases involving offences in relation to drugs. It does not allow for similar disclosure for some other enterprise crimes which were established by the legislation. This is something that we have yet to act upon and perhaps we should act now very quickly.
I also want to say that what is now section 462.3 defines enteqrrise crime and unlike other jurisdictions, including Australia, Britain and the United States, includes proceeds from bawdy houses. Certainly no one would disagree that those who exploit the sex trade workers and acquire property and other proceeds as a result should get away with it.
However, there was compelling evidence from the Fraser commission that was responsible for one of the most in-depth studies of prostitution in our country to
Government Orders
show that this inclusion would drive prostitutes into organized crime.
Again, I want to point it out to my hon. friend, the Solicitor General of Canada. Whether the Fraser commission was correct or not will become clear in the upcoming years as police forces widen the net on money laundering.
Here in Ottawa and in other cities the police are using the proceeds of crime provisions to go after criminals involved in prostitution. Pimps are using shell companies to channel credit card payments from johns who frequent escort services. We have seen some interesting examples of that here in our own city of Ottawa lately.
Exercising control over another person to commit prostitution and living off the profits of prostitution are serious crimes and I am satisfied to know that this new law is being used in this way in terms of combating that.
We will have to watch carefully to see if we have not inadvertently caused prostitution to become enmeshed in organized crime. That is something we will deal with if that becomes obvious.
I want to ask a rhetorical question: How much money are we talking about here? It is interesting and rather disturbing when we speculate on just how much property is involved and how much money flows through money laundering schemes that are involved in large-scale drug smuggling and trafficking operations in Canada.
Between 1989 and 1992 over $60 million was seized. We would all recognize that this is simply the tip of the iceberg as well. We are probably talking about literally hundreds of millions if not some billions of dollars. Surely after it came into effect the new law that was used successfully in a big Canada-U.S. investigation was helpful in uncovering a $1.2 billion scheme that moved money from banks in Panama and the United States through Toronto and Switzerland.
I might say that a recent United Nations survey set the total dollar value of the illegal drug trade world-wide as second only to the amount spent on the international arms trade which we all know to be astronomical. The changes in the law regarding bank recording will be even more helpful. As was said previously, we are proud of the role we have played in seeing those provisions implemented.

May 7, 1993
What are our concerns about this particular bill? Madam Speaker, I notice you are getting restless so we must move on to Question Period. I look forward to continuing my remarks after Question Period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry if I looked restless but I just meant to allow hon. members to have the time they expect to have to make their comments.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I appreciate my hon. friend will continue his remarks after Question Period. I believe there have been discussions among the parties and I think you will find consent for the following motion:
That the motion for second reading of Bill C-123 be amended by
having the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice rather
than a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin -Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, we are nearing the end of National Forest Week. This year the chosen theme was Our Common Ground. This theme underlines the fact that our vast forest resources affect each and every one of us and that we all have a role to play in safeguarding their long-term health and productivity.
Over a year ago Canadians from all walks of society ratified anew national forest strategy. Canada is the first forest nation in the world to achieve such a unified
national commitment to environmentally sound sustainable development of our forests.
This achievement is promising evidence that Canadian governments, industry, labour and environmental interests are indeed finding common ground and are working together to ensure that our forests provide the same opportunities for future generations as they are providing for us in the present.
Canadians are very conscious of the importance of maintaining our world leadership role in forest science, technology and international exchanges. As stewards of 10 per cent of the world's forests we have both the opportunity and obligation to share our knowledge and our experience with the global community.
In view of-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time is up.


VIETNAM
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, in Vietnam thousands of human rights activists and religious leaders are either imprisoned or under house arrest for demanding the right to speak for democracy and to freely practice their religion. Torture and solitary confinement appear to be the Hanoi regime's only answers to these calls of conscience.
The plight of Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Nguyen Dan Que is typical. He was imprisoned in 1978, tortured, beaten and chained in solitary confinement. Human rights groups secured his release after 10 years in prison only to see him back in jail again and sentenced to 20 years of hard labour and he remains there.
The Canadian government must use every opportunity to speak out against the repressive regime in Vietnam. We must state clearly the Canadian commitment to human rights and its linkage to Canadian trade policy.
Although there are opportunities for improving relations between Canada and Vietnam they will not reach their full potential until we are satisfied that the rights of the Vietnamese people are respected.

May 7, 1993


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abibiti):: Madam Speaker, Canada has won a major round. A binational trade panel asked to rule on the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States ordered the U.S. Commerce Department to do its homework and gave it 90 days to reconsider its decision to impose a 6.5 per cent countervail duty on Canadian softwood lumber.
Mr. Rivard of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association said this was a victory but that much remained to be done.
Mr. Lacasse of the Manufacturers Association of Quebec was disappointed because, although the panel of experts had acknowledged certain points made by Quebec, it ruled that the Department of Commerce was free to decide whether it wanted to impose a uniform national rate or rates that would vary according to province,
The countervail duty is the same for all provinces. However, this national averaging camouflages some major disparities. Even according to U.S. assessments, Quebec's subsidy is so minor it does not justify the imposition of countervail.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I am rising today to make my feelings known about the latest victim of the Tory free trade deal in Scarborough, Ontario.
I am referring to the closure of the General Motors van plant in Scarborough, which has been closed down although it has been profitable and efficient for the last 20 years.
The jobs this time, as they have in the past and I believe will in the future, have gone south, this time to Michigan but next time to some other U.S. state or even Mexico.
The loss of 3,000 jobs not only impacts on the families of those laid off but also on the jobs of hundreds of other spin-off workers such as transportation workers and parts manufacturers in the surrounding community who do not have any large severance package or job retraining programs offered to them.
It is ironic that this is happening at a time when this lame duck government is still trying to convince Canadians that they have benefited from the free trade agreement and can expect more from NAFTA. When will this government wake up and tell the Canadian public the real reason it is pushing the NAFTA deal through without proper consultation?


WORLD RED CROSS DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that May 8 is World Red Cross Day. The anniversary of the birth of Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross Movement, is an opportunity for the organization to increase public awareness of its activities.
Canada joins 151 countries, members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movements, in celebrating the movement's commitment to protecting human dignify and human rights.
Because of its role as a neutral intermediary, the movement is often the only organization authorized to provide humanitarian aid in war zones. We have nothing but praise for what members of the organization are doing to bring a glimmer of hope to people in difficult and life-threatening situations.
I want to congratulate the International Red Cross and Red Crescent and wish it every success on the occasion of World Red Cross Day.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian taxpayer is being stiffed to the tune of $1 million for having to ante up for the Prime Minister's 1993 world farewell tour.
In a classic example of the disdain shown for the financial plight of ordinary working people the PM is squandering taxpayers' money in a last hurrah with his buddies in a world equivalent of the old boys' club, from L.A. and Texas to serenade Ronald Reagan and his old pal George Bush to Europe and Russia for one last

May 7, 1993
snuggle with Maggie and to share champagne with Yeltsin.
The Canadian taxpayers are having to tighten their belts so much they squeak and they are having to pick up the tab for this arrogant display of self-indulgence. It is costing $2,000 a night at the L.A. Four Seasons and $1,900 at Houston's Ritz Carlton, and a Canadian forces jet costs $5,700 an hour.
While no one would begrudge the PM an opportunity to sign off from the world stage there are less extravagant ways of doing it. All he had to do was pick up the bloody phone.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, for many years the Conservative government has been particularly interested in businesses that are prepared to join the government in helping to create jobs for young people during the summer.
Over the years, this co-operative approach has proved its usefulness in helping the next generation acquire skills in an environment similar to their future job environment, while at the same time providing them with a substantial source of income.
For instance, this year private and public sector businesses and non-profit organizations in my riding received $227,234 to create 172 jobs which, increasingly, are excellent in every respect.
I hope the challenge program can look foward to a long life. I am convinced this government will introduce more initiatives of this kind, because we must remember that our youth is the future of our country.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker,instead of going on international farewell tours at taxpayers' expense, the Tory Prime Minister would do well to go on a tour of Canada. The economy is not in
terrific shape. The political heirs of the present Prime Minister will see that unemployment has reached critical levels. They will see 1,581,000 unemployed Canadians and thousands of Canadians on welfare.
The unemployment rate is increasing to the point that the unemployed will have to compete with young Canadians for jobs this summer. With 44,000 more Canadians unemployed in April-38,000 of whom are women- and a loss of 64,000 jobs among young people since last year, the employment situation in Canada is critical and the government must do something about it right now.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, despite the exaggerated, partisan insinuations made repeatedly by some members of the Official Opposition and the NDP, the world media are giving the Prime Minister's visit the serious treatment it deserves.
The Prime Minister is in Europe to defend the interests of Canada, to obtain assurances regarding the safety of our troops in Bosnia-Hercegovina, to consult our allies on the explosive situation in former Yugoslavia and to strengthen our bilateral relations with our British, German, French and Russian friends.
Michel Vastel correctly assessed the importance of the Prime Minister's meetings during his stay in Europe. Mr Vastel's column appeared this morning under the following headline: "Mulroney, among the world's great statesmen". In his column he writes, and I quote: "By taking the multilateral approach-through the Francophonie and the Organization of American States, of which he made Canada a member, the Commonwealth, and especially the UN where he strengthened Canada's role, Mulroney has operated, often successfully, on familiar terrain".
Madam Speaker, this comment reflects the emphasis the Prime Minister has always placed on Canada's international role.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time is up.
May 7, 1993


HEALTH CARE
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, the Tory leadership candidates have trotted out that old platform of user fees on health care. Canadians fought all these years to develop a health care system in this country that is envied by other jurisdictions in North America. The leader of the Liberal Party still has not given a commitment against instituting user fees.
Every single Canadian has a right to free and clear access to health care. Any attempt by the government or the opposition to introduce user fees should be measured as a cheap political ploy against the best health care system in North America.


REPENTIGNY NAVAL CADETS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, let us return to serious matters. Protecting and enhancing the environment depends on the involvement of all citizens of this country.
Beyond rhetoric, it is important to act by doing something specific for a better environment. I am very proud to point out to this House what the Repentigny naval cadets are doing in a riverfront clean-up to take place tomorrow in Repentigny.
Last year, this event was a great success, drawing over 800 participants who collected the equivalent of ten truckloads or some 1,200 garbage bags. We would also mention the participation this year of the RCMP, the Montreal Expos, radio station CKMF, the Societe Magi-que, the band of the Royal Canadian Artillery and the Repentigny municipal band, as well.
We congratulate and admire Cadet Alain Boissonnault and all his team who are giving us an example of what can be done when we get involved. Other groups throughout Quebec have decided-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.


GREEK CIVILIZATION
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, a very great exhibit opened in Montreal last night on Greek civilization, Macedonia, the kingdom of Alexander the Great, presented by the Societe du Palais de la civilisation in Bonsecours Market.
Until September, we will have an opportunity to better understand this great civilization of Alexander the Great's kingdom. Over 200,000 visitors are expected and this will be a unique opportunity for us in Montreal and Quebec to better understand the Greek community's attachment to its culture.
Madam Speaker, you know the importance we must all attach, and I use that word advisedly, to our own history and culture. That is the issue of the day in Quebec. Therefore I strongly hope that this striking demonstration of the cultural vigour of our Greek friends will help us better understand our fellow Canadians who come from all over the world to share with us their history, their tragedies and their richness.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Madam Speaker, the media's mandate is to inform Canadians every day, even every hour. Reporters on Parliament Hill, editorialists and political analysts scrutinize what the people's elected representatives do.
Even though these elected people, of which I am one, sometimes find their criticism unfair and severe, the fact remains that the credibility of some of these journalists is well established.
This morning, two of them agree and believe it their duty to do justice to the Prime Minister of Canada who is now touring the great capitals of the world.
Besides Michel Vastel, Lise Bissonnette puts the debate in its proper perspective. She recalls that the Liberal Party, which is making a big fuss over this farewell tour by the Prime Minister, has a very short memory. Indeed, who does not remember "the pretentious peace initiative of their well-loved former leader, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, which failed and is still laughed about in foreign ministries".

May 7, 1993
Oral Questions
Ms. Bissonnette continues: "The tradition in Canadian politics, inherited from the great former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson-"


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret, but the hon. member's time has expired.


SOLVENT ABUSE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, all Canadians are aware of the recent deaths of young native people in Davis Inlet due to solvent abuse. The unfortunate reality is that the problem of solvent abuse is widespread.
Sniffing has been and is common in hundreds of native communities all across Canada. Many communities in my riding of Churchill, most notably in Shamattawa, are trying to cope with this horrible problem.
For a long time I have tried to convince successive Liberal and Conservative cabinet ministers that this Parliament needs to take urgent action and pay concrete attention.
Now the MKO, which represents 25 native bands in northern Manitoba, has been calling on the government to set up a 30-bed solvent abuse treatment centre in northern Manitoba. This proposal would go a long way to reduce the human tragedies.
Too many young people have died from solvent abuse. It is time for the government to take action.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, it is clear the government intends to do what it can to diminish the cultural and linguistic rights of aboriginal peoples. Most of the grants and contributions to aboriginal organizations and interest groups have been further reduced this year by 10 per cent and will be further reduced by 10 per cent in 1994-95, followed by another 15 per cent in 1995-96 and 20 per cent the year after.
Savings from these cuts will go to farmers and manufacturers while at the same time signalling the end for
many aboriginal cultural and communication resources and organizations which have managed against all odds to survive previous Tory budget cuts. It is a disgrace to see the government continue to pit people in need against each other.
If aboriginal organizations, communication societies and friendship centres are wiped out, so is any progress made by aboriginal people to achieve self-sufficiency and economic certainty for their future.


CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, on May 5 the hon. member for Kamloops in his motion under Standing Order 81 concerning NAFTA said unconditionally that Canadian Airlines International is closing its maintenance facility in Vancouver and is moving it to a 70 acre facility in northern Mexico.
I am informed that this is false. Where the hon. member obtained this information is unknown. I have checked with Canadian Airlines on this matter and it was stunned if not amazed that the hon. member for Kamloops would make such a statement. The employees at Canadian deserve better. They have worked hard over the last year to save their company and their jobs.
The hon. member should have checked his sources before standing in this Chamber and spreading unfounded rumours. An apology is in order by the member for Kamloops to the 16,000 employees of Canadian. I challenge him to reveal the names of the people who put him into this untenable position.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie -Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, the unemployment rate in Canada continues to climb. In April 43,000 jobs were lost. There are now 1.6 million Canadians unemployed. That is 144,000 more than at the same time last year. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech said, and I quote: "The foundation for growth, jobs and prosperity in the newly emerging economy is being put into place".
May 7, 1993

Unemployed Canadians know the government's policies are not working. I ask the Minister of Finance what he intends to do about it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, indeed I am concerned with the results that were announced this morning, particularly after having an employment growth of 48,000 in the month of March.
I have to say to my hon. friend that getting wrapped up in the month to month fluctuations may not necessarily represent the long-term trends. We have had employment growth in 10 of the last 12 months. In January it was 9,000 and in February it was 9,000. In March it went up to 48,000 and then of course there was a reduction by
43.000	in the month of April.
I have to advise my hon. friend however that the economy is growing. We have had a 3.5 per cent rate of growth in gross domestic product in the third quarter. The last three months have posted growth of 4 per cent.
What is encouraging is that manufacturing jobs are up by some 28,000 or 4 per cent in the last six months. Over the last six months there have been some 70,000 new jobs created in the manufacturing sector. Surveys indicate that manufacturing production will increase by some 33 per cent.


M. Douglas Young: Madam Speaker, in April the number of unemployed workers in Quebec increased by 16,000, bringing the total number of jobless in this province up to 458,000.
Could the Minister of Finance explain why the measures announced in his budget and in the prosperity initiatives document continue to lead us toward poverty instead of prosperity?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that we provided personal income tax cuts both in 1992 and 1993.
We have provided enhancements in the tax regime for the manufacturing and processing sector. We introduced a home buyers plan. We introduced a program of investment in infrastructure which will generate some
30.000	person-years of work over the course of the fulfilment of those projects. We introduced a small
Oral Questions
business package and some other tax changes to help small business adapt to the newly emerging economy, a new Small Businesses Loans Act and the simplification of the GST.
Most important, we introduced a budget that had no new taxes or no tax increases. We have injected $1.7 billion into the economy. The chairman of General Electric said just yesterday: "Higher taxes and higher health care costs are in direct conflict with more jobs and that is a reality". I hope that those provinces which still have to bring down their budgets will refrain from increasing taxes to offset the advantages and the benefits that we have provided in our budgets.


M. Douglas Young: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance talks about reality but the reality is that for a lot of Canadians the so-called national dream has become a nightmare.
If the minister looked at the figures that were released, the increase in unemployment among women, for example, is up 38,000. Unemployment among youth is at 18 per cent and we have all the students coming out of high schools, universities and community colleges out there seeking work.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why in his budget speech just recently there was no mention made of any plans to address the crisis that is facing women particularly and young people in this country. Why was there not even the effort made to try to find some solutions in the short term for this? The chairman of General Electric may have his views on how the economy is working, but the two million people who are out of work have their views on it as well and I think it is time the Minister of Finance moved on it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is indeed a fair question. What is required is an over-all strengthening of the economy and we see that strength on a broad basis.
Just look at the headlines:"Gross domestic product climbs back to strength; Canadian GDP grows; Spending on new construction from homes, schools to bridges and sewers is expected to rise by 3.5 per cent from '92 to '93 for a total of $79 billion; First quarter profits jump which provides more opportunity for investment; More factory job cuts loom but Stat survey finds 33 per cent increase in production in the manufacturing sector; Manufacturing sectors show signs of growth; The oil patch recovery is surprisingly strong; The drilling activity is 100 per cent

May 7, 1993
Oral Questions
higher this year than it was last year". That is jobs, jobs, jobs.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Statistics Canada reports that there are 16,000 more western Canadians who are out of work this month than last month. There are thousands of families that are hurting because of this government's policies. In my province alone, 5,000 more people are out of work than there were last month and hundreds and thousands of families are suffering because of what this government has done.
When will this government introduce a plan, a strategy and measures to create jobs for Canadians throughout the country? It is time it did that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity of my hon. friend's questions, but I think that he would understand that there are a number of positive indicators from which we can draw the conclusion that the economy is strengthening and that jobs are being created.
I do not think the hon. member should draw a conclusion simply on the month to month fluctuations in the unemployment statistics. The economy is growing. Manufacturing employment is up. Exports are strong. Construction spending is increasing. We have infrastructure projects in place. A number of initiatives have been announced and others are being announced which will generate some 30,000 new jobs.
I talked about the energy sector. It is growing. The lumber sector is in good shape. The retail sales-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We should move on.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Jobs are being lost everywhere in Canada, especially in large urban centres, and especially by women and young people, and the government opposite offers no plans or strategies to cope with this problem.
Why will this government not at least consider the Liberal strategy for creating jobs across the country? Why will it not consider this proposal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I know the philosophy of the Liberal Party is-


Mrs. Maheu:: Is people philosophy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, the philosophy of the Liberal Party is to spend more and to tax more and to borrow more. We have to face the reality that we have-


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: What about the 38 tax increases since 1984, an extra $1,000 per family?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, there have been an equal number of tax reductions, dally it up, Lloyd. There have been an equal number of reductions.
I think what is most encouraging is in the retail sales sector where there is clear headway being made in terms of sales and consumer confidence. What is interesting to note, as was pointed out by Steven Tanny of Ernst and Young, chief economist, who said this about the budget: "Consumer spending won't be dampened by the federal budget; as a matter of fact, it will be enhanced". With the solidification of the economy and the growth that is occurring in all sectors of the economy, I am still very optimistic and so are the OECD and the IMF about the prospects for Canada, both in job creation and in growth.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: We all
heard the sad news this morning, Madam Speaker, that there were 43,000 job losses last month, the first decline in jobs in this country since last July. The unemployment rate now has gone from 11 per cent to 11.4 per cent. Particularly hard hit are the young people and women in this country.
I want to ask the minister the following question: Since last week or a couple of weeks ago we had a non-budget in this country, can the minister tell this House if it is the intention of this lame duck government across the way to bring a jobs plan into this country before it announces the next election?
May 7, 1993


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, allow me to repeat again the number of initiatives that were taken in the December budget and in the February budget. Some of these measures have still not been passed thanks to the non-co-operation of the opposition.
We did bring in a budget that reduced personal income taxes, that reduced taxes and improved the capital cost allowance for small business. We brought in incentives for small business, investments in infrastructure, investments in people, a home buyers plan, programs to adapt to the new technology. Most important, we brought in a program that provides $1.7 billion worth of tax relief to the Canadian economy. I hope that will not be taken up further by the provincial governments that still have to bring down their budgets. Nothing would have a more dampening effect on the economy than that exercise right now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What we need, Madam Speaker, is a jobs plan to put Canadians back to work. That is what we need in this country.
Since August 1989 we have lost 313,000 jobs in manufacturing in this country, a drop of more than 20 per cent since the free trade agreement with the United States went into effect. Many of these people have left higher paying manufacturing jobs for lower paying jobs in the service sector.
What I want to ask the government now is since we have had this tremendous loss in manufacturing why is this government insisting on destroying the hopes of Canadians for the sake of Conservative ideology in the free trade agreement and now NAFTA which is destroying this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, this is not an ideological issue. This is an issue that deals with the fundamentals of a changing economy, a changing world economy, and whether in fact we can adapt to the realities of globalization, whether we can enhance our productivity and whether we can be competitive. Yes, we can and that is what we have been demonstrating. That is the encouraging thing about what we are seeing in the
Oral Questions
employment statistics inasmuch as the growth in employment in the manufacturing sector was some 4 per cent over the last six months, or 70,000 new jobs.
The bright light, the bright spot in the Canadian economy is indeed exports, which are reaching record levels month after month, year after year, and particularly our exports to the United States even from the hon. member's own province. I am amazed at the hon. member for not recognizing that fact.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the minister across the way is sounding more and more like the senator from Louisiana every day as our jobs go across the line to the United States. I want to ask him one more question about his economic projections.
Last year he was $9 billion out in projecting a deficit for this year. In terms of unemployment his projections were off by 1.8 per cent in 1991, 1.8 per cent in 1992, and 1.9 per cent so far in 1993.
Will this minister across the way finally admit that his projections are nothing more than voodoo economics, nothing more than a shot in the dark by a minister who does not know where he is going?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is true that our projections were off on the revenue side by some $9.2 billion and $11.9 billion for 1993-94. That is clearly a result of the forecasts that did not materialize with respect to economic growth.
We were not the only ones in that camp, which included the IMF, the OECD and all private sector forecasts. We were about right in the middle. Even today there are many who suggest that the growth in Canada will be something in the order of 3.2 per cent and 3.5 per cent for 1993. We are saying it will be about 2.9 per cent.
We believe our figures are reasonably accurate, recognizing that four out of the seven countries in the G-7 have double digit inflation. They too have the same challenges coming out of a recession and are faced with the restructuring and adjustment that have to take place.

May 7, 1993
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The United Nations Security Council is now considering very actively the question of new military interventions to stop aggression in Bosnia.
It is reported from the limited sources from Moscow that the Prime Minister has denied or rejected any new proposals for military intervention to stop the aggression, which puts us in a contradictory position or a difficult dilemma.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to Parliament whether Canada in fact supports a UN authorization to stop further aggression in Bosnia by some form of military intervention? If we do not support that position what is the Canadian alternative? What proposals are we putting forward? What are the contingency plans that we have raised to deal with this issue?
It is very important for the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure this Parliament is fully informed of the Canadian position on these crucial issues.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I do not think the UN has in fact called for active military intervention of the kind implied by the hon. member. I do not think there is any resolution of the UN to send in armed forces to impose military action on Yugoslavia.
What the UN did decide was to set up, I think it is, four more security zones of the form that have been set up in Srebrenica; but those work only if all the parties agree to them, and so far that assurance has not been made.
In terms of whether Canada would contribute any more, it has always been our position and remains our position that if the UN calls for more peacekeeping resources-I have distinguished between military intervention and peacekeeping resources-Canada will consider the appeal as we always have in the past and will in the future.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, contrary to what the hon. minister has to say, I quote from the Russian ambassador to the UN who has said: "We are now discussing further harsher steps and no steps have been predetermined or excluded from discussion to deal with the question of further intervention". That discussion is going on today, at the very moment that this Parliament is meeting.
I want to raise this question. Canadians recognize that we have serious matters at hand: the safety of our troops, the credibility of the UN in dealing with a matter of aggression and the question of when Canadians can be informed. Now we have further revelations about the fact that there has been a lack of government action to deal with reports of white supremacist activities among some of our troops in Somalia.
In light of all these important questions that deal with Canada's reputation abroad and our capacity to do peacekeeping, would the Prime Minister undertake to designate a minister who has direct responsibility for foreign affairs, such as the minister of defence or the secretary of state, to be available on a daily basis to answer questions and state government policy in Parliament so that Canadians can be kept fully informed and involved in the making of these crucial decisions?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's quote proves my point. He stood up on his first question and he said the UN has made a decision to intervene militarily-


Lloyd Axworthy: I did not say
that.


Harvie Andre: -and what is Canada's position?


Lloyd Axworthy: I said "considering". Check the "blues".


Harvie Andre: Then he says discussions are going on. What a difference from a decision being made.
The hon. member would serve the Canadian interest better if he was a little more selective and a little more careful with the facts.


Lloyd Axworthy: I said "is now discussing".
May 7, 1993


Harvie Andre: Of course they are being discussed. All options are being discussed.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what I said.


Harvie Andre: No, that is not what the hon. member said.


Lloyd Axworthy: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, the hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the United Nations and Canada are participating in discussions. The Prime Minister is discussing this with Yeltsin. He intends to have discussions with President Kohl, President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Major. No option obviously is dismissed at this point in time, but that is a far cry from suggesting that a decision has been made and what is Canada's position vis-a-vis that decision.
I dispute absolutely the implied accusation by the hon. member that there is widespread white supremacy in our troops in Somalia. I also dispute his direct quote-and he can check the "blues"-that no action has been taken.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, we will check the "blues".


Harvie Andre: I would remind him of the anti-harassment report made on Wednesday of this week by the Minister of National Defence and the actions taken there. I would remind him that an inquiry has been set up to see if there is a systemic problem. That is a far cry from no action as the hon. member suggests.
I remind the hon. member that there might be a better understanding of the complexity and importance of the issues in respect of this matter and more relevancy to the debates and discussions in the House if the hon. member was more careful with his accusation of facts.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, it is apparent that the Department of National Defence has had knowledge for some time now that serving uniformed members are involved with recognized racist organizations.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, because of the sensitivity of this issue, precisely what was known, when was it known and what was done about it.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the hon. member would make the accusation that the military has known for a long time of significant white supremacy and so on. That is not true.


Shirley Maheu: He didn't say that.


Harvie Andre: I do not think the Liberal Party distinguishes itself in leaking to the press gallery this accusation and applying that suggestion.
In terms of what the government has done about it, it has adopted a policy of zero incidents in respect of all aspects of harassment. That includes any racism that may be involved. In that regard there is education and training for all personnel.
There are harassment advisers and advisers in terms of those who might be at the receiving end of any racist comments or actions and a reporting mechanism. In addition, as was stated in the terms of reference of the inquiry set up by the Minister of National Defence, this inquiry has a mandate to see if there are systemic problems. While that is going on it would behove us all to respect the hundreds and indeed thousands of personnel in the Canadian Airborne Regiment who are doing such a superb job for us in Somalia.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I asked a reasonable question and I got an unreasonable answer.
I have a supplementary question. On the one hand the government said only yesterday that as a fundamental principle the military will not tolerate racism. On the other hand we are told by the military it is not against regulations. They cannot have it both ways.
On the policy of military association with racist organizations, what is it? Is it allowed or is it not? What positive action is the government talking about?


Harvie Andre: No, Madam Speaker, it is not permissible for Canadian Armed Forces personnel to be actively associated.

May 7, 1993
Oral Questions
I do not think that accusation is out there, even with respect to the individual whose dossier was circulated by the Liberal Party. I think that is from the past.
I do not think the Canadian Armed Forces has the capability, and I think people would be very upset if we tried to institute a scheme of inquiring into people's minds. We can only deal with their behaviour.
The policy announced on Wednesday makes it very clear that the policy of the Canadian Armed Forces is zero incidents. That is even stronger than zero tolerance. They are seeking zero incidents of racism, sexual harassment or any other aspects of aberrant behaviour. I think that is a perfectly appropriate policy for the times.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, let me say that any member of Parliament or any Canadian who reads the publication Sentinel from our Canadian Armed Forces will acknowledge that the Canadian Airborne Regiment is Canada's most elite regiment in our Armed Forces. These questions are being asked today of the Deputy Prime Minister because of the very serious allegations some people have raised.
Last night in a transcript Wolfgang Droege, head of the Heritage Front, a white supremacist group, said: "The Canadian military is a good recruiting ground for our organization. I don't think there is any question because many of their views coincide with those of ours". That is the head of the Heritage Front, and we all appreciate where it is coming from.
The transcript goes on to say that the minister's own department is offering some insight: "The Canadian Armed Forces have no regulations prohibiting the members from attending right wing extremist meetings". My question focuses on a senior officer who then said: "We realize and accept that recruits inevitably include some white supremacists". Those are officers within our Armed Forces.
Because of the comment just made by the House leader about zero tolerance, and considering the comments made by the minister of defence last night in Vancouver, why is the government not taking more action to ensure that white supremacists are not participating in any way, shape or form in our Armed Forces? What is the government doing about this particular issue
that has been unfortunately brought to our attention in the last 24 hours?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in terms of the Heritage Front I, along with the hon. member, do not believe very much of what they say, if anything at all. I do not know why we should believe what the president is quoted there as saying. I do not see why we should take that as credible since most of what they say is totally incredible and should not be believed.
In terms of recruits, the reality is that it is quite possible that some time in their past recruits have reflected the whole range of political sentiments in terms of their attitudes. I do not think there is this kind of McCarthyism: "Were you now or have you ever been a member of this or that group".
What is required of the Canadian Armed Forces is that once they are serving in the military it is intolerable for them in their capacity as members of the military to express racist or any other attitudes that would lead to persons being hurt in one way or another.
That is what that harassment policy announced on Wednesday was all about. The seriousness of the accusations, which have not come to light just yesterday as the hon. member says but have been known for some time, is one of the reasons for the setting up of this inquiry. One of the mandates of the inquiry is to look into the fact of whether there are any systemic problems in this regard and to deal with them.
The policy of the Canadian Armed Forces remains as articulated by the Minister of National Defence on Wednesday: zero incidents.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on April 28 when the board of inquiry was set up to look into the events in Somalia the chief of defence staff made it very clear at the time that racism was one of the allegations that would be specifically investigated.
My last question is for the government House leader. When was the minister of defence made aware of the ongoing inquiry within her department on racism, considering again her remarks last night in Vancouver that she was unaware of this? When was she made aware of it or when was any effort made to inform the minister?
May 7, 1993

Also, would the government not consider, since racism was not one of the allegations that would be specifically investigated in the inquiry, that it is time to include those specifications as part of the mandate for the inquiry?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not want to accept that the policy which is in place now, stated on Wednesday, takes care of the problems he is talking about. Whether there is something in the chain of command or the operation which might lead to systemic difficulties is the mandate of the inquiry. We should allow the inquiry to proceed.
I remind the hon. member that we do have a charter of rights in this country. Individual members of the Armed Forces, once they join up, are not allowed any active political participation. They cannot run for office. They cannot distribute pamphlets. They make no public appearances. However they can go to meetings and they can think. Under the charter of rights one is allowed to do that in Canada even if one is in uniform.



Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Fifty per cent of our exports are manufactured products, mostly in technologies such as communications.
Could the minister explain the lack of additional worth-while investments in technology, research and development and retraining for the skilled labour force needed to maintain and improve the best sector of our economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the federal government has taken a number of initiatives to enhance the competitiveness and productive capacity of the processing and manufacturing sector.
Oral Questions
I am sure the hon. member is aware that the February budget set out a number of initiatives to improve the capital cost allowance. We are following that up with an additional $400 million in support of further research and development. In the budget we have provided additional support for incentives for investing in high-tech equipment and the sophisticated computerized information-based type of equipment that has a very short shelf life.
We are trying to work with this important manufacturing and processing sector which is tied in very much to the newly emerging economy to try and make those adjustments and to strengthen and improve their productivity and competitiveness.
It is most important to maintain a favourable tax environment for investment. What we have been trying to do is bring down interest rates and inflation. I hope my provincial colleagues who still have to bring in budgets will bear that in mind when they bring them forward.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, the minister's answer goes against what major intervenors have told us about the economy and the need for investing more in areas where we perform best. I think that is rather surprising, and I hope they will note the minister's reply.
My supplementary is as follows: Dramatically high levels of unemployment in Quebec are creating despair and a lack of confidence in economic recovery.
What does the minister intend to do to stem this tide of pessimism and improve opportunities for the unemployed who have their pride and who want a chance to find a job?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have no doubt about that at all.
We have put in place an economic policy framework that has delivered the lowest inflation in 30 years and the lowest interest rates in 20 years.


David Barrett: Highest unemployment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have put in place a number of incentives for the small business sector, programs to invest in people to improve their skills upgrading and their retraining and a number of incentives with respect

May 7, 1993
Oral Questions
to infrastructure, all being aimed at bolstering economic activity and creating growth and jobs. This is the over-all objective of the Government of Canada.
I advise the hon. member that Canada's growth rate compared to the other G-7 countries is far above and beyond the potential there. We are going to have the best rate of growth in the G-7 this year and next year and the best rate of employment growth as well.


David Barrett: And more food banks.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well.
The release of the unemployment statistics this morning confirmed what most people in Ontario already knew, which is that the recession is certainly not over in Ontario. Surely having 575,000 jobless in Ontario is not what the minister meant in his budget speech when he said: "The fundamentals are improving".
My question for the Minister of Finance is very simple. What is happening in Canada's industrial heartland? What is happening in Ontario?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should be encouraged. The manufacturing sector in the recession and during the course of the restructuring period has taken a real battering but manufacturing jobs have increased by 28,000, up by 4 per cent in the last six months.
Surveys indicate that there will be a 33 per cent increase in manufacturing production. Exports are strong. Construction spending is on the rise. Infrastructure projects are coming on stream. The energy sector is bouncing back and that has a direct effect on the economy of Ontario. The drilling activity is up by about 100 per cent. The lumber sector is strong.
The incentives to business, in particular the small business sector, are having a positive effect. Retail sales are strengthening and consumer confidence is strengthening. That was not undermined by the budget that I brought down. So there are some encouraging signals.
I am as disappointed at the hon. member about the employment statistics for last month but I think it has to be taken into context.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, let us put it in context: 3,000 jobs were lost yesterday in the GM plant in Scarborough; 250 jobs lost in Oakville at the Mack truck plant. These are the kinds of high-quality, high-paying, value-added jobs that we need in this countiy. That is what is behind the statistics that we heard this morning.
Last year the finance minister promised in his budget that unemployment would go down to 9.7 per cent in 1993. The failure of the government to produce anything other than a continuing stream of optimistic statistics is what has left so many people in Ontario and elsewhere without jobs and without hope.
Would the minister please explain whether the failure to implement a clear job creation strategy should be blamed on his last budget in 1992 or on the budgets of his predecessor before him?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the House of Commons is a place for debate and a place for the offering of alternatives. I am not sure whether the hon. member is proposing an alternative which would be in agreement with the leader of his party.
I know what the leader of his party wants to do. He wants to go out and borrow more and spend more and tax more. That is not our philosophy.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister who asked where the Liberal policies are in terms of job creation.
I would like to quote from The Edmonton Journal of this week. It reads: "The NDP plan to create jobs and cut the deficit is more sensible, more humane and more economically sound than the do-nothing budget brought in by the federal Conservatives. Can Canada really afford to ignore the merits of a full employment economic strategy?"
I would like the minister to answer the question of The Edmonton Journal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what version of the New Democratic Party economic philosophy the hon. member is representing. We have about three or four of them now.
May 7, 1993

Oral Questions
I can tell him that Edmontonians and Albertans will be very happy to see headlines like this: "Oil patch recovery surprisingly strong; Drilling activity in western Canada jumped 100 per cent from a year earlier".
I can tell him what else they are very happy about. That is the 48 per cent increase in exports to the United States under the free trade agreement which the hon. member and his party opposes. It is creating jobs. It is creating durable jobs which gives us the springboard to compete not only with the United States but with other countries around the world.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the minister knows we have 313,000 fewer jobs in manufacturing since free trade. He knows that. The statistics today say that. We have appalling unemployment among women and youth in the regions of this country.
Does the minister not understand that we cannot cut mining agreements, forestry agreements, regional development and the deficit as long as Canadians remain unemployed? Do something, minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that while there may be fewer people working in the manufacturing sector we are still manufacturing substantially more in terms of production.
It is the same thing with agriculture. We probably produce 11 times as much these days as we did 25 or 30 years ago because of productivity enhancement.
That is what competing and improving productivity is all about. We have to adjust to the realities of the global marketplace. We have to take advantage of the liberalized trade opportunities, in the United States under the North American free trade agreement, in Japan and in other countries.
We have been trying to put in place the kind of economic environment that would allow investment to take place in order to create jobs and compete effectively. Canada is one of the great trading nations of the world and we must trade to survive and we will trade and prosper.
[Translation}


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
A binational tribunal has rejected the countervailing duties imposed by the Americans and ordered the U.S. commerce department to do its homework again and review within 90 days its decision to impose countervailing duties of 6.5 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber. The Quebec Manufacturers' Association is disappointed with the decision.
Can the minister tell us today that he will do everything in his power to help Quebec forestry producers abolish these American countervailing duties? We know that the Quebec subsidy is so small that it does not justify U.S. countervailing duties.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, it was wonderful news we received yesterday with the success for Canada in the panel.
It is interesting to note an editorial in The Financial Post this morning that says the value of the free trade dispute panel is abundantly apparent in its legal determinations about the merits of the department of commerce case. The final outcome remains in doubt but without the panel we would be at the mercy of politically inspired trade actions.
I want to tell my hon. friend that there is a 90-day waiting period for appeal, which is unlikely to be successful even if it is pursued. Then we will see $200 million coming back into the pockets of Canadians thanks to this panel that was available because of the free trade agreement that my hon. friends over there disparage so roundly.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The federal government is often accused of off-loading its deficit problems on to the backs of the provinces. In recent budget statements the minister stated that transfer payments would not be cut to the provinces yet a

May 7, 1993
Oral Questions
table in the same document indicated that transfers are to be less this year than last year.
Would the minister care to explain that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, rather than off-loading to the provinces we have been treating the provinces as having special status.
While our program expenditures have been contained at something less than 4 per cent between 1984-85 and 1992-93, transfers to the provinces have been growing at an annualized rate of 5.2 per cent.
The same principle applies in this budget. If he looks at page 67 of the budget he will see there are two components to the transfers to the provinces, cash and tax transfer points. If he looks at 1992-93 he will find the figure at $39.2 billion rising to $40.4 billion in 1993-94 to $41.7 billion in 1994-95, to $46.7 billion in 1997-98, for an average annual increase of 3.7 per cent, just under 4 per cent.
Again the provinces are getting special status. They continually harp, as do opposition members, about the federal government off-loading on the provinces. That is absolutely false and erroneous.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government will know that Canada Post has sent a memo to all rural post offices telling postal employees that income tax returns mailed on the evening of April 30 should not be stamped as having been received on time even though they were.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why are rural Canadians who mailed their taxes on time labelled as late filers and what measure does he intend to take to ensure that these people are not penalized?


Harvie Andre: The hon. member is not quite accurate in what he stated. In fact,
what Canada Post did was send it to all of its retail counters-not just rural but all of them-and said:


Don Boudria: No.


Harvie Andre: Well, in fact the memo is to all retail counters. What it stated was: "Please stamp the mail as you receive it. Do not backdate it".
The hon. member would be on his feet righteously screaming in indignation if the post office sent out a memo saying it is okay to backdate the stamp on income taxes so if one's friend brings in his income tax late it is all right to backdate it. Of course, it is stamped the date that it is taken out of the chute. Canada Post kept special post offices open till midnight on April 30 in various places around the country so that those people who were late filers could have their income tax in on time.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday's ruling on softwood lumber was called hypocritical in the words of the British Columbia forests minister when it determined that log export restrictions are a subsidy while the U.S. government maintains similar policies. The whole process has hurt British Columbia and it remains unclear what the final outcome will be.
Given the other findings in the hearing and the need to ensure that we have the expressed right to regulate our resources without fear of retribution, will the government insist on the Clinton administration dropping this entire dispute now?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, of course this was a good news story for Canada yesterday, no matter how my hon. friend opposite wants to paint it.
Recently the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Kantor, clearly and unequivocally indicated to our Minister for International Trade that the United States would live up to its obligations under the FTA and would indeed bind itself by the decisions of this very fair and arbitrary process.
May 7, 1993


PRIVILEGE
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, during the course of Question Period the House leader made a statement that I had issued widespread allegations of racism in the Canadian Armed Forces. Of course that is patently untrue. That is not what I said.
I would ask the Speaker to check the "blues" to see exactly what was said, and when the minister recognizes his mistake to ask for his apology.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member while he is checking the "blues" or his memory might recall that he accused me of deliberately misleading the House, which is contrary to the rules. I hope he would stand up and withdraw those comments right now.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
91ST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 91st report of the Standing Committee on House Management, concerning the list of members to sit on the Legislative Committee on Bill C-126. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is
Routine Proceedings
from a group of citizens from the province of British Columbia in the communities of Campbell River, Port Alberni and Black Creek among others.
They draw the House's attention to the fact that the proposed North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater concessions being demanded from Canada, that this agreement will cause more Canadians to lose more good jobs and if implemented the free trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources for Canada's benefit and advance needed social programs.
They note that there is going to be an election prior to January 1, 1994, the date that the agreement is supposed to come into force. They therefore call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, my second petition is from many hundreds of people throughout the province of British Columbia.
They note that teachers in our public and secondary school systems, as well as in post-secondary institutions, bear the burden of extra-curricular expenses in order to improve their own professional capabilities and acquire learning materials for their students.
They also note that the Income Tkx Act allows selfemployed professionals and business people deductions for operating expenses to improve their office or business, even entertainment expenses for three-martini lunches and the use of escort services, which they consider unfair when teachers are denied the benefits of purchasing goods for their students. They-

May 7, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is really getting into a speech. I would appreciate the hon. member using the set formula.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I will complete it then. They request that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue take action to amend the present Income Thx Act to allow teachers in educational institutions in Canada to deduct for professional expenses made in the course of their employment.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from 62 citizens, mostly from Lethbridge but from other places in Alberta as well, bringing to the attention of the House the increasing incidence of violent assaults and murders that often involve minors and are senseless, random attacks.
These citizens are making a call for more severe punishment in terms of minimum sentences and mandatory life imprisonment for some of the more serious offences.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, this petition is signed by many members of my constituency.
It concerns the reduction of adoptive parent leave from 15 to 10 weeks while at the same time biological parent leave has been increased to 25 weeks, 15 weeks maternity and 10 weeks parental leave.
This bill promotes discrimination between adoptive and biological families by making obvious the differences when the real issue should be paid leave for child care for all families.
These constituents are calling on this House to call on the government to correct this injustice.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table petitions signed by residents of the interior of British Columbia. They express their concerns about various projects to divert Canadian rivers and waters to the United States, in particular the proposal to divert water from the North Thompson River into Kinbasket Lake.
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions that have been forwarded to me which I am pleased to present to the House today.
These petitions deal with violence on television and they are signed by residents throughout my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap in British Columbia.
The petitioners are concerned about the number of hours that children, particularly young children, are exposed to acts of violence through the media, particularly through television. They have asked that the government resolve this issue by encouraging communication between the public and the industry.
They further ask that public hearings should be held and recommendations made to limit the amount of violence on television and that those recommendations be enacted by government.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, if you will indulge me for just one more moment. I have a number of other petitions on Bill C-62. They urge the Minister of Communications to oppose the disruptive effect that the introduction of long-distance competition and deregulation will have on Canada's world class telephone system.
These individual petitioners, who are from throughout the province of British Columbia, are concerned about the impact of unravelling the regulated communications market and the cost of increased residential consumer telephone rates.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of residents of Nepean and the city of Ottawa.
These petitioners are concerned that Canada should remain internationally competitive and maintain its status as the leading country of the world.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to promote and encourage the institution of national education standards in consultation with provincial governments, education professionals, industry and labour, parents, youth, voluntary organizations and individual Canadians.
May 7, 1993


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 237 and 307 could be made Orders for Returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 237 and 307 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blaikie: Since the freeze on discretionary expenses announced by the President of Treasury Board on January 27,1992, has any (a) polling, (b) public surveys or (c) focus groups been performed or contracted by the government and, if so, (i) for which departments, (ii) for which agencies, (iii) for which crown corporations and, for each of the above, what was the reason given for the exemption to the expenditure freeze?
Return tabled.

Question No. 307-Mr. Manley:
For the fiscal year 1991-92, what was the total cost of all public opinion polls conducted or commissioned by any department and what was the purpose of each?
Return tabled.


Charles A. Langlois: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. My request to move adjournment of the House under Standing Order 52 relates to yesterday's decision regarding the softwood lumber tariff issue.
While we take comfort in part of the ruling from yesterday there is a particular part of the ruling that may prove to be very difficult for the province of British Columbia. In particular, the ruling has determined that the export of raw logs constitutes a subsidy.
I believe that goes to the heart of a government's ability to make decisions on how it manufactures or processes raw resources, in particular raw logs.
I think it has important and potentially serious implications for our ability to manage our resources. I would ask for your guidance and support on this, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I agree with the hon. member that there are certainly implications, probably good and bad, in the decision that was rendered yesterday, but at this point the conditions required to adjourn the House according to Standing Order 52 are not present.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops): Madam Speaker, I motion under Standing Order 52(1) from the hon. appreciate this opportunity to return to debate on Bill member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.	C-123.

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
When we left off before Question Period I was saying that there were a number of concerns. They will be raised at the committee stage but I want to put them clearly on the record.
One is the fact that this procedure of sharing the proceeds of crime between those participating in the successful conclusion of an inquiry or prosecution has been implemented in the United States where there is evidence that in some cases police departments have grown to view the prosecution of cases from which they are more likely to receive rewards in the form of the forfeiture of significant proceeds as being the most important cases to work on and proceed with.
Those crimes that do not involve the possibility of such a reward, such as crimes involving family violence, are not given the same attention that might have been given where there is not a dollar value attached.
I do not want to suggest for a moment that this would influence police departments in our country but it must be recognized that there is some possibility of this.
However this concern has also been alluded to by Department of Justice officials. It will be interesting for us to hear from the various witnesses in committee. I think it is fair to say that anything that would inadvertently shift the system away from responding to the needs of a community based on the degree of urgency or harm done and the potential for harm toward a greater interest in the number of dollars involved must be avoided.
I believe that the Solicitor General earlier today put this concern at rest, at least here on the floor of the House, when he said that it may not go directly to the police departments or to the agencies or departments involved but to those agencies that fund them. In other words, it is a bit of an arm's length relationship here.
The second concern we have is that there have been concerns expressed that the implementation of this program may be the thin edge of the wedge leading to police departments becoming more and more reliant upon proceeds of crime forfeitures for their base budget funding.
There is nothing in this bill to give any indication as to how this might be prevented. I am again just identifying concerns we will be raising in committee so that those who will be responding can be forewarned. In fact, details of how the funds are to be shared by the various levels of government are still under review although we have heard comments from the Solicitor General.
Another area of concern would be who will pay for the new office that would be struck. Obviously the new office will be established within the Department of Supply and Services. I think it is a fair question to ask. Whenever a new office, department or agency is being set up by government we ask where the money for that will come from. That is what the taxpayers of Canada are asking us to do at all times. In committee we will be asking: Who will fund this? Will it simply come from the estimates of the department? Will the proceeds of forfeited moneys from crimes be used to fund this office? Will it be shared between the various jurisdictions, for example federal, provincial, municipal and regional? These are questions that are fair to ask.
The last point is certainly frustrating in the sense that one of our primary concerns is that a significant share of the money forfeited as proceeds of crime go toward crime prevention and substance abuse prevention. This was one of the primary recommendations of the unanimous report on crime prevention tabled in this House by the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General in February. It is certainly a recommendation that we in the New Democratic Party will support.
I noted with interest yesterday that when the member for Kitchener rose and introduced the government's psychoactive substances legislation he pointed out that for every dollar spent on prevention, and specifically the prevention of substance abuse, the government could expect to save $7 down the road in treatment and justice system costs. There is all kinds of evidence that $1 set aside for prevention would result time and time again in that $1 being saved a little bit further along the way.
I would like to simply say that we want to see this preventative initiative focused not only on hard drugs but on smoking and alcohol abuse as well.
May 7, 1993

We will have more to say in committee and I will leave my remarks at that.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to stand here and speak in this House on Bill C-123, which establishes a federal program to share forfeited proceeds of crime with other jurisdictions involved in federal drug and other federal criminal prosecutions.
I know the details of how the funds will be shared are still under review. Today individual police forces do not receive the money, but under the proposed legislation they would still not receive the money but the money would certainly go to the department that funds those same police forces, which is either the provincial or municipal government. In my case it would be the city of Nepean.
It also proposes to establish an office within the Department of Supply and Services to manage the restrained assets that have been seized in the particular federal crime cases. This office would also have an advisory function for law enforcement agencies.
Canada has had proceeds of crime legislation since 1989 but all the moneys and assets collected reverted to the federal government. In many cases this was seen as unfair to the provincial and municipal governments that assisted in cracking these cases. Many of these cases were under investigation for long periods of time and were very costly to local and provincial police departments. Problems have arisen with respect to the cost of managing seized or restrained assets.
In consultation with my own Nepean police services department I have been advised by the deputy chief of Nepean, Devon Fermoyle, that the Ontario police chiefs have called for a cost sharing of crime proceeds. The Ontario chiefs feel the money should be divided among the various levels involved in the cases because many of the raids-in fact probably all of the raids-do involve local forces in addition to the RCMP forces or the FBI. The moneys that are generated should also go to the municipal forces through the municipality.
Deputy Chief Fermoyle gave me one example of how in a recent bust in collaboration with a number of other levels they recovered $14,000 and yet the cost to the city of Nepean police department was $60,000. They really believe they should have been able to at least recover
Government Orders
their costs and they have not been able to do so until this point in time. Even if there is real property on sale the money goes to the federal agency and not to the municipal agencies.
In the United States there is quite a different situation. Say for example if the FBI, the RCMP and the tobacco-firearms department in the U.S.A. are involved. They had a big bust recently in the U.S. As a result the United States government handed over $100,000 to the Canadian government. Its system is very different from ours and the federal agency is able to put this money in its pocket and obviously the local forces should be able to receive some of this money.
We on this side of the house proposed a similar scheme to this in a recent policy paper on justice issues. We have been calling for legislation such as this for a good number of years now. We have recommended that the proceeds of any crime operation be split among all parties involved in the case and the percentages would depend upon each party's level of involvement.
Since 1989 I am told that only $60 million in assets has been seized through the current proceeds of crime legislation. Obviously someone is not doing one's job. A lot more money than that should have come into the coffers if somebody had been monitoring it and ensuring that the law enforcement agencies and the government were working very closely together to make sure that this money came in.
We on this side of the House want assurances from the Minister of Justice that the proceeds of crime will indeed find their way back to local and provincial police departments through their municipalities. We want to be certain that provincial and municipal governments will not just keep this money to build new roads or pay down their deficits.
As a 10-year member of a municipal council I know that they tend to shift money from one little pocket to another or from one little pay account to another or reserve account to another. I would certainly want to make sure that the municipalities direct this money right back into police service.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not in Nepean.


Beryl Gaffney: "Not in Nepean", my colleague from Vanier says. This does happen in any municipality. I believe that the police forces are having a very difficult time these days. They have been cut back drastically due

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
to fiscal restraint and they need these additional funds as much as anybody else.
With regard to the proposed new office for the Department of Supply and Services, I think that is another area that we must monitor. Every time a new department is created we create a bureaucratic nightmare. I think we need to make sure that this office is efficiently run and efficiently established and that there is more clarification from the government on the exact function and role of this particular office.
Assurances also need to be given by the Minister of Justice that the proceeds of crime will definitely find their way back into the proper pockets as I mentioned a few minutes ago. Although the proposed new office is probably considered of a secondary nature with regard to this bill, I think we need to ensure that we have everything tied down if we are going to establish a new department.
I have a letter from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. It concerns the proposed changes to the proceeds of crime legislation.
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse outlined a position paper that pertained to this matter that has been put out by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They met and jointly agreed on the importance of this legislation.
I do have a copy of that brief here and I would like to table it for the information of the Minister of Justice. It is important that when there are agencies such as these three I have mentioned that are standing in strong support of this legislation then it needs to be passed and our police services departments need to be the recipients of these funds. We must make sure that this legislation does goes through.
I wish I had had the opportunity to read this brief but it was just handed to me this moment. I have not had the time to read it but I think it is important that it is filed and that everyone is aware of it.
Again thank you for the opportunity of speaking in the House on this very important bill. I am sure that it will pass quickly.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention another point which so far has not been brought to the attention of the Solicitor General. It concerns a ski resort in Quebec.
Bill C-123 would authorize the minister to manage and dispose of property referred to in paragraph (b), and property that is from the proceeds of crime or offence-related property, when such property is forfeited to Her Majesty. It would provide that on taking possession or control thereof, the minister shall be responsible for the custody and management of the property.
When I started to look into the case of the ski resort in Quebec, I realized that it took a long time for the case to get started because there were so many searches and investigations. I believe it took about two years. At one point the forfeited property was operated, if I am not mistaken, by the RCMP. To have the RCMP operating a ski resort is positively mind boggling.
When we consider the amounts of money involved in these cases, as was said earlier by my colleagues, since 1989 all we have is $60 million, but $60 million is still $60 million. If my information is correct, the money is never deposited in a bank account and that has been the case for many years. We are talking about several million dollars that were deposited in a bank vault-this is cash-and will stay there until there is enough evidence, a sufficient number of searches have taken place and enough statements have been gathered to bring the case before the courts. Sometimes it can take years.
I think all this is incredible and pretty ridiculous. The time involved may be considerable because the procedure includes preliminary investigations, statements and searches, as I said before. The latter are initiated to find other properties, such as houses or cars, which the accused may own.
I think this is all quite unacceptable, and I will explain why. If for some reason the Crown does not gather enough evidence to lay charges it is obliged to return the money in whole or in part. Usually, as I said before, the money is put in a vault. However, when a decision is reached by the courts, it always allows for the accumulated interest. The courts always consider the real value of the money, not the amounts seized at the beginning of the investigation. This means the taxpayer has to pay the
May 7, 1993

interest on those amounts. I wonder why this money cannot be deposited in a trust account pending court proceedings. In this way Canadian taxpayers would not be stuck with paying millions of dollars in interest costs.
The brief that we have from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police about the proceeds of crime recommends that the federal government proceed with the proposed ethics management office establishing an audit mechanism that includes other orders of government, that participating governments be involved in the development of fair procedures for the sharing of net forfeited assets, that the federal government in consultation with the orders of government develop a mechanism which would enable direct sharing of net proceeds with entitled parties and that guidelines be provided for the use of forfeited drug proceeds in accordance with the policy thrust of Canada's drug strategy.
As my other colleagues mentioned, we proposed a similar scheme to this one but I am not sure that anyone took a real hard look at the money that is stuck in a vault.
I am not talking about the money that has fingerprints on it or that was marked money in order to catch some of our drug traffickers. We are not even touching the bottom of the barrel. We are just skimming off the surface with our $60 million. Consequently once this money has filtered back down to the forces and to the levels of government that are paying the bill we could have many more millions.

We have to come up with a way to keep the money in an interest-bearing account. I have nothing against the office proposed by the minister, but that office should have a special, entirely separate bank account for the proceeds of money laundering.

We want the minister to assure us that the proceeds of these crimes will find their way back to local and provincial police departments. We do not want the bureaucracy eating all the money that is being made from the proceeds of crime.
This war against drugs is a difficult one. It may never be won. If we do not start putting the money back into fighting the drug lords then we will never win it.
Government Orders
I would like to see the minister amend this bill so that a trust account could be opened. It would be one that will not be bogged down by bureaucracy and the money will be available when the judges say it is available. It will earn interest in the meantime because we as taxpayers cannot afford any more expenses especially not from the laundering of drug money.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, this may not be quite a point of order but on the day before yesterday in a speech I was making on NAFTA I inadvertently made the statement that Canadian Airlines was planning to close down its maintenance shop in Vancouver and open a new shop in Mexico. I think one might recall that I said that.
What I should have said was that sources have indicated to me that in the foreseeable future the operational maintenance base in Richmond, B.C. will be closed. The job being done by the employees there will be contracted out to a large, mega maintenance base that is presently being built in northern Mexico to serve not only Canadian Airlines but a number of other airlines.
I thought in light of the statement made today that I should put that on the record. I did inadvertently misspeak. The point still remains of the concern by a number of very informed sources that this will be the inevitable result of maintenance for Canadian Airlines and also other airlines as well.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.


SEIZED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circum-
[Stage Direction]
May 7, 1993
Government Orders
stances, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.

Hon. John C. Crosbie (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-90, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, the need for the reform of sentencing in Canada has long been recognized by judges, parliamentarians, law reformers and members of the legal profession.
During the past 20 years there have been calls for reform from various committees, a royal commission and from the Law Reform Commission of Canada. More recently, the Canadian Sentencing Commission which reported in 1987 and in 1988, a report of the House committee, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, made extensive recommendations regarding the reform of sentencing, conditional release and corrections.
Bill C-90 gives Canadians for the first time a say on the purpose and principles of criminal sentencing. Extensive consultations were carried out involving both justice professionals and representatives of the community.
These consultations followed joint publication by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice of directions for reform, sentencing, corrections and conditional release in July 1990. The changes proposed in this bill have been broadly accepted by criminal justice professionals, provinces and territories.
Together with Bill C-36 passed by Parliament last year, Bill C-90 presents a strong and unified approach to criminal justice. I believe that sentencing practices in Canada must consistently reflect values that Canadians have told us are important to them in the treatment of offenders. Considering the fact that criminal sanctions provide for one of the most serious intrusions of the state into the lives of individuals, the absence of a policy statement from the Parliament of Canada seems quite remarkable.
Bill C-90 provides courts with clear policy direction from Parliament. The bill states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. A statement of principles is set out, designed to establish a coherent framework of policy and process in sentencing matters and to bring consistency, fairness and accountability to the sentencing process. The establishment of a statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing has been endorsed by the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the standing committee and the former Law Reform Commission of Canada.
This is a large and detailed bill. I cannot discuss all of the provisions but would like to highlight a number which I feel are particularly important. I will start by elaborating on the statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing.
In addition to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, the bill sets out objectives which judges should consider when sentencing.
The objectives available to judges in this bill include denunciation, deterrence and separation of the offender from society. These are clearly appropriate sentencing objectives to apply to the 8 to 10 per cent of violent crime which is handled in our courts. This does not suggest, of course, that we can ever eliminate violence totally in our society. In absolute terms, wanton violence by deranged individuals is probably unavoidable except at a cost in terms of rights and freedoms which Canadians would be unwilling to accept.
May 7, 1993

The government is committed to strengthening the Canadian system of justice to ensure that it is inclusive and can respond to the needs and aspirations of all Canadians. It wants to ensure that Canada is a just and law abiding society with an accessible, efficient and fair system of justice. It wants to improve the protection of society so that Canadians are confident of their personal and community safety. It wants to build upon values and trends in the Constitution and the charter and to promote respect for rights and freedoms. This requires much more than simply more criminal sentencing. Bill C-90 provides other sentencing objectives which may be more appropriate for the majority of offenders.
The bill describes, for example, the objective of providing reparations for the harm done to both individuals and to the community. Also included is provision for promoting a sense of responsibility on the part of offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. While having general application and importance to the community at large, these two objectives may be particularly appropriate to aboriginal communities which are interested in bringing the concept of healing to criminal justice.
The bill recognizes the objective of using the criminal justice system to assist in rehabilitating offenders. The concept of rehabilitation is at the core of much of what is done in our correctional systems at both the federal and provincial levels. It is the operational means of best ensuring the long-term protection of society. A rehabilitated offender contributes more to the protection of society than a warehoused criminal who will ultimately be released into society.
The bill also sets out principles through which the court may exercise its discretion. The fundamental principle is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The court may take into consideration aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Sentences should be comparable for offenders who have committed similar acts in similar circumstances. Sentences should not be unduly long or harsh. In keeping with the fact that the majority of offenders are not violent and that preferable treatment is usually available in the community, this bill states that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive alternatives may be
Government Orders
appropriate. The statement of purpose and principles of sentencing states that all available alternatives to imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered. This is so generally, but particularly in the case of aboriginal offenders.
The statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing, the changes to the Code respecting procedure and evidence, the restructuring of that part of the Code which deals with sentencing and the involvement of Parliament in sentencing policy will all serve to deal with identified sentencing problems such as unwanted disparity.
There is a provision in this bill requiring the reasons for sentence to be given in all cases. This measure will encourage well-reasoned decisions, assist courts of appeal and serve an educative function. Giving reasons will assist in making more clear what is intended by the courts and should enable the public to relate what is done in sentencing to the policy approved by Parliament. These changes should help to deal with the confused view of sentencing held by the public as described in the report of the standing committee and by the Canadian Sentencing Commission. This change will help us to evolve sound government policy in criminal justice with broad, better informed public support.
These proposals are designed to increase public accessibility to the law concerning sentencing and to make it more understandable and predictable. The bill includes a complete restructuring of Part XXIII of the Criminal Code of Canada. The current structure of the Criminal Code exhibits little legislative consideration of this important process. It provides little guidance to the courts or to the public respecting the policy which we intend. This restructuring brings together most of the provisions relating to sentencing within the Criminal Code and structures them to make them more logical and accessible. Structuring of Part XXIII in this way makes it more understandable and accessible to both criminal justice professionals and to the public. This should also help in dealing with the broad public misunderstanding of criminal justice.
Bill C-90 establishes rules of procedures and evidence which will bring greater consistency, fairness and accountability to the sentencing process. They will deal

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
with, for example, what information should be available to the court, powers that the court should have to obtain that information and how the information is considered. The judge must consider victim impact statements prepared according to the Criminal Code. The offender will have the right to speak to the sentence.
An innovative provision in this bill will bring into the Criminal Code a provision for alternative measures for adults. Alternative measures have two main aims: to prevent the continuation of criminal behaviour and to lessen the stigma of proceedings. They also promote community involvement and awareness by involving the community in measures themselves and by putting a greater emphasis on victim-offender reconciliation. Alternative measures programs can be used instead of formal court proceedings and have been found particularly appropriate for first time and non-violent offenders. Diverting less serious offenders away from courts means that scarce time and resources can be focused on more serious crime. In this way the bill gives further expression to the involvement of the community in dealing with criminal justice issues.
Bill C-90 reflects the conceptual framework within which the government sees the justice system being reorganized and made more broadly comprehensible. The underlying principle is that the Canadian justice system must serve all Canadians.
Second, our justice system must be responsive and fair to all Canadians. In my view this can best be achieved by inspiring confidence in a broadly cast system of justice. The system must be sensitive to the needs of all Canadians, take account of their distinctiveness and reflect basic Canadian values.
Third, our justice system must protect society. This means promoting means by which Canadians have confidence in their personal and community security. We are building on both individual rights and responsibilities.
This bill contributes to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. Its adoption will be an historic step in the reform of law and practice of sentencing in Canada of which this Parliament can be so proud.
I move that Bill C-90 be read a second time.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, it is awfully difficult, and with due respect to the member for South Shore for whom I have a good deal of respect, to listen to the words of the government relating to Bill C-90, about what a wonderful legislation it is and how it is going to be so helpful with all the things that it is going to do.
If the government really believes anything that it has put in that speech, then surely this bill would have been before the House before now. Frankly, it is an insult to the House that a bill that receives first reading on June 23, 1992 has to wait until May 1993 to be introduced for second reading.
How can the government possibly hope to convince anyone to believe that it supports this bill, its own legislation, when it waits practically 11 months to bring the legislation forward before a House of Commons that is going to be adjourned and go into a federal election probably within a matter of weeks? It is misleading and hypocritical of the government to deal with this legislation in the way it has so chosen.
What the government is doing is nothing more than show casing justice legislation. I think the interest of Canadians is not being well-served by this government's procedure of playing with legislation, playing with the cost of the House of Commons and using it for trivial little interludes of conversation which it wants to have passed on to the Canadian people as conscientious attempts to pass legislation.
It is offensive and it is truly repugnant. I frankly feel that it is a sham.
Certainly there are a lot of things in this legislation that would have been very helpful to have. If we sit well into the summer we can perhaps pass this bill.
This is not an incidental piece of legislation. This is not a minor bill. This is a very important bill. The parliamentary secretary mentioned Bill C-36. Bill C-36 should have waited until Bill C-90 was passed. Bill C-90 should have come before Bill C-36.
The fact is that the cart was before the horse. That is one thing. Then to wait for 11 months to bring the horse to the cart is irresponsible. I would hope that this bill will at least go to committee and that the government will follow it through that far and we will have at least some
May 7, 1993

dialogue in committee. If the government does not want to have it passed, let us at least have some pertinent conversation and some pertinent discussion on this very important issue.
The bill as the parliamentary secretary has said repeals all of the present Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, replacing it with an amended and reorganized version. It introduces in this legislation the concept of alternative measures for adults.
This program would be almost identical with that contained in the Young Offenders Act. This is a major step forward and I hope to state why I feel this way. Once again, I have a difficult time believing that the government really thinks this is a major step forward. If it did think this, the legislation would have come before the House well before now for second reading.
The alternative measures would include such things as community service and educational programs for those who have committed offences and whom the correctional and the justice systems feel can be rehabilitated. Accused persons however would have to accept responsibility for their crime and they would have to agree to participate in such a program.
If there is to be an alternative measure, we just cannot have the alternative measure put into effect for somebody who is accused unless that person will at least admit that he or she has committed a crime and is prepared to accept the alternative measure.
It is significant to mention too that not only have we wasted 11 months on this bill which could have been passed, but there is a long road ahead in dealing with the provinces. The provincial attorneys general would have to be responsible for establishing these alternative measures programs. We have known from the difficulties of implementing the Young Offenders Act. Rehabilitation and counselling for young offenders since 1978 is instigated by the provinces, as are training courses for a firearms acquisition certificate for those who use firearms.
Since 1978 we have been trying to get the provinces to work out a program. I do not know how hard this government has been trying but that is how long it has been. We still do not have these training programs in effect.
Government Orders
To try to work with the provincial attorneys general in setting up these alternative measures is not going to be an easy thing. This government has not done anything to try to bring forward alternative measures. How can we expect that when it has not even taken any time to bring forward its own enabling legislation that is supposed to do this. It introduced it in June 1992 and did not bring it forward for second reading until May 1993.
What we want to do as an opposition is at least, certainly on behalf of the Liberal Party, to indicate our good faith for this legislation. Unfortunately we do not have control over setting the agenda in the House of Commons. That is the government's responsibility. That is what the government House leader is supposed to do. However we will proceed and work on this given the opportunity. Unfortunately this is the first opportunity in 11 months we have had to deal with this bill and try to at least do something to bring it to reality.
The bill also sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. That is the fundamental purpose of sentencing: imposing just sanctions with certain listed objectives. These might include: denunciation of unlawful conduct, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society, reparation of victims or the community, promotion of a sense of responsibility, acknowledgement of the harm done and, last, rehabilitation of offenders. These are considerations which we must have if we are going to have a meaningful correctional system and positive term of incarceration, if we can use the term positive.
We have to realize in this country that as much as we want correction and as much as we want deterrence the people we put into our correctional system are some day going to come out of our correctional system. We have to know whether these people are going to be able to have a chance to live law abiding lives in society. We have to do what we can within a reasonable means to try to provide rehabilitation because these people are going to come out of prison and they are going to be back into society.
The question is: How many of these people are going to reoffend? We do not know. In fact we do not even know how many have reoffended in the past. The Solicitor General's office used to give us that information but these statistics are mysteriously hard to come by at the present time. That is not helpful either. If we do

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
not know what we are up against, if we do not know the record of the past, then we do not know what we have to shoot for. We do not know what our objectives should be.
We are at a serious disadvantage even before we start mainly because the government is not even defining the program and is not even defining the game in which we must play and the activities in which we must participate.
One thing I think is significant in the bill is that for the first time special mention is made of the needs of aboriginal offenders, especially in relation to the use of alternate measures. We can safely say to a large degree that our correctional system has failed, more so than non-aboriginals, the aboriginal people. 'Ibis bill will not improve the situation. We are incarcerating aboriginal people much more frequently than we are incarcerating non-aboriginal people. With respect to young offenders, our aboriginal young offenders are being transferred to adult courts much more frequently than non-aboriginal offenders. With respect to women incarcerated in our correctional system, among the aboriginal women the suicide rate is incredibly high. It is a human tragedy and we have to deal with it. There has to be a better way.
There has to be a means of stopping this suicide rate which is unacceptably high among the aboriginal women in our incarceration system. We are not looking at making this system better.
We are glad this bill would oblige the consideration of a victim impact statement. Presently this is at the discretion of the courts but there seems to be a reluctance today in our correctional system to keep records and to follow these practices through, to give an accountability. We have seen it with the Parole Board and we have seen it with Correctional Services. We have seen it in our prison systems. We have seen it by the lack of information on recidivism. We just do not have information. The government does not want the public to have information. This is totally unacceptable, totally incorrect and totally counterproductive.
This bill would guarantee the prosecutor and the offender an opportunity to make submissions with respect to any fact that is relevant to sentencing. Either party could submit evidence. The court would require the production of evidence and could compel witnesses to attend and give testimony. I think that is significant. A
sentencing court under this bill would be obliged to ask whether an offender has anything to say before sentence is passed. The court would have a new obligation to record both the terms of the sentence and the reason for imposing it.
Bill C-90 does not change the existing law with respect to absolute and conditional discharges. Rules governing probation orders and intermittent custodial sentences would only be slightly changed. Existing law regarding the imposition of fines would be unchanged and courts would still imprison people for defaulting on fines.
The current domain relating to restitution remains with a few changes. One would require a sentencing court to first consider making an order of restitution rather than ordering a fine or forfeiture, especially where the offender would not have the means or ability to comply with both. Current provisions relating to imprisonment are virtually unchanged as are those governing royal prerogative of mercy and the ability of the Governor in Council to grant a conditional or free pardon.
Most of this bill has already been proposed by earlier studies and commissions. There is very little which is new. Much of it codifies the existing common law. Why was the government concerned about bringing this before the House of Commons? Why the concern? The common law has told us what needs to be done. This bill is merely codifying it. There have been numerous studies into dealing with recommendations that are brought forward at least in part by this bill. Many of the recommendations and many of the things that need to be done are not in this bill. Why is the government afraid to deal with this bill and these questions? If it is objectionable let us talk about it and let us get it before a legislative committee. The minister fails to address the concept of restructuring sentencing despite strong recommendations to do so. This bill is deficient in addition to being late.
If the government did not want that, it should have said so. Do not keep it on the back burner without any heat under it for 11 months. Withdraw it. Do not just showcase it because we are getting close to an election. It should at least show some sincerity and some leadership
May 7, 1993

with respect to its own proposed legislation in the field of sentencing.
I have some points which I think are significant and I would like to make with respect to the outline of the bill.
This proposed legislation replaces the entire section XXIII of the Criminal Code. However, in spite of it replacing the whole section it does not do a lot in improving our system of sentencing in Canada. One would think that after bringing this bill forward and after changing a whole part of the Criminal Code and after waiting 11 months that we could at least look forward to meaningful changes in sentencing in Canada. But no, it does not make major changes or improvements at all. It only touches on some of the things that need to be changed.
When the preceding Minister of Justice introduced this bill almost a year ago she promised a second stage very soon. She said that this was merely the first part of the legislation on sentencing. We have been waiting. I do not know if the government has been waiting or not, but 11 months later we just have what was introduced last June. We do not have that second part. It would make sense that if there is a second part forthcoming from the government that we would be dealing with it at the same time. It would certainly make a lot of sense to do so. We could see the whole picture.
Now we are dealing with the reluctance of the government in one part of the legislation which it does not seem to have its heart in. The stage we are dealing with now is incomplete without the second stage. The second stage, the former minister promised, assured us that it would deal with one of the biggest problems with our sentencing and correctional systems today. It is the fact that fully one-third of all prisoners in provincial and territorial jails are there for the non-payment of fines.
One-third of the total number of people in our correctional systems are there for the non-payment of fines. Among the aboriginal people it is larger than one-third.
Why are we incurring monumental costs to incarcerate people who have not paid fines? Who is paying for what? They have not paid their fines and we are paying them thousands of dollars in room and board because they have not paid their fines. It just does not make any sense.
Government Orders
Do we want to keep them shut away from society? Prison is certainly not acting as a deterrent because people still do not pay their fines. It is ludicrous. This is what the second part of this legislation was supposed to involve, the non-payment of fines. We do not have it even after waiting 11 months.
We have succeeded in creating one of the most expensive debtor prison systems in the world and the minister deferred dealing with this problem until a later date.
How complicated can this be? We are not supposed to have debtors' prisons any more yet one-third of all the people incarcerated are there because they did not pay fines and we the taxpayer are picking up the cost of this. As I said, Canada has one of the most expensive-if not the most expensive-debtor prison systems in the world.
It is now obvious that we will not have the second stage of this legislation dealing with sentencing before this Parliament is dissolved. We in the Liberal Party have promised unequivocally to rectify this situation in our recently released paper on crime and justice issues. It is really a disgrace that this question of the number of people incarcerated for the non-payment of fines has not been addressed.
Minor property or alcohol-related driving offences have accounted for the highest percentage of admissions to provincial institutions in the past several years. The offences of theft, possession of stolen goods and break and enter are the next highest offences of admission. When we talk about the fact that one-third of all the people in our correctional system are there because they did not pay a fine, followed by theft, possession of stolen goods and break and enter, then we have a large percentage of those in incarceration for which we really should be looking for alternative measures.
I want to give an idea about the cost. These people are committing crimes and they are costing a lot of money. It costs approximately $30,000 a year to keep someone in a minimum security prison. It costs $47,000 a year to keep someone in medium security. It costs $69,000 a year to keep someone in a maximum security prison. Incarceration costs for an inmate at Kingston's prison for women run over $80,000 a year. The need for change is obvious

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
especially when dealing with petty crimes such as the non-payment of fines, shoplifting and vandalism.
I am not saying that these are not important matters with which we should deal but there has to be an alternative measure in dealing with these crimes. We cannot just keep locking these people up. We just do not have the place to put them. Our correctional system cannot meet the demand. There has to be some community service. There has to be some diversion program that will have more of an impact on some of these people who think that it is funny if they commit a crime and can then just literally freeload on the Canadian taxpayers.
The correctional system was not set up to provide room and board for somebody who does not like where they are staying at the present time. We want meaningful incarceration and we want rehabilitation. We want results so these people do not commit other crimes. We want these people who commit the lesser crimes to get out and do something constructive. We want them to feel that they have to do something and be held accountable. They should meet the victims. They should be doing community service. My heavens, we need changes.
This legislation is the result of a series of special studies, reviews and commissions on sentencing dating back to 1979.
These projects were in addition to excellent work done by the now defunct Law Reform Commission on this subject. The fact that this legislation took so long in coming about is absolutely incredible. It is incredible that it has been allowed to languish on the Order Paper for 11 months. This absolutely defies all logic.
During hearings into Bill C-36, the government's weak attempt at improving our system of parole and conditional release, witness after witness said the same thing: Why has the government brought forward legislation on parole before reforming our system of sentencing?
It was obvious that sentencing should have come before parole and conditional release. The question was never answered and the result has been a piecemeal
approach to corrections and sentencing reform in Canada.
We are glad to see, however, that the minister finally recognizes that prisons should only be used as a last resort in dealing with offenders. While most people believe it will always be necessary to have prisons in our society, our over-reliance on them has become serious.
We have the second highest per capita rate of incarceration in the western world. Only the United States incarcerates more people than we do and its astounding crime rate is a testament to the fact that prisons are no answer to dealing with the crime problem.
It is interesting to look back at Canada's first Penitentiary Act. I think it is important to look at this. It was passed in 1834 and established the rationale for our first penitentiary: "If many offenders convicted of crimes were ordered to solitary imprisonment accompanied by well-regulated labour and religious instruction, it might be the means under providence, not only of deterring others from the commission of like crimes but also of reforming the individuals and inuring them with the habits of industry".
The regulations of this act establish that inmates were not to stop work or suffer their attention to be tom from it. They were not to gaze at visitors when passing through the prison nor sing, dance, whistle, jump, run or do anything which may have the slightest tendency to disturb the harmony or to contravene the rules and regulations of prisons.
This concept of correcting the inmate is still with us today, largely unchanged. Far from correcting the inmate, prison often changes the inmate for the worse, I might add, for the rest of his or her life.
We should also examine the rationale for using prisons as a means of deterrence. This is a complicated factor and should be examined in two parts: general and specific deterrence. The success of specific deterrence is seen in the recidivism rate of a particular crime.
There is even some evidence that suggests that a reverse ratio exists in some cases whereby imprisonment actually increases the likelihood of a repetition of crime. This was stated in a Law Reform Commission study in 1976.
May 7, 1993

Prison is often referred to as the post-graduate school of crime where offenders pick up pointers from other inmates, learn additional tricks of the trade and are exposed to a vety harmful inmate culture. This makes returning to the community very difficult.
While deterrents may work in some types of offences they may not work in all. One would be hard pressed today to find an expert who works in corrections who would not say that more and better rehabilitation is needed for prisoners.
While rehabilitation is one of the guiding principles of sentencing, the government fails to address its urgency and necessity. Expanding alternate measure programs such as community service, victim reconciliation and restitution to adult offenders who commit non-serious, non-violent crimes is another step which is long overdue. Actually over 20 per cent of all criminal justice expenditures in Canada go into imprisonment. Less than 1 per cent goes into community based sanctions. We in the Liberal Party believe this must change. There are neither the results nor the economic reason to keep it as it exists.
Since establishing the alternate measures program will be the responsibility of the provinces, we want assurances from the government that it will not simply offload this onto the provinces with no financial contribution. Without adequate funding these programs will never work.
There are serious problems with our system of sentencing. In closing I want to mention some of them. Sentencing judges often complain that they do not have enough non-incarceration programs on which to draw. It is therefore no surprise that our incarceration rate is so high.
Second, Canadians do not feel the criminal justice system punishes criminals severely enough, and yet conversely they overestimate the rate of violent crime in our society. Also victims feel alienated and the various agencies are said not to share information freely.
There are inconsistencies in sentencing which vary depending upon the individual judge, court or region. Resources to deal with the many offenders who require psychological treatment are scarce.
Government Orders
Why has the government waited so long before bringing this legislation forward? Why does it not include alternative measures for offenders who are jailed for non-payment of fines? Why does the minister not finally address the importance and necessity of rehabilitation programs in prison?
Lea and Young in their book What is to be done about the law and order crisis in the eighties make an observation-and I want to finish my presentation today with it-about the success of penitentiaries in achieving the objectives of making society safer and rehabilitating prisoners. They wrote: "Any hospital which made the people more sick than they originally were and where each visit made the next one more likely would have been shut down years ago".
The success of any sentencing reform will ultimately be judged by how significantly the numbers of prisoners are reduced. If there is not a substantial drop then the reforms have failed and society will have not received any benefit.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in today's debate and once again listen to the words of my hon. friend who has just spoken. I appreciated his intervention.
In looking at the Order Paper I noticed Bill C-90, the bill before us, was first introduced on June 23, 1992. Here we are almost a year later getting around to debating this legislation.
This legislation is long overdue. Canadians were clamouring for the legislation to be introduced many years ago, let alone a year ago. Here we are, essentially on the eve of an election, and the government brings forward a bill that in my judgment gives the illusion the government is getting tough on crime. It wants to improve sentencing within our Criminal Code.
I wonder how serious the government is. I noticed that the person introducing this debate at second reading today, which of course is a critical stage, was not the minister responsible. As a matter of fact it was not even the parliamentary secretary responsible. The first speaker for the government was the parliamentary secretary for international trade who read a nicely prepared statement written by somebody somewhere. It did not give the impression to anyone that the government was terribly serious about it.

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
I noticed yesterday when we were debating psychoactive substances, Bill C-85, that it was introduced by the Minister of Communications and not by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
If this legislation is important, if the government and the minister are serious about it, then why is the minister not here talking about it? Why is the minister not here to answer questions that may be put to him, questions that have already been raised in this short debate today? I guess we can set that aside and say that we are at least pleased it is now before us and we will now have a chance to debate it.
I want to preface my comments today with a quote from Sergeant Don Evers of the Saskatchewan Crime Prevention Network. He used a very striking metaphor to describe the situation confronting us today. He said: "Just as cancer eats away at people, crime eats away at our communities and societies. If we do nothing about it, it will continue to grow and it will erode everything".
There is a growing sense in the country generally that crime is increasing, that Canada is becoming a more violent society, a more violent place in which to live. I noticed a recent Maclean 'j-CTV poll which said that 50 per cent of Canadians reported their feeling of personal safety from crime had become much worse or somewhat worse over the last five years.
Fear is controlling. It restricts autonomy and can result in withdrawal from normal movement and activities. We see this when we look at particularly elderly people in our community and particularly women who are very hesitant to walk alone in their neighbourhoods after dark. Quite frankly they do not feel safe in many of our cities these days. The situation appears to be getting worse.
Back in 1989 the view that walking alone in the community after dark was unsafe was held by 33 per cent of Canadians. Today 55 per cent of women have that same attitude. There are very high levels of concern in terms of the safety of women and the elderly living particularly in the urban areas. That is the context in which we began today's debate.
When we start talking about the costs of crime, which my hon. friend has just mentioned, I have to relate a personal incident. A constituent came to see me just the other day who was absolutely and totally frustrated. He came home after work one night to find that some
people had broken into his home and had stolen some goods: VCRs, television sets and stereo sets, the usual kinds of things taken in a quick hit and run by break and enter artists.
He was frustrated and called the police. They came, wrote the usual report and said they would try to find the goods, the individuals and so on. He went out and purchased new goods: new VCRs, new television sets, et cetera. He came home the next day after work and they were all stolen. Some people had come in and stolen the same types of items from the household. He phoned the police. They came, wrote the usual report and so on. They said that they would do their best to try to find the culprits, et cetera.
He was a little hesitant to go out and buy new goods, as we can well understand. However, a few days later because he wanted a television set, a VCR and so on, he went out and replaced all the stolen goods for the second time in one week. He came back after work the next day and they were all gone again.
In other words within a handful of days he had three break and enter, and the same goods were taken. He said he was going to sit in his house with a shotgun and wait for somebody to come in. I would not condone that and nobody here would, but we can appreciate the frustration. In his view, security for him, his family and property had totally broken down.


Mr. Benjamin:: We would all feel the same way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my friend here from Regina says, we would all feel the same way. Of course we would. The police were frustrated and helpless as they cannot not sit on a doorstep and wait for someone to break into someone's house.
What they said is that often when they actually apprehend these people nothing happens to them. Part of that is a reflection of our existing laws where very young break and enter artists are not prosecuted. Also if one hires a good lawyer, the lawyer can make a case on one's behalf and often get one off scot-free. Perhaps some technicality allows one to get off or the sentencing is just a slap on the wrist. The jails are so filled up anyway that if it is a short sentence they will say just forget about it because it is not worth the hassle. So although one has actually been sentenced one does not spend any time in jail because the jails are overflowing.
May 7, 1993

I think it is fair to say that we may have a legal system where we have laws but we do not have much of a justice system. The growing perception in Canada is that we must revisit our justice system and ensure that it is doing what we intend it to do, that it accomplishes what we want it to accomplish.
I take my information from this incredibly good publication. The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in February of this year published Crime Prevention in Canada: Towards a National Strategy. It is its 12th report in this session of Parliament. It is excellent. If anyone is interested in this issue I would encourage them to seek out a copy.
The chair of the committee is sitting across the way and I am obviously indirectly applauding him and his colleagues from all political parties who came to a unanimous report that not only lays out the problem clearly articulated in this presentation but also a set of recommendations, from which we are already seeing legislation flowing. I stand to applaud this.
One of the useful things the committee does is identify the costs of crime. It costs taxpayers $7.7 billion to maintain the criminal justice system. An awful lot of taxpayers' money goes into maintaining this justice system. We can say it is only dollars and cents, but I think we all appreciate that crime imposes physical, emotional and psychological damage on victims either directly or indirectly that certainly cannot be quantified in monetary terms.
I am talking about people who in many cases suffer their entire lives because some trauma has occurred to them in their life, often at a very young age. On a personal basis, of course, we all know of examples where that has occurred, the tremendous cost in human agony and suffering, to say nothing of the dollars and cents loss as a result of absenteeism or illness that often leads to alcohol and drug abuse.
Also we see crime imposing a financial burden in another way, through our insurance system. Hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact billions of dollars, annually are paid out as a result of commercial or automobile thefts, again essentially being borne by the policyholders.
I think it is fair to say that we have a very serious problem in our country. We need to revisit the Young
Government Orders
Offenders Act to ensure that we see more justice attached to the young offender. I cannot help but reiterate a point made by the previous speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Bring in the parents too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my friend says, in many cases the parents can play more of a role.
We acknowledge that our jails are packed compared to most countries in the western world. But when one looks at the statistics in terms of the rate for 100,000 the United States tops the list. There are 426 people per 100,000 in a jail of some kind. We are next in line. We drop a long way down to 112 people per 100,000 in jail. In the United Kingdom it is 97 per 100,000; in France it is 80; Australia it is 78; Sweden it is 56; in the Netherlands it is 40 and so on down the line.
Often in our public gatherings and meetings-my friend from Regina will certainly confirm this-people suggest that we need more jails. We need to put more people in jail to reduce the level of crime. If that were the case, I think we would all acknowledge then that the safest place to live on earth would be the United States.
This is rather revealing. In 1991 the United States Senate judiciary committee described the United States as the most violent and self-destructive nation on earth. Their own elected representatives describe their country as the most violent and self-destructive nation on earth. The committee concluded from FBI data on violence that in 1990 the United States led the entire world with in murders, rapes and robberies. Every hour approximately 200 Americans become victims of violence.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is called free enterprise.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In other words, simply placing people in jail is not the way to have a more secure society. It is not the way to reduce crime. Otherwise the United States would be a very friendly, happy, crime-free place, which of course is the exact opposite of the truth.
One-third of the people who are in jails today are not there because they have carried out some violent crime or even major crime. Often they are there because they have been caught on some petty offence and are simply unable to pay the fine. A lot of Canadians, if their fine is

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
$1,000, $2,000 or $3,000, are simply unable to come up with that kind of cash and so they head into jails.
What does it cost? Not only are they not paying then-fines, but it costs about $30,000 a year to maintain them in a minimum security institution. If they are going into medium security, it costs about $47,000 and if they are going into maximum security it is $69,000 annually. Obviously this is a rather absurd way to spend taxpayers' money. To punish someone who has not paid a fine costs taxpayers many tens of thousands of dollars on an annual basis.
We need alternatives to those institutions, alternative places for judges to sentence people who have committed some crime, often of a petty nature-I will not go into all the petty crimes-yet are unable to pay the fines.
Those who are in jail in the United States overwhelmingly tend to be black people. In Canada overwhelmingly they tend to be aboriginal people. Often they do not have access to high priced lawyers or cannot come up with the cash for their fines or for a whole set of obvious reasons, sociological reasons, cultural reasons. Yet we somehow feel that the appropriate thing to do is to sentence aboriginal people to a jail sentence which, as my friend has indicated, often is considered to be the post-graduate school for the criminal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is not much choice.


Nelson Andrew Riis: For them of course, as my friend from Regina once again says, there is no choice.
In that context I will say a few words about Bill C-90 directly, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing). I want to apologize on behalf of my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam who has spent a lot of time in this area and knows it like the back of his hand. He wanted to be here today to participate in the debate, but since it was kind of sprung on us, he was unable to because of other commitments. That is the reality. Therefore I am here to say a few words on his behalf. I will not be able to do the job half as well as he could have.
Bill C-90 has been widely anticipated as the companion legislation to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act which we call Bill C-36 which received royal assent back in June 1992. It represents the federal government's belated response to two landmark reports. One was by the Canadian Sentencing Commission which
you will remember, Mr. Speaker, from 1987 and the other by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General was called Taking Responsibility back in 1988. It was an excellent report, I might add.
If passed, the bill would constitute the first major statutory set of revisions to sentencing in over 125 years. That is really quite a comment in terms of where we stand today. We are obviously totally out of whack with the real world. Our sentencing provisions do not make any sense. Judges complain because they have no alternative areas to send people through sentencing. It just goes on and on. It is a total disaster.
We have waited years for this to happen but at least it is happening today. My recollection is that the most recent attempt was Bill C-19 which died on the Order Paper way back in 1984.
This bill includes a statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing, provisions dealing with the imposition of alternative measures, amendments to the procedural aspects of sentencing, the sections addressing judicial control over parole eligibility dates, and so on and so forth. I do not have to go into detail. Mr. Speaker, you and others are well aware of the specifics.
There are parts of this bill that I want to refer to specifically because they have been received very positively. I am trying to find some good news in today's afternoon agenda. Section 717 advocates the increased use of alternative dispositions for adult offenders. That is an excellent step in the right direction, and one that we are all pleased to finally see.
Another aspect of the bill is Section 726.2 which represents a clear call for judges to state the reasons for the sentences they choose on a given case and to have these entered into the record of proceedings. Such a requirement would help to make a contribution to increasing the understanding of those concerned with the sentencing process including those involved themselves, the appeal courts, the media and the public generally.
If there is one thing that is puzzling about our judicial, legal world today it is the whole matter of sentencing. One person will commit a heinous crime in society's judgement and get off with a little slap on the wrist while somebody else who might be caught with a little sample
May 7, 1993

of marijuana in their truck will end up in jail for 10 years. It is absolutely incredible. We must bring some rhyme or reason to the sentencing system. If there is one thing that we all agree upon, I do not think there is a single Canadian who has looked at this aspect at all who would not say that this call for judges to state the reasons for their sentences and to have these entered into the record of proceedings is an absolutely critical step to take.
Another provision, section 719, provides that terms of imprisonment are to begin on the day on which the convicted person was taken into custody. Again this is a very positive initiative. How many times are people taken into custody and spend a lot of time in custody and then are given their sentence after they have been there for perhaps many, many months? It is unfortunate and is something we condemn in other jurisdictions and something that we really need to revisit here. We are pleased to see that in the bill.
The former Minister of Justice, the present Minister of National Defence who is running for the Conservative leadership, also promised that she would bring forward part two, or what she has called the second phase of this legislation, dealing specifically with fines and intermediate sanctions.
The use of alternative disposition for adult offenders makes a lot of sense when one examines the existing situation. Provincial jails in this country have too often become debtors' prisons. As I said earlier, almost one-third of the people are there because they have defaulted on fines. Certainly failing to pay a fine is a serious concern and the law is not to be flouted, but failing to pay a fine is no indication that the offender is too dangerous to live in the community. A prison sentence for failing to pay a fine is an unjustifiable cost to the taxpayer. The community feels no greater security and the offender is no more capable of paying the fine upon release. Therein lies the need to have some alternative to simply placing somebody behind bars because they failed to pay a fine.
The costs vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However taking a modest approximation of $75 per day per inmate, someone sentenced to a $300 fine or 14-day sentence who ends up in prison costs the state a maximum of $1,050. Any legislation that will allow the
Government Orders
courts to seek alternatives such as community service work would be a welcome initiative indeed.
The former minister promised a speedy introduction of phase two when the bill we are now debating was introduced almost a year ago. It has taken close to one year for this bill to progress from first to second reading, not a record setting pace by any means. I would certainly urge the current Minister of Justice to consider breaking a few records and bring forward phase two of this initiative in this session of Parliament so we can at least begin the process and hopefully even complete it.
While certain aspects of the bill before us have been recognized and lauded as thoughtful and progressive, significant concern has been expressed about what is missing from this initiative. In a Bill C-90 press release the Department of Justice promises that:
These reforms, along with correctional reform Bill C-36 which
became law last week, are aimed at providing a co-ordinated and
comprehensive overhaul of the Canadian criminal justice system.
In reality there is every likelihood that this legislation will have no or very little real impact on day to day sentencing in the courts.
Julian Roberts, who is presently with the University of Ottawa and worked as a research analyst on the Canadian sentencing reform commission and appeared as a witness before the standing committee's hearings in 1988, states in an as of yet to be published review of the bill that:
Bill C-90 represents not so much real, but rather illusory change.
In other words, the indication is that this is not a serious and real initiative.
I see that my time is up. Again I want to say that there is so much more to say to point out the weaknesses of this legislation. I apologize that my colleague, the NDP justice critic, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, was unable to be here. However during the committee stage of this legislation he will point out ways and means in which he feels it should be improved so that it can be brought up to the year 1993 and prepared for sentencing beyond the year 2000.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, it is important when we debate this bill and look

Government Orders
at it to understand and question why the government waited a year before it brought this bill back.
Is it that we are close to an election? Is it that the government of the day wants to side-track us from what is really out there?
Four years ago the minister said that we were going to revamp the Young Offenders Act. I quote word for word from the throne speech:
The need to protect the society is far more important than the need
to protect the young offender.
That need has been there for the past four years, yet the government has been busy with NAFTA. It has been busy with this and the government has been busy with that. All of a sudden, it is the eve of an election and the government comes out with this second reading of Bill C-90.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre sends out a householder that deals with nothing else but penalties and the legal system while she again side-tracks from the real issue.
Four years ago I introduced private member's Bill C-26, which would have made amendments to the Young Offenders Act. At that time the members of the government and of the NDP said: Forget it. It is not a real thing. It should not fly. It should not do this and it should not do that. It was killed on second reading.
Yet that bill had good initiatives which the government of the day stole and tried to implement but the implementation was not there. I want to revisit why that bill was introduced.
A young offender in my riding of Scarborough-Agin-court committed a triple murder and received a maximum of three years. The people of this land, the people of my riding rose to their feet and there was a public outcry and changes were necessary. Changes were brought forward. They included: first, murder over the age 14 meant automatic transfer to the adult court; second, mandatory treatment; and third, for other crimes besides murder five years less a day for all penalties.
My question to the member of the third party is the following. Does he not agree with me that the government of the day is playing politics with us by waiting exactly one year before it brought this bill back again because it wants to side-track us from what is really out
there? It wants to side-track us from the real issue of dealing with the economy. It should have dealt with this a long time ago.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has hit the nail on the head.
I think it is fair to say that considering this legislation was introduced 11 months ago after years and years of the public calling for changes to the Criminal Code regarding sentencing and we are now in the dying moments of this political mandate to this government and there is a lot of work to be done.
What little debate we have had here today points out a whole set of shortcomings and areas that need to be changed. As a matter of fact, one could probably make a good case to go back to the drawing board and bring in a better bill to start with. Flowever, we should be dealing with this.
Considering that the justice committee is loaded up with work as the government tries to jam these last initiatives through I assume that this will give the government, I suppose for political reasons, an opportunity to say that this is the legislation it introduced in the House of Commons. It probably will not say that it has passed it but it at least introduced it.
Let us set aside the cynicism of this whole business. It is just too easy to say that the government is doing this for political purposes. It probably is.
Let us say that we are identifying here a very serious issue in our country. There is the impression in Canada that lawlessness is growing in our society. There is the impression in this country that some people get off scot-free and a lot of people get off with very little sentencing or very little happening to them after they have committed certain crimes. These are the perceptions I am talking about and the reality is often the perception and perception is often the reality.
Others, for what society would consider to be a rather frivolous or unimportant offence, end up in jail for 10 years. There is a growing perception that our justice system is not working well at all. Here is an opportunity to change it. Here is an opportunity to make it more appropriate.

' '.-I::. ."
May 7, 1993

It has to have the backing of the government other than simply a piece of paper, than just legislation. By that I mean if we are going to be sentencing people because they have not been able to pay a $300 fine rather than send them to jail, which guarantees they will not be paying the fine plus the fact that it will cost an awful lot of money to keep them in jail, then surely there must be something better to do with that individual.
Surely we have to come to grips with more appropriate ways and means to deal with aboriginal people who are in trouble with the law. Obviously the cultural differences that exist require a different cultural approach to justice.
We have all sorts of examples from which we can choose. We should impose and introduce a Canadian reality in terms of dealing appropriately with aboriginal offenders.
Then we get into the whole matter of women in prison. We can go on and on about how inappropriately we have dealt with that whole issue. My friend mentioned young offenders. Good grief, if there is something that people are yanking their hair out over from coast to coast to coast it is how to deal with young offenders. The present young offenders legislation simply does not do the job it was originally set out to do. When it started off there were very good intentions. It just has not worked properly. We have to revisit that.
It goes on and on. That is why I am saying we have to spend more of our time and our efforts and the government must provide backup. Backup simply means that if we are going to have a better sentencing process, then we can pass Bill C-90 with amendments but we must have in place some alternatives so that judges can sentence people in a way that is appropriate and will hopefully result in them breaking that criminal habit and not returning again. Perhaps even compensating their victims is another matter because too often it is the victim who suffers. The person who has perpetuated that crime gets off again without ever having to deal with the person who has been affected directly or in some cases indirectly.
Let us spend time and let us provide the necessary support to make this legislation work. That is what is lacking here. Let us hope that we will see some changes in the future, either with this government or perhaps with another government in the next few months.
Government Orders


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-90 which repeals all present parts of Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, replacing it with an amended and reorganized version.
This introduces the concept of alternative measures for adults. This program would be almost identical with that contained in the Young Offenders Act. I would assume that most of the proponents who were involved in the process to work with the young offenders are the same people who are dealing with this particular amendment.
I must commend my colleagues from the justice committee from all parties. They have worked very well together on some very difficult issues.
I find this particular amendment extremely interesting. There are a number of places across the country that are looking at alternative sources of justice. This would also deal with the whole issue of sentencing.
These alternatives would include such things as community service and educational programs. Accused persons would have to accept responsibility for their crimes and they would have to agree to participate in such a program.
In recent weeks as I travelled to my riding I came across a very interesting article on my way to a native justice project in the community of Rae Lakes. They have set up a special project to look at the whole issue of native justice.
Before I arrived there I saw an article in The Globe and Mail dealing with a specific Metis individual who had been sentenced for an armed robbery incident. The interesting thing about the whole sentencing process was that it involved two different perspectives. It involved the mainstream justice system and a circle of 13 Metis elders.
What happened in this particular case that I found interesting was that the individual had to own up to the particular crime in that he was in a situation where he had to face his victim, the relatives and particularly the mother of the victim. This was quite a sobering experience for all of the individuals involved.

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
After the case had been thoroughly examined and a judge presided over the case, the 13 Metis individuals from that community were asked to preside over the case and to bring forth the sentence. Originally the sentence recommended was six years to eight years. This individual was given 18 months.
The process used is very interesting. Everything was taken into consideration. As one would probably know the native justice system would be done in a rather holistic fashion. Every single detail of the life of the individual who is being sentenced would be involved, not in segments, but in a totally holistic fashion. Everything is interconnected inextricably and not to be discounted or not considered.
What happened was the life story of this individual, the fact of the hardships of his life and everything else was considered. The hardship in his perpetration that he put on other people was also discussed by the victims and the victims' parents. Then the elders from the community spoke on the whole issue of just what had happened. This was a very sobering situation for all of the people there.
The ultimate sentence was 18 months but I think the process was the most important part of the sentencing for the individual. There was discussion on many aspects of his life including the crime itself.
These kinds of alternatives are being attempted. I have been in other places across this country where we have a proliferation of probably the highest rate of recidivism in two places in Canada; one is in Kenora-Rainy River in Ontario and the other is in the Northwest Territories. We have the highest number of repeaters.
Of course many of these incarcerations are related to abuses of various sources. There can be drug and alcohol abuse. This is one consideration. It is not to use it as an excuse but to recognize it as a factor.
The other thing I found particularly interesting in my trip with my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River was we went to a community called Pikangikum. At this time that community is undergoing a crisis with suicide among the young.
In that community there are people who are attempting to look at an alternate source of justice application for their people. They are looking at various things such as committees, the involvement of the whole community, cultural sensitivity and still giving the full weight of justice to the crimes that are perpetrated.
Having said that, in changing that part of the Criminal Code, Part XXIII, we have to remember that much of the attempts of what is happening to change the Criminal Code stem from an overwhelming feeling of despair and helplessness in the kinds of reports that have come forward across this country. Consider the Cawsy report out of Alberta. It was very damning and very stinging and a plea for change to the justice system.
We should remember also the Donald Marshall inquiry. Mr. Marshall has presented himself in the House of Commons over a number of years to discuss some of the justice issues with various members of Parliament. We must also remember in the east other reports have come out.
Under the chairmanship of Justice Murray Sinclair we have this huge document, the report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, The Justice System and Aboriginal Peoples. It has a series of very well organized sections that justify and relate to a number of things related to aboriginal rights as well as the whole issue of aboriginal peoples and justice. It talks about aboriginal concepts of justice.
Let me give Canadians and my colleagues an example of how the concept differed within the aboriginal community over the years that I have lived and worked with the elders. The idea of rehabilitation is not a new one. The idea of rehabilitation was called healing. When a crime is committed healing is not just for the criminal but for the victim and the community because the pain and the burden of one individual good or bad is that of all the people who live there because of the extended family and because of the kinship that exists among these close-knit communities.
The elders play an extremely huge role in this. We are looking at alternative justice systems across the country. We have to remember that there are a number of things that are being attempted. One of the most successful ways of dealing with young offenders in sentencing and in dealing with the sentences is the on-the-land program.
It has been found that when people who have been sentenced have been taken out and had to do hard labour and community service such as cut wood, haul water, look after the elders and do chores for the community and community service work that is very labour intensive, there is not a very high incidence of
May 7, 1993

Government Orders
repeating the same crime or recidivism. They found this crimes that they commit. We are saying that there are to be a positive alternative.	ways of doing it that are different.
In native communities because we have a rather holistic approach to not only to justice issues, but the whole living condition of our people, it is very hard to segment legally in the minds of aboriginal people the crime itself.
I can take examples from the south where we have the Navajo who are of the original Dene extraction who have a system. They deal with almost all crimes except high crimes. They now report that they have their own judges, lawyers, police and their own way of dealing with their people. They are now seeking full jurisdiction to deal with high crimes which go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Many of our people in Canada are looking to the United States for those kinds of alternatives as well.
I believe in the last referendum across this country we looked at the whole issue of self-government where there are fundamentals that we must have in order to achieve a satisfactory level of self-determination. One of the underpinnings of that is the justice system. We cannot have a government without a justice system. This is I suppose one of the driving forces why we would want amendments that are more appropriate, that would provide more appropriate alternative means for justice for aboriginal peoples across this country.
I had the good occasion to go into the prison for women, P4W as it was known, a couple of years ago because a friend of mine and a colleague, a hard-working female person, had produced a videotape on the women in P4W. I attended a feast and a ceremony and spoke to many of the female prisoners there, many of whom unfortunately are either handicapped or have attempted suicide. There fails to be a process that would accommodate the will to live of those people to continue on, to rehabilitate and to heal thoroughly. We have been clear in saying that we do not want to diminish the justice system by saying that we look at alternative means. What we want to say is that we achieve rehabilitation and healing and, at the same time, we achieve true justice. We do not want to say that people would get away with
This system is obviously not working. We have to think about the fact that most incarcerated people are aboriginal people. There is a high incidence of aboriginal people which costs much more than thinking of a positive way that aboriginal people can aspire to contribute to this country. It costs more to keep an incarcerated person in jail for a year than it would to send an aboriginal student to college or university.
We have to find ways to diminish the number of people going into the institutions who express a negativity rather than something positive. In the report Unfinished Business by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, one of the areas that is unfinished is the area of aboriginal justice. It is cited in almost every report that comes out relating to institutions that promote change in a number of areas.
The Government of the Northwest Territories in 1992 put a master plan together for Correction Services. It was prepared for the Department of Public Works in August 1992. It makes a number of recommendations. It states there is a need for increased institutional and community programs that are appropriate to the educational, cultural and psychological needs of the offenders and recommends that most programming be developed at the community and regional level to ensure that it is culturally relevant; that all types of programming be increased with particular emphasis on alcohol and substance abuse, assault and behaviour management, selfesteem and life skills; that programming be developed to meet the educational and skills levels of the offenders; and that programming be specifically developed to meet the needs of federal offenders.
There is a move I believe to repatriate prisoners from the federal system back into the Northwest Territories. This amendment will certainly accommodate that system.
In the overview of the Correction Services delivery in-model a it states: "Gaps in service delivery, such as inadequate treatment and programs, are addressed by allocating more resources to correctional institutes. This

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
model would continue to correct the emphasis on top-down service delivery. Communities would continue to play a limited role as consumers of correctional programs and services and the formalized top-down structure of the community corrections would not be substantially altered from the current approach".
Basically what we would be looking at would be an inclusive model that would include the resources of the current institutions which have been full, contributing members, but it would be sensitive to the cultural needs and the specific needs of the region and the communities.
In the Dene community that I come from the important elements have to be reflected when looking at sentencing. I think it is important to remember that the community wants to help in contributing to the rehabilitation of the individual. The family wants to contribute. The family is not to be dismissed or disregarded. In the justice system dealing with the crime per se in the pursuit of justice is the most important element. In the Dene society, in the Inuit society and in indigenous populations, what is reflected is to help the individual, to help rehabilitate and to understand when the problem is bigger than those people and then to seek forms of assistance, be it psychological, legal or medical assistance or treatments of another sort. That is to be recognized.
Within the community there are means by which individuals would like to look at the whole issue of healing and helping. It is not a matter of punishment. It is a matter perhaps of recognition of the wrongdoing of the individual without playing God with their lives. It is recognition of the fact that people are willing to pay for their crimes. As I indicated in the example I used with the Metis individual, there was recognition in facing the victim and the family of the victim that a crime was perpetrated. There was remorse. It was quite evident.
In these kinds of cases, when one has to face the people that one perpetrated the crimes on, it is a very sobering thought. I think it probably has more impact than being sentenced to a rather antiseptic and pristine environment where one is separated from one's victim. It may generate more animosity, more recrimination and more acrimony than it would forgiveness and understanding. It might lead to more misunderstanding and bitterness.
In this case we look to heal the mind, body and soul. We look to change the behaviour of that individual and to recognize the difference.
Across this country we have young offenders. I have a particular interest because of my national constituency of aboriginal people. I have a commitment and a particular interest in seeing that we reduce the number of people of aboriginal descent who are in the institutions. Reducing the number of all people of course would be preferable. There is a high incidence of incarceration of aboriginal people, an unfamiliarity with the legal system and the bad advice and the misinformation that basically happens because of things like linguistic barriers, misunderstanding and a lack of resources.
People will say they want to go to jail because they do not have money to pay for this. It seems like a system for the rich and the poor or for the people who are educated. When one looks at the rate of illiteracy among aboriginal people it is not unusual to see that there might be a correlation between that and the number of incarcerations and the number of sentences thereafter.
There are a lot of recommendations put forward in relation to bills but I think that this is one of the most important ones. I want to say that we are going places in Canada. We are trying to change the institutions that we have to make a better life for our people and for all Canadians.
I think if we are sensitive and show that we can be practical as well then for the first time special mention would be made of the needs of aboriginal offenders especially in relation to the use of these alternative measures. It would oblige the consideration of a victim impact statement. Presently this is at the discretion of the courts. It would guarantee the prosecutor and offender an opportunity to make submissions relevant to sentencing. Either party would submit evidence and the court would require the production of evidence and compel witnesses to attend.
I want to end on another note. We can tinker with the system and the Criminal Code. However, we have to fundamentally change and alter the system or the institution. I know the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are aware of my request. I would like to see an aboriginal person become one of the nine Supreme
May 7, 1993

Court Judges in this country. That is not an unrealistic expectation.
The first people should be represented in every institution in this country. I know from my association with the Indigenous Bar Association and Canadian Bar Association that there are able-bodied and able-minded individuals who have accumulated the experience and who are out there. Look at this Manitoba justice report. It was chaired by an aboriginal person. It was tabled by Murray Sinclair. There are people out there who could sit on the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would comment on two things. I can remember a long time ago in Vancouver when a First Nations young man who was probably 19 was sentenced to a month in jail for stealing literally a half pound of butter-we used pounds in those days- and the judge thought that was an appropriate sentence for that offence. I wonder if she has any thoughts on how we are going to sensitize prosecutors and courts and so on. Second, would she comment, if she wishes to, on the question of whether incarceration for first peoples is harder than it is on people who are not of aboriginal origin.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I think sensitization comes in using all of the tools we have. If I might, I consider myself one of those tools. I consider myself one of those venues for communicating a sensitivity about the plight of aboriginal people. I hate to use the word plight but I will say the struggle to obtain justice on the part of aboriginal people.
I think over the years my colleagues have in a sense been sensitized because we have senators who are of aboriginal descent and we have my colleague and myself and our predecessors who are also aboriginal people. We also have a growing group or cadre of professionals in the legal field and in the field of justice like Murray Sinclair and Justice Igloliorte and many of the lawyers like David Nahwegahbow, Sam Stevens and David Angus. These are all aboriginal people, to name a few
Government Orders
across this country, who are out there educating and sensitizing people. Albert Angus gives a perfect example of going in to court and not referring to the defendant but the client because he is aboriginal. This is kind of an interesting thing. The fact that one is an aboriginal person does not mean that one cannot stand among others with one's head high in the justice system.
I think there are people there who are communicating the message. I think the legal profession is one in which there is a lot of collegiality and a lot of learning.
Having said that, the other question that was asked was whether incarceration is harder on aboriginal peoples than it is on non-aboriginals. That is a very difficult and provocative question. One of the examples I could give is the case of Betty Helen Osborne. She was not sentenced but justice was not done in the case of her death. Non-aboriginals had perpetrated a hateful, contemptuous crime upon that innocent individual and they were not pursued and justice was not done. I think that is an example. That case was a very gross exception. Another example is the case of Donald Marshall. There again I guess one could say that justice was not done.
We could look at a number of cases and cite examples. However, I would hope that it is changing and that it is getting better. Many have said there are two forms of justice in this country: one for non-aboriginals and one for aboriginals. I would hope this is not the case.
I think that making these changes to section 23 of the Criminal Code would be a way of attempting to deal with this and also working at getting a justice system within the realm of self-government would also help to eliminate any doubt there is about the differences in the incarceration of people of different races.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and to participate in this debate on Bill C-90, an act to amend the Criminal Code, particularly the sentencing provisions of the Code.
I stand here as a representative from Prince Albert- Churchill River, which probably has as high a concentration of incarcerated people as virtually any constituency

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
in the country except for Kingston. In my riding we have three major federal institutions: the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, which is now a medium security institution; the Special Handling Unit where people like Charles Ng and Mr. Olson from Vancouver are incarcerated; as well as the Farm Annex which is a lighter security institution where people are allowed some degree of freedom to work on a farm.
As well, there are provincial institutions such as Pine Grove, a women's correctional facility, a men's facility and a juvenile handling facility. Of course any place where there is that kind of a concentration of institutions also has a number of support groups in the community that deal with the whole justice system. They deal with offenders who are in the institutions, as they come out and those in halfway houses and so on.
There are organizations that deal with families of offenders as well as a whole array of professionals who are involved in the different aspects of the justice system. These professionals would range all the way from the front line people including the guards in the institutions, case counsellors, support staff within the institutions, parole officers and counsellors in the community. There is a wide array of people who are directly impacted by what this House decides to do with an area of criminal justice.
There are also some training institutions. The University of Regina does training in the area of corrections. The Gabriel Dumont Institute, a Metis-controlled organization, has a human justice program as well as other kinds of training endeavours. Therefore there is a great deal of interest in my constituency as there is in the public at large with regard to what we are doing with respect to justice and particularly sentencing.
As the opposition critic mentioned, I too am a little dubious about the motivation of the government in bringing forward this bill at this time. I note in the document that we have before us that it was first introduced for first reading on June 23, 1992, which is a full year ago. It seems to me that if it had been really serious about some of the things that have been said regarding their intentions with this legislation, it should really have brought it forward much sooner.
Some cynics might say that with the hue and cry and the public debate right now regarding the whole question of criminality, safety on the streets and other fears that many people have that the government is being a bit opportunistic in bringing this legislation forward at this time.
Nevertheless, that is really not the point. The point is what is in the legislation. There I think we see a bit of a mixed bag. I think there are things that everybody would generally support. There are some things that I personally find difficult to support. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that really have not been very well thought through.
Among the things that I at least welcome here is section 717 which advocates the increased use of alternate dispositions for adult offenders. I think we need a much wider range of alternatives when it comes to sentencing. That is generally recognized and this legislation moves some way in that direction.
As well, I applaud section 726(2) which gives a clear call for judges to state their reasons for the sentences they choose in a given case and have these entered into the record of proceedings. I think it is very important that the public knows what is happening in the criminal justice system and what is being said in the court and what the judge's thinking is when it comes to handing down particular sentences.
[DOT] *>
I suppose it is not only the public that needs to know that, although the public nowadays is much more involved through the media in following what is happening in criminal proceedings than it used to be. The participants in the system such as the relatives of offenders and victims and the victims and offenders themselves often did not have much of an idea about what was going on in court proceedings and what the rationale was behind different sentencing proposals.
I think it is a very positive measure to include that in the legislation. I do however think that that whole line of thinking could have been taken one step further in that we need in this country a sentencing commission that would disseminate information on a national basis and would do qualitative and quantitative research on what is effective sentencing and what is not.
*

May 7, 1993

It would pull together some of the best thinking in the country and would really allow us to field some confidence in the fact that justice is being uniformly and appropriately applied across the country.
I think a number of other aspects bear looking at. One is whether we are really dealing with some of the problems we see. When I go through these institutions and talk with people two things always strike me.
The first is the large number of people who are in those institutions because they have not paid their fines. They are there simply for monetary reasons. Sometimes it is not the immediate cause of them being there. However, if we take a few steps back, we see an awful lot of people who have evolved into lives of crime or lifestyles of criminality because they originally ended up in an institution for non-payment of fines.
It has often been said that these institutions are the prime training schools for criminality, and in many cases that is true. It is a real tragedy when young people or others for the simple reason of not having the money to pay a fine in a timely way end up being incarcerated. It is often originally for a short period of time, but then they get to make contacts and develop ways of thinking and a lifestyle that leads them further down that road when they get out of the institution.
A large number of people are there for non-payment of fines and that really needs to be much more directly addressed. I know provincial governments have fine option programs and so on, but they are only picking up a small percentage of the people who are there for economic reasons.
Second, nobody who visits these institutions in the country, and certainly not those in my riding, could help but be depressed by the very large percentage of aboriginal people who are incarcerated in those institutions. It has been clearly documented that aboriginal people are incarcerated in much greater percentages than their percentage of the population. Truly that is one of the tragedies or one of the aspects of Canadian life we should all be ashamed of and try to grapple with in a very real way.
A lot of studies have been done. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the whole question of the appli-
Govemment Orders
cation of a justice system in the aboriginal community. Obviously we do not have the time to go through all that. Also some very positive initiatives are being taken.
People in Saskatchewan and perhaps elsewhere might have heard the story reported on the national news about a Metis gentleman by the name of Yvan Morin being sentenced by a sentencing circle in Saskatoon. This sentencing circle was made up of elders from the Metis community, other leaders from the Metis community and justice professionals. Obviously the offender was there but also the victim of the crime and people supporting the victim of the crime were there.
They met for an afternoon and went through in a very hard-nosed and often quite emotional way the circumstances of the case and came out with a sentencing recommendation that in many ways was quite unique and innovative. It was the first time to my knowledge that something like that had been tried at that level. It really did represent a breakthrough conceptually in how we deal with sentencing of aboriginal people.
As well, the Government of Saskatchewan should be applauded for reinstating a native court worker program in Saskatchewan in its last provincial budget. There are tough times in Saskatchewan so I appreciate the recognition by the provincial government that this was a priority for the spending of new money. It is something that is badly needed.
I used to work for an institution called Natonum Community College where the original generation of native court workers received their training. I participated peripherally in that training. It was a very positive program in the 1970s. Available people who spoke the aboriginal languages and understood the aboriginal way of looking at the world were able to translate both concepts and language to offenders. They were able to give appropriate advice in a way that people before the justice system could understand. I very much applaud the reinstatement of that program.
We have much further to go. We are dipping our toes into the water when it comes to the whole area of aboriginal justice and the changes that need to be made to bring not only justice but healing to that community.

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
I might also add, I should not forget it because I spent a year and a half involved in the issue, there is the whole question of the healing lodge for the sentencing of aboriginal women. It was documented for decades that the Kingston prison for women was a veiy counterproductive place to be sending people to, particularly aboriginal women. Three aboriginal women from my constituency committed suicide in that institution, in a large part prompting a review by the then Solicitor General. There was a decision to close that institution and build regional centres across Canada and an aboriginal healing lodge. Unfortunately it was not built in Prince Albert where many of us felt it should be. Nevertheless it is much better to have that institution coming on stream no matter where it is.
Getting away from the question of aboriginal justice and turning to some of the larger questions, what is happening in the debate regarding the aboriginal justice system is something the rest of society could well be picking up on. There are some very fruitful ideas in the debate which the rest of the justice system could pay some attention to.
The whole concept of reconciling the offender and the victim of crime is very central to aboriginal justice. Justice in that community is seen primarily as making things right between the offender and the victim, a concept that has often been lost in our vety impersonal mass production justice system.
As well, the whole concept of healing that the aboriginal people bring to this debate is one we could profitably look at. Certainly there have been many in the system who for a long time have regarded rehabilitation as being central to the task of sentencing corrections and protecting the public.
However, the aboriginal people have a much more holistic view of what constitutes healing. It has spiritual dimensions. It involves the extended family. It involves the community as well as the victim and the offender. This holistic view of what constitutes healing has often been missing in how we view rehabilitation. In our terms it is often quite mechanical: follow the program, do it, get out and presumably one is rehabilitated.
Rehabilitation to mean anything is much broader than that. Certainly the rate of recidivism in our system indicates that how we have approached rehabilitation in
the past has not often been widely effective. We could profit from looking at the whole concept of healing and the holistic view of people the aboriginals bring to this debate.
I would also like to pay tribute to people in the criminal justice system who struggle very hard with what is a rigid system in many cases. In some ways it has to be. It is prescribed by law. We do not want to fool around with justice proceedings.
There are a lot of constraints within the system because of the nature of the criminal law, chronic funding shortages particularly in the area of rehabilitation, short staffing in many of these institutions, the design of the institutions, and the political temptation to whip up public frenzy around some of these issues. That is very counterproductive to dealing constructively with them. All these constraints create a situation where people who work in the justice system-the guards, the counsellors, the parole officers, and the different people who are involved in the support organizations-are labouring in many cases behind the eight ball.
Right now the institutions in my constituency, and I am sure in the rest of the country, are grossly overcrowded. They are very much understaffed. The programs are cut. Yet these people often bring a creative, fresh and humanitarian approach to their jobs which I think is really quite exemplary. In many ways they are accomplishing something, rehabilitating people and making society safer in spite of the processes and resources we give them to work with.
In summing up I would like to say that I wish the legislation had taken a broader and more creative look at the whole question of sentencing. I particularly wish we had established a Canadian sentencing commission to look at the question on an ongoing basis, to disseminate new thinking on what works best and to educate judges and others in the justice system about sentencing alternatives.
I wish we had the political will to put our money and our resources where our mouths are, particularly when it comes to things such as aboriginal justice, reconciliation of offenders and victims, taking care of the needs of the victims and involving the larger community in the criminal justice system.
May 7, 1993

My caucus and I will be supporting this legislation. Elowever we hope it is a first step in the long process to bring real justice and effectiveness to the sentencing system within our justice framework.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has correctional facilities in his riding. Obviously he would have talked with the corrections officers. That is something advantageous which he has had and most members have not had the opportunity to do so.
My concern is with rehabilitation and that we are not concentrating on it. One of the corrections officers with whom I spoke said that unquestionably in our corrections system we need more and better rehabilitation if we are to have better results from incarceration and reduce recidivism. I wanted the member's opinion on that point.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the opposition justice critic. I acknowledge the work he has done on this legislation as well as in the broader field.
People who work in the justice system such as front line corrections officers and others are appreciative of what the committee of the House of Commons has done and the fact there are people here who genuinely care about what is happening.
His question was with regard to how effective our current rehabilitation methodologies are and how the front line people feel about what we are doing.
I had the opportunity just last weekend to fly back to my riding with four or five guards from the Saskatchewan penitentiary who were here on a training course. It is fresh in my memory from three and a half hours of flight and discussing these things. As the hon. member says it is profitable to have an opportunity to talk with some of these people.
Overcrowding would be included in their critique. Certainly no institution can function properly if it is overcrowded and the physical facilities cannot handle the inmate population. If it is overcrowded by definition it is virtually understaffed. A lot of the good intentions with regard to rehabilitation are defeated by the fact there is not the space or the staff time available to make work the things we are attempting to do now.
Government Orders
They are often frustrated that changes get made with very little consultation with people involved in the front line who have to deliver the service. A recent example would be that case workers in the institutions have taken on a new function in making judgments and submitting reports to parole boards on who is eligible for parole. They were not consulted in this regard which creates a difficult situation. On the one hand a case worker is supposed to be there for prisoners to talk to openly, to interact with, and to work on their problems with.
On the other hand, now they are also responsible for making sure that inmates are following their programs and monitoring if they are missing classes, and also reporting to their parole board. On the one hand they are kind of a confessor but on the other hand they are supposed to be the reporter to the parole board. That conflict was not thought through before that particular change was introduced.
We also had a situation in Saskatchewan penitentiary where a policy of integrating sexual offenders into the general population was introduced. That was done with very little consultation with people on the front lines and it created a real crisis situation within the institution. It creates a very volatile situation when sex offenders and others like that are put in the general population.
Not only are the front line workers feeling constrained by what is there now, by the overcrowding, but there have also been cuts in training and cuts to some of the rehabilitation aspects. That is very frustrating to them. There are a lot of good ideas in that system. We would all profit if we listened to those front line workers, particularly in the area of rehabilitation, because they are in contact with that on a day to day basis.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to take but a few minutes of this House in this debate on Bill C-90, on sentencing reforms, to talk about the issue of rehabilitation in incarceration.
I want to talk in a few moments about a particular case. I would like to preface my remarks by adding to what some other hon. members have said, which is that we must ensure that our laws discourage crime, criminal activity, and that the penalties we impose ought to be

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
designed in such a way as to discourage others from committing similar offences.
Therefore incarceration and other penalties should be long and tough enough to ensure, as best we can, that we do not have people who will still exhibit criminal behaviour on the streets. They should also ensure that once they are rehabilitated they can be reintegrated into society, having paid for their wrongdoing.
There is an old saying, and my friend who is a lawyer knows it better than I so I will paraphrase it, about sentences which are longer than what is required. I believe it goes something like this: The rigour of the law applied without temperance is not justice but the denial of it.
That is what I want to speak about. I want to speak about a constituent of Glengany-Prescott-Russell. I received a call about this case about a month ago. The constituent committed a crime in the United States of America in 1971. The constituent robbed a bank and was arrested. There was no violence involved in the offence in question, other than that of the physical action of robbing the bank. In the state of Massachusetts he was sentenced to five to ten years.
Two years into his sentence he was let out for one day on parole, on a day pass. He left the United States that day and came back to Canada to join his wife who was still here. That was in 1973, which was 20 years ago. He reintegrated into Canadian society at that point, started working at a job and still officially works there as of today, 20 years later. He bought himself a home and raised his two children. They were two babies at the time and they are now adults, two young women who also live in my constituency.
*
One day in March of this year the RCMP knocked on his door and said they had come to arrest him and extradite him to the United States of America for having skipped jail in 1973. He is in jail today in Canada awaiting the extradition procedures. He has been in jail now for close to two months awaiting that process.
The constituent's wife, family, and the employees of the factory at which he works have phoned me. They have signed a petition with hundreds of names asking for my help. I immediately took the information and went to
meet with the chief of police of the community in my riding. I met with the mayor and asked in a very candid way what was happening. Is this person a known criminal? Is this person someone who is today committing something wrong or a person that I should not be assisting for whatever reason. I was told no. This person, as far as was known and he had been known for many years, was a fine person in the community. All of the workers of that plant without exception have asked for help with regard to this person.
When the man was incarcerated his wife phoned their two daughters and told them their dad was in jail. The two women are both married and have children. Those children are the grandchildren of the prisoner and have not yet been told. His children found out that their father had committed a crime in 1971 and that in 1993, after having served two years in jail in the United States and after 20 years of having reintegrated into Canadian society in a way that most of us would consider total rehabilitation, that man is now in jail. He is costing the taxpayers of Canada hundreds and hundreds of dollars each day he is here in jail until that day when he will be extradited to the United States to serve the rest of the sentence for that crime in 1971.
I look at it this way. I am not a lawyer. I am not learned in the law as some of our colleagues are. I apply the following tests, however logical or illogical they are: Does bringing this person back to jail make him a better person? I do not think so. Does bringing this person back to jail, and no one else in this room knows his name yet, scare off other people from committing a crime? No, it certainly does not do that either. Does it make society safer? I do not think so. After all, if this man wanted to commit a crime, this grandfather who is now in his mid-50s, he presumably could have done so long ago. It does not meet any of those tests that I see from elementary logic. So I ask: Why are we doing this to him?
Then I apply other tests. What about others who have committed crimes? This guy is off having served two years. Possibly that is not much but that is the sentence those who murdered Pierre Laporte received for having killed someone.
Then I ask: Why does the state of Massachusetts want this man to be extradited and why could we allow this to happen?
May 7, 1993

I approached the Minister of Justice, initially privately, asking in the name of compassion, if that still works around here, and in the name of everything that is logical to stop this process and to allow this man to be set free immediately and to refuse the request of the state of Massachusetts for the extradition of this man who is in his 50s and a grandfather and who very shortly will be extradited to the United States. Before that of course I will be put in a position where I will have to raise the name of this person publicly. He has already asked that I do that. I am holding it off just a little bit longer to see whether there is still a way of doing it without having his name identified in that way. I must say that I have not yet succeeded.
I do not think there is a person who feels any more strongly about law and order in this Chamber than I do. Having said that what are we accomplishing as a society when we do this? By doing what we are doing to this man are we making our society any better? No, we are not. We cannot be.
I come back to the original proposition that I raised some minutes ago, that the rigour of any law applying without that temperance and judgment is not justice but the denial of it. Although the arm of the law may be perfectly in the right to do what it is doing to this man, justice is not served at all in any way, shape or form.
Luckily so far the employer, a very large employer in my constituency, has let this man be on leave while he is in jail awaiting this process. He has not been fired yet, but how long can this go on? This man's house might be at stake, his marriage, his reputation before his family, friends and grandchildren, and his income.
I am not a grandfather yet but I do not think that I should be punished for anything that I may or may not have done some 20 years ago. I do not pretend to have ever participated in the kind of activity that is at question here. If anything that anyone ever did that long ago, with all the rehabilitation that has already been set in place, is brought back and all that destruction occurs then justice itself is not well served either.
Consider our efforts to make better laws and to ensure that anyone who is behaving inappropriately is removed from society for all the reasons that we know as parliamentarians and is brought back when it is good and
Government Orders
appropriate to do so. For all of the reasons that we know, this particular case that I am referring to today is not served by anything that any of us have talked about today or any of the rules that we are familiar with in this House.
Therefore, I make this public plea again to the Minister of Justice, who ultimately has the role to decide when a person is extradited, not to allow this extradition to take place. Furthermore it is my hope that someone at the United States embassy will read in Hansard about this debate today and will convince the Governor of Massachusetts to do everything in his power to drop the case and not further request the extradition that is already in the hands of the RCMP.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and all colleagues for listening to this plea for one individual, one middle-aged Canadian grandfather who, if we behave in the appropriate way, may be in a position where he can go back to his job, his family, his wife and his grandchildren. If we fail, shame on all of us.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question relating to his remarks and to the very important points he made on behalf of that person who may be extradited to the United States.
I know of another situation where extradition is being sought for the person back to the United States. The government turned it down whereupon the United States then gave more information. As to the validity of the information I cannot comment but I was struck by the fact that if the United States wanted to extradite somebody that all the pertinent information would be forthcoming initially.
I am alarmed at some of the requests that are being received for extradition from the United States. I hope with the new administration that things will become clearer and in a more even manner. Of course, none of these requests reflect on the new administration I am very pleased to say.
Does the hon. member feel that there has been a problem with some of the requests for extradition from the United States? Does he see that as an ongoing problem and something we should be concerned with in Canada or is it just this one incident that troubles him?

May 7, 1993
Government Orders


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is important for us to have good relations in the area of extradition with the United States of America. We have the longest unprotected border of any two nations on earth. People who behave inappropriately can easily cross that imaginary line that separates us and seek refuge in the other country.
Therefore it is important that we have strong measures for extradition and that those be respected as much as possible. Having said that, there are measures within the act to ensure that our tests as a Canadian society are kept in mind whenever we do allow or disallow an extradition from taking place.
Remember what another colleague said an hour or so ago in the same debate in this House. He said that in fact the propensity to incarcerate is roughly three times as high in the United States as it is here. Therefore that test is not equal. It cannot be.
Given that, there has to be in there some room for us to make our own decisions as a society. That is what disturbs me in this particular case. I am not sure at all that even the state in question that asked for the extradition actually wants him back or whether they are not just hoping and praying that the extradition will be refused so that they will not have to spend hundreds of thousands of their taxpayers' dollars to incarcerate someone who was working for 20 years in Canada in a factory raising his family.
That is something we must bear in mind. We must bear in mind our differences and values when we make those decisions, but we must respect the fact that extraditions do have to take place. I am not questioning that principle, but I am questioning how it was applied in the case of my constituent. If it was applied that way here thus far, it is not impossible that the same problem has occurred elsewhere as well.


David Kilgour: I wonder if my colleague has considered writing to the new Governor of Massachusetts who was elected two years ago to ask him to withdraw the matter. I believe it is the governor alone who makes these requests and it is just a formality that goes through the State Department. Has he considered that? Does he not wish to identify his constituent now for reasons that he might want to mention or not mention?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today the wife of the prisoner-for lack of a better term-or the wife of my constituent contacted me and asked me to make his case public. I urged her not to do so now and to at least tiy again. I understand that they are in the process now of getting additional legal advice over what they have been receiving already. That is the reason why I am still holding off at this point. I will be talking to them later today and I may possibly be releasing the name later today. It depends on their reaction. I would imagine some people in the media will probably ask me about the comments I am making now.
In terms of writing to the Governor of Massachusetts, it was my understanding that was to have been done by those who are representing the individual. In other words it is his legal adviser. Once we are able to make that determination, if that has not been done, I will then ask him myself as a member of Parliament from one elected official to another. Of course a strong indication by our own justice minister that he is not willing to entertain the extradition would not just have the effect of dropping at some further point the request. In fact, because the decision was made in the way that it was-this case was so-called extraditable under Canadian law-the person cannot even get out of jail on bail at the present point. This is the difficulty. This person cannot be bailed out right now. He has been in jail for two months and there is no bail possible for him.
A decision by the minister would free him immediately with no bail or anything like that. That is the reason why we had approached it in that particular way because it could be done that way without identifying him other than what I have done with the minister. I still hope and I am sure I speak on behalf of my constituent's wife, children, co-workers, employer and the whole community where he lives that is still done.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, concerning Bill C-90, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, one will notice that the bill was first read on June 23, 1992.1 think Canadians might wonder why it has taken a full year for the bill to come back and I do not know the answer to that. Possibly the government will explain why it took it a full year to bring back this bill back to the House.
May 7, 1993

Speaking to the bill, the problem of rising crime is on many Canadians' minds these days. A January 1993 Edmonton Sun-Yerxa poll, published in the Edmonton Sun, indicated that Edmontonians rate crime as our most serious social problem.
Why has the government been so slow to respond to crime and crime prevention issues? The bill we have today, although long overdue, is a step in a better direction. Justice, the rights of victims and the protection of society must be at the top of our communities' lists.
One way to achieve these goals is to focus on crime prevention. The tiniest fraction of the $7 billion we spend each year on police, jails and courts and so on is spent on crime prevention. As a community, and hopefully as a government in waiting, we must place more emphasis on matching the punishment with the crime. We must abandon the 19th century model of debtors' prisons, the sort that Charles Dickens wrote about and many others, especially when one considers the current state of the economy.
Imposing community service work and educational programs on petty, non-violent offenders, and I cannot stress that too strongly, is a good way to keep them from becoming really serious offenders.
Prisons are rarely deterrents at all in my experience, and I think in the experience of most people who have dealt with the justice system on a daily basis. We have all heard the term revolving door prison system. It was coined precisely because offenders who were exposed to the institution's code of ethics, a code in which it is good to be bad, for an extended period of time often commit more serious crimes than their original offence after being released from prison.
Let me refer here to a talk that was given recently within a short distance of this House of Commons by Ron Nichol, the president of Prison Fellowship International. Let me give the briefest summary of what Mr. Nichol said last week to a number of people, including some members of Parliament. He pointed out that in 1973 there were 210,000 prisoners across the United States, most of his comments related to the United States, and last year there were 1.3 million. Imagine 1.3 million Americans in custody.
Government Orders
In Canada there are now about 30,000 Canadians in our jails at any given time. Unfortunately the criminals are getting younger and are committing more serious crimes. In the good old days people could leave their homes and cars unlocked. Can members remember those days in their community? I can certainly remember them when I was growing up in Winnipeg. Those days are long gone in most communities across the United States and Canada.
After 12 years in the prison counselling field and working in the corrections area, Nichol, who is a Canadian from Lethbridge, has visited hundreds of prisons in 60 countries around the world. He told us that he learned three things during those years. First, politicians and policies have no effective remedy to crime, including I would assume what we are doing today with this bill. He told us that liberals who have focused on offender rehabilitation and money for programs over the past several decades have failed.
The readmission, or recidivism, rates of those returned to custody in the United States are still in the 65 per cent range. Two out of three persons released in the United States essentially go back to prison within five years. Law and order conservatives who since 1980 have attempted to get tough with criminals discovered that few people are in fact deterred by tough measures and tough talk. Frankly, it has been mostly tough talk by the Reagan and Bush administrations. Few people have been deterred.
Mr. Nichol told us that having visited the best and worst appointed penitentiaries he is convinced from his observations that no type of prison, well furnished or badly furnished, rehabilitates offenders. All of them are schools for crime. He said that institutionalizing people only makes them irresponsible. I am sure he and all of us would agree that prisons are effective and necessary in protecting the public from truly dangerous offenders. A minority of offenders must be kept from society in fully secure institutions. We can all think of some cases recently in Canada where the convicted offenders should be kept permanently away from the rest of society.
The second thing he told us he has learned over 12 years is that crimes around the world are spiritually or ethically caused. He disagrees with those who blame crime on poverty, unemployment, social conditions, genetics, the media and so on.

May 7, 1993
Government Orders


An hon. member:: I disagree.


David Kilgour: My colleague I think is saying she disagrees.


An hon. member:: On that particular point.


David Kilgour: Oh, okay she disagrees. I hope you will speak on the bill.
Third, if crime has mostly an ethical base, a reformed justice and penal system should concentrate on restorative issues such as were addressed this afternoon by the most thoughtful comments of the member for Western Arctic, including the long-forgotten victim compensation or restitution by the convicted offender and involvement of the community or communities affected.
I do not know whether you know, Mr. Speaker, but that was the approach of many civilizations. As Mr. Nichol pointed out, it was in 1116 that King Henry I of England decided that crime involved only the offender and the state. Much later Winston Churchill noted that prisons reflect the moral climate and values of any society.
In eastern Europe-I hope it is clear here that I am paraphrasing what the speaker said the other night- where the state has been all-powerful since about 1945, each of them lets the people down because there was simply no moral basis whatsoever to what governments in that part of the world did over those four or five decades.
Nichol and many other observers, myself included, have decided that penitentiaries have too long denied that their inmates are partly spiritual beings and the spirituality of ethics is veiy closely linked. The root of any culture or cult is religion.
North America and many other lands need a broadly based spiritual and ethical renewal, such as William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect managed to do in the latter part of the 19th century in Britain.
Coming to the good news of his talk, at a place in Brazil near San Jose which has a population of about 1.3 million there is a prison with 365 inmates, more or less. I guess the prison fell on bad times and some years ago the governing of it was taken over by a small group of Brazilian Christians and began to be run on Christian principles. Today new prisoners arriving are told by other prisoners: "The values of Jesus are lived in this prison".
There are only two paid staff and 30 to 40 volunteers in that prison. Each prisoner is adopted by a family in the area who will be there for them when they get out. The failure rate for that prison is 5 per cent compared to 75 per cent for prisons in the rest of that province, Sao Paulo.
Prison Fellowship International later attempted to apply this approach to inmates in corrections in California but they ran into problems with the rigid constitutional separation of church and state in the United States. Prison Fellowship International has hopes to replicate the Brazilian experience soon in Ecuador and possibly Scotland and the Russian federation.
Tb get back to the bill, the alternative measures program provision in the Young Offenders Act has been successful in numerous cases where first-time offenders have acknowledged their wrongdoing and were willing to commit to a regimen of treatment or training without the need for custody. There is no reason, it seems to me, why this should not work with some adults as well.
Among other things, prison life strips individuals of the responsibility to support themselves as productive members of society.
Community work would afford a certain degree of responsibility and a sense that they are able to contribute something positive to society. Why should we, as Canadians, virtually bankrupt the federal and seemingly provincial governments and pay thousands of dollars each year to keep someone in prison for a bad cheque or a minor theft when that person could be paying off their debt to society by working in the community instead? Does it really make sense to send someone to jail for 30 days for not paying a relatively small fine?
There are currently almost 30,000 Canadian adults in prison on any given day and about 180,000 of our fellow citizens are imprisoned each year for one period or another. At a cost of about $30,000 to $80,000 per person each year-I believe it is now closer to $60,000-to keep them there, it is no wonder that the cost of crime in this country is so high. Crime is also costing Canadians about $14 billion a year, but only less than half of 1 per cent of the $7 billion I mentioned earlier is spent on crime prevention.
May 7, 1993

The common perception seems to be that crime is always going to get worse and that the crime rate must continue to get worse. Having attended, at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer, a United Nations conference on crime many years ago in Caracas, one of the things I learned was that the crime rate in Japan is actually going down. I do not think we need to accept that in Canada or in the United States or other countries the rate has to continue to go up. There are countries in the world, including the most successful industrial democracy, where the rate is actually going down. One of the reasons I believe it is going down is community policing there, societal values and the strong desire of the Japanese people never to bring disgrace on their families. I believe they are much more effective in crime prevention as well.
I would therefore applaud the provisions before us for sentencing reform. As I mentioned earlier, why has it taken the minister since September 4, 1984 when this government was first elected to bring forward a bill such as this?
Since prisons rarely serve to rehabilitate offenders they should be used only when a convicted offender poses a danger to society. A shoplifter, for example, may be a repeat offender, but it is not likely that such a person would physically harm anyone else. Between 1980 and 1985, for example, of the 13,828 inmates released on parole, I am told that 6,177 of them had their paroles later revoked. They were obviously not rehabilitated while in prison. As an Edmontonian, Mr. Speaker, you and I would hear this every day from our constituents.
There must be enough room in our prisons to allow us to keep violent, dangerous offenders there as long as necessary to protect society. However, the focus must shift so that longer sentences are given to dangerous offenders such as the child rapist and serial murderer, Joseph Fredericks, who killed 11-year old Christopher Stephenson after being released from prison on mandatory supervision and had supposedly paid off his debt to society. I think we are aware that Mr. Fredericks was subsequently murdered in prison so I am told. Killers such as Albert Foulston and Jerry Crewes who murdered the Edmonton police officer, young Ezio Farone, deserve to be kept in custody for a very, very long time and perhaps for their natural life. Different punishments must be given to offenders of a completely different
Government Orders
nature such as those who limit their crimes to theft and vandalism for example.
I wonder if one knows that in Japan to write a bad cheque is not even a criminal offence. The Japanese take the view I gather that if a merchant takes a cheque from anyone then that is their problem and they will have to try to collect on it. They are not going to bother the police in such a matter and Japanese commerce seems to work extremely well.
Our justice system is burdened by far too many inconsistencies. Why is it that a rapist can get a sentence of 18 months while a thief might get two years less a day? There is still much progress that needs to be made in repairing our criminal justice system. We must also consider that our courts are currently very busy. I believe thousands of serious criminal cases were thrown out about a year ago in Ontario because they had not been proceeded with quickly enough. The courts must be freed up to deal with those who are really dangerous. Crime prevention must be looked at as a package which includes parole system reform as well as sentencing reform.
Let me just say a word in closing about a national crime prevention strategy. Rising violent crime is threatening too many Canadian communities, children, women and men. The vicious circle of poverty, child abuse, drugs, alcoholism, unemployment, delinquency, prostitution and family violence has to be broken. I wish somebody in the House or somebody in the country could tell us how we are going to do it.
In the meantime we are dealing with bandages. Only a co-ordinated prevention strategy can try to get at the roots of the problem effectively. More money is needed not for building more jails or enlarging police forces but for a comprehensive crime prevention program to deal with the causes of crime.
Justice for all is needed. Canadians spend more than $14 billion annually on the police, courts and prisons, yet less than half of one per cent of this amount is spent on crime prevention.
According to the criminologist, Irwin Waller, spending 10 per cent of the amount would create long-term improvements. In his recent report on urban crime Waller outlined a blueprint for action that Canada needs to follow based on the 1990 United Nations resolution on

May 7, 1993
Government Orders
the prevention of urban crime. The resolution stated that prevention involves those with responsibility for crime generating conditions such as urban planning and development, family health, employment, training, housing, social services, leisure activities, schools, the police and the justice system.
The resolution also indicates the need for strategies to combat intolerance, racism, the glorification of violence in the media and assistance to the victims of crime. Available data indicates that evaluations of specific programs in the U.S., England and the Netherlands can significantly reduce crime and in some cases return $5 on every $1 invested.
Those programs included better neighbourhood watches to reduce break-ins, investing in child care for at risk children, jobs training for disadvantaged youth and a responsive approach to public housing. "The emphasis on prevention is part of a new global consensus" stated Professor Waller. In my view Canada-and I do not suppose those opposite would agree-needs a new national government that would put that emphasis into practice.
In closing, as we have heard from several people on this side of the House, we support the bill and hope that somehow we will be able to get it through committee, through the House again and through the Senate. Most Canadians think this Parliament is long past its time. Members should be out there trying to get re-elected. We are now in the fifth year. Despite the obstacles of time, I hope this bill and the bill introduced yesterday to be candid, will be read the third time and passed into law quickly.


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


Some hon. members:: Question?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.

Hon. Perrin Beatty (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-125, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those Statutes and to repeal certain provisions of those Statutes that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being four o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 10, 1993