Randy White

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not right to assume the Liberals would be opening up the gates and letting these prisoners go free. In many cases I am not sure why they would want to go free. That was precisely my point.

It is difficult to oppose at times some bills in the House. This is where I get to the problem with the Liberal government legislation. Those members come half way to doing the job and we are saying the government has to take it all the way.

What do we do? We are in a conundrum of either supporting it or saying the government has not gone far enough. The government makes it difficult in those situations to get agreement from this side. That is truly unfortunate because the amendments to the bill I mentioned were not unreasonable.

The example the member gave about a crime against a child being a more severe crime is not the point. The point is if there is a sexual crime against a child or an adult, make them both tough. Do not isolate the child. Make it child and adult. Why could the government not have done that? That is the point.

The government is taking these issues half way. If it would take them all the way and incorporate some of these things and toughen up on this crime like the people of the country are asking for, there would be support from this side of the House.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Do not get too angry? What do these people think we are talking about here? Good old Wayne

went into an apartment and injected Angela Richards with cocaine. Is this familiar? He stabbed her 20 times, killing her.

When I was sitting in court during the sentencing I thought there was something missing in the courtroom besides the 50 of us who were allowed in crying. Where was the parole board that let him out early? Angela Richards would be alive today. The board should have been sitting there listening to the rest of us cry. Then there should have been a mandatory review. Those responsible should have been fired and taken out the door as fast as Wayne Perkin was when he was let out of prison.

What do we ask for in the bill? We would have required a mandatory review of parole board decisions when a violent offender is released early and commits another violent offence during release time. Is that too much to ask? The answer over there is no, we do not need that.

Perhaps the Wayne Perkin case was an isolated incident. The members across know it was not. For the life of me I do not understand why these backbenchers do not get on the cabinet to get its members to change their minds on some of these things.

It is like digging holes on a beach; the water keeps coming and the sand keeps filling the hole. How do we make this government listen? How many people does it take out in front of the House of Commons to put some sense into a Liberal government? Is it that it just wants a really good fight in the next election? We will see who comes out on top on this issue.

What I talked about the other night bears repeating, the mentality we are dealing with in corrections today. If I can recall all 23 reasons why it pays to be a criminal in this country I will riddle them off. We are talking about charging an inmate 30 per cent for room and board. It is not 70 per cent, not 100 per cent, but 30 per cent. They cannot have very much behind closed doors in prison.

Let us see what an inmate gets in prison and what our senior citizens or those with little or no income get on the outside. We know they get room and board. We know they get counselling, which is good. Anger management courses always work, they say. They have the right to refuse to work. They get free condoms, let us not forget that. They have the right to call their legal aid lawyer when they want. It is ironic that we have a government today that had to serve an injunction to Clifford Olson to stop him from filing lawsuits against the crown. At last count he had 30.

They have bleach for their needles; project bleach, as it is called in my riding. They get a one ounce bottle of bleach to prevent the spread of HIV. They sterilize their needles for cocaine intake.

Wait a minute, something tells me this is the same kind of logic we are dealing with for the parole board. There is a better way. Stop the drugs from coming into the prison. They are not allowed alcohol in prisons so perhaps they would allow the prisoners to have Diet Coke and ice cubes in the event they bring in booze. This is the convoluted logic we see.

Let us not forget any additional income an inmate may have. They get old age security. I found one individual, a double murderer, getting old age security. My grandmother would be less than pleased about that. They get the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and GST rebates.

It is so frustrating to drive by Ferndale penitentiary, a couple of miles from my house, and see a nine hole golf course. It is frustrating when the law-abiding citizen has to go up the road and pay $30 or $40. I asked the warden why there was a nine hold golf course. The answer was for rehabilitation. They have to learn to get along on the outside. There is a difference. Many of us do not golf today. It is expensive. All of us have to pay for it.

If the government is trying to rehabilitate them I suggest it is going about it the wrong way. If members think this is Reform rhetoric, ask the employees of corrections. They will say some of this is a waste of time. It is not right.

When we compare people on the outside to people on the inside we wonder who is getting punished. They offer lots of taxes. They offer frustration. When we checked to see how much smokes are inside a prison compared with outside, they run anywhere from 42 cents to $1.62 cheaper per pack.

With Bill C-45 the government is out to lunch.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

It only stands to reason that the police get involved with the next sex offence of that sex offender after he perpetrates the crime. The best defence for victims is to know who is living next door or down the street.

That is why people like Sandra Cunningham are leaders in this country. She was out in front listening to the wonderful words of the justice minister today. She prints the tri-cities child care guide. She prints the pictures, the MOs, the dossiers of pedophiles. That is necessary in this country.

I know there is not much agreement across the way because probably that pedophile's rights have been infringed upon.

Alan Winter came from my riding. The Liberals call these isolated incidents. I have more isolated incidents in my riding than most. At last count Alan Winter had victimized 31 children. He was incarcerated as a dangerous offender. He got 16 years. Unbeknownst to every single one of those victims he was allowed out in just over five years. Nobody knew he was out. There was no registry. I am not even sure the police knew about him. The only reason they found out is because more victims were going to lay charges against him and they said: "He is not in here any more". It does not make sense. This is not partisan politics, this is the real world. These are real, sincere problems.

Another amendment we asked for was a mandatory review of parole board decisions where a violent offender is released early and commits another violent offence during release time. That was rejected by the government.

I have spoken about Wayne Perkin in the House more than once. Motion No. 19 was very appropriate for Wayne Perkin. Good old Wayne knocked on a door in Aldergrove in my riding and encouraged the lady to go out in her garden shed to get a lawnmower. When she went in with him what did good old Wayne do? He beat her over the head with a hammer, taped her hands behind her back, injected her with cocaine and raped her. That was not sexual assault as the lawyers would call it, it was rape.

What did Wayne get courtesy of our judiciary in Canada? Six years. Her life will never be the same.

The parole board let him out early, the good old parole board. What did Wayne do? One would think maybe a miracle had happened and after two or three years and maybe good old Wayne turned into a good fellow. Maybe he took an anger management course. They let him out early.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with this kind of thinking. In one particular parole board hearing I was at an individual was before it for a revocation of his parole. He was a fraud artist. What was he doing? He was up setting up his next scam while on parole. What happened? His parole was revoked. Is he entitled to get back out? Yes, indeed. He can apply again for parole.

Something has to be wrong somewhere if the government cannot acknowledge the fact that there has not been rehabilitation, that this individual will reoffend and that it is not healthy for the victims to allow him out. That does not seem like such a difficult problem to resolve.

We said that we would ensure that criminals served their full sentences if conditional release is revoked or suspended. The government said no, it cannot agree with that.

Let us talk about a child sex offender registry. We suggested that a complete registry be established. The government says: "No. Do not do that. CPIC will look after it". CPIC is the system run by the police.

Why can the Liberals not acknowledge the fact that everybody is concerned about sex offenders and everybody wants and should have the right to know? They should have that right.

If I am living in any community in this country, before my children go out on the street I want to know if there is a sex offender living next door. It is not appropriate simply to leave it to the police. The police are not going to sit outside this guy's door all day long.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Far right, thank you.

The solicitor general talked about bringing forward the Young Offenders Act and how the government did a good job on it. He then talked about gun control, another abysmal failure of dealing with crime. We now have to realize that the largest percentage of this bill was in the House before. You may recognize it. It was brought in by that party from Jurassic Park. That goes to show us where those two parties come from, the same bent. There is no change and there is no plan.

There is going to be some accountability in the National Parole Board. When I asked my question of the previous speaker I asked it for a clear reason. It was because of the numerous discussions I have had with parole board members and my attendance at numerous parole board hearings. The difficulty I have with some of the reasoning of the government comes from the fact that it leans on success rates. Success rates, while nice, do not give any accommodation to the failure rates, the victims.

When a parole board member phones me and says they have an 87 per cent success rate, I tell them to give some thought about the 13 per cent failure rate. Those are the people coming through our doors.

Let us have a little look to see what things were put forward to the government by the Reform Party which the government said: "No, we reject that in Bill C-45". Let us see if the Canadian people would agree with this Liberal government. We said: "Why not provide for compensation to victims of crime and for medical treatment for victims of sexual assault to be paid for by the perpetrator?" Was that accepted by the government? No, indeed. Why? Ask a Liberal. If Canadians were to ask the people on this side of the House we would say there is more to the problems of a victim than just room and board payback.

This is the government that still gives old age security and CPP, guaranteed income supplement, GST rebates to inmates. The government is still intent on saying it can now introduce a 30 per cent charge for room and board. Come on.

We talked about no statutory release for violent offenders. Would the government go along with that? No, it would not. What is wrong with no statutory release for violent offenders? The government knows darn well that the greater percentage of inmates

will reoffend when they get out. If it does not believe that through statistical data it should ask the wardens, talk to the inmates. They will confirm it.

We said: "Why not ensure that criminals serve their full sentences if conditional release is revoked or suspended?" What is wrong with that? The Liberals do not agree. In other words, if an inmate gets out on unescorted temporary absence and reoffends he is hauled back in. His parole is revoked but he is entitled to apply and gets back out on parole. If these people are getting out on parole, perpetrating the same or similar crimes, do you think they have been rehabilitated? Do you really think it is a wise idea to allow them to apply for parole again? My goodness.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for the fifth time to speak on Bill C-45.

Before addressing some of the specific things that are not in this bill and are in fact refused by this government to be put in this bill, I want to talk about a couple of semi-quotes that were spoken here today.

First, my colleague across the way says that we must move forward one step at a time. This is once again the Liberal way of managing, one step at a time. It astounds me that this government cannot take a bigger step rather than one little step at a time. What is the problem with this government which insists we take just a little bit at a time? A good example is the Young Offenders Act that the justice minister spoke about at noon today in front of the Parliament buildings. He expounded on how good a job the Liberals have done on the Young Offenders Act. It is a poor job. It is an abysmal failure. One only has to ask the victims of violence groups who are involved with the Young Offenders Act what they think. They will tell you it is an abysmal failure. One step at a time is not good enough today.

I have a couple of other comments. The solicitor general in talking to this bill said: "Sex offences are considered more serious against children than adults". Just where does a Liberal government get that idea from?

I could refer the government time and time again to cases I have been involved with relating to adults who were viciously and sexually attacked who would disagree with that comment. I know a lady by the name of Joan who is watching now. We went to court together to deal with the creep who got her. Joan is 63 years old. I do not think for a minute that Joan, who was sexually attacked, would agree that sex offences are considered more serious against children than adults. What kind of statement is that coming from any government much less a Liberal government?

The previous speaker said: "Most adults realize the effects of a sexual assault". That is some kind of convoluted reasoning to provide more impetus, something for the victims of child assault than for adults. What kind of reasoning is that? Most adults realize the effects of a sexual assault. That is a reason to downplay the effects of a sexual assault on an adult? What kind of logic do we have in this House of Commons?

They can shake their heads but we are right.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do have one question relating to the statistics and the demographics the hon. member has put before the House.

I constantly hear from the government, in particular in the last speech, about success rate, how successful the parole board has been and how successful the management of crime has been as far as the government is concerned. I would like to ask what the member would do or what the government would do with the unsuccessful circumstances. For instance, I got a telephone call in my riding from a parole board member who went on and on about the 87 per cent success rate. I reminded that individual that this means there is a 13 per cent failure rate and that it is the failures that are affecting family after family.

When will the government look at the failure problem and not rely on statistics from the government department that has the problems? Those statistics are typically about success rates. Could the member please respond?

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

The minister tells me now that it is in there. From what we can determine those two areas are not included. The area specified is the 200-mile nautical limit. If they are in there they should be very carefully specified because those two areas, as he knows, are outside the nautical limit. If the committee purports to amend things in favour of government legislation it should carefully take note and carefully include the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. Let us not make it as nebulous as these things usually are.

Apparently there is a consolidation of 14 programs as a result of the bill, but a bureaucracy still exists in the department and the minister well knows it. For a department to lose so many clients, if fishermen can be considered clients of the department, I am at a loss why there is not a proportionate decrease in staff directly related to that loss. That is not the case. We lose the fishermen from the system but we do not lose the bureaucrats.

By the way, I talked with the deputy minister at one point. He is no longer the deputy minister and that is not a bad thing either, but the results of the discussion are still the same. I asked how many people in Ottawa, for instance, had been directly related to the fishing industries on the east or west coasts. I had difficulty getting that answer too but finally the answer, if we check the record of that committee meeting, was negligible.

If that were the case, the minister would be well advised to look at the potential. If he wants gainful employment for those who have been put out of work and gainful retraining, he should start replacing the employees of DFO with those directly affected by the mismanagement of the department in the first place. It would go a long way to responding to some of their needs rather than sitting at home in their chairs waiting for the fish to come back.

The minister stated that the act planned for the future rather than responded to the crisis of the day. This may be the first time in recent history that any government actually planned for the future rather than responded to the crisis of the day. I only have to refer the House to the moratorium in TAGS, an absolutely disastrous program. If the government wants to plan for the future, it should

start listening to the people who are involved. That we know, from British Columbia's point of view, is really not the case.

It is not a bad idea to merge the coast guard with the DFO. That was done in April. However, I caught the comments of the minister that are not bound in legislation. The minister said that we would cross train and consolidate the coast guard, that we would consolidate offices, duties and so on.

I do not know if the coast guard knows about it yet, but I am sure those offices are now wondering what the government is up to. It talks about planning. It should not make announcements in the House that it is to start a consolidation program, that it will move them here and there. There are people involved in the exercise. The minister would be well advised to get some advice first and plan the exercise rather than make a people kind of announcement in the House.

The minister commented on the operation of the parliamentary committee on fisheries and the job of the chairman. Thus far the government's committee has basically done a tremendous job. It met and put a separatist as vice-chairman who does not really represent any of the exercise. Perhaps it is part of the Quebec border. That is the exercise of the government thus far. The chairman of the committee has a bigger job. He should go back to the minister and ask: "Why don't you plan this exercise a bit better?"

No mention has been made of fees. I am sure the minister knows how contentious this exercise is. Sections 49, 50, 51 and 52 indicate that the minister may fix fees for service. I have trouble with government fee for service exercises when Canadian taxpayers are paying for government service as it is. They will end up paying for a service that is supposed to be provided twice: once through taxes and once through a fee for service. It is typical of governments at all levels today to say that they are providing us with a service but if they provide it they will charge a fee. That is what taxes were supposed to be for.

For the information of the minister, a fee, a licence or a permit is a tax. The people involved in the fishing industry do not see a fee, a licence and a permit as just more dollars out of their pockets. They see it as more taxation and more costs. They wonder what it will be spent on. It goes into general revenue. Do we get it back? For the minister's information I have some quotes from fishing organizations that he would be interested in.

It gets back to the philosophy of the government. It does not understand that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Successive governments over the last 20 years have been overspending, overspending and overspending. What is their answer? Rather than find ways to cut back they go back to people like fishermen and say they need more money off their backs. That is the Liberal way.

What kind of fees are involved? They say the overall average increase in the fees across the board is approximately 400 per cent. I would like to see how the chairman of the committee will get around that when we talk about it. Congratulations to the Liberals; they will ding fishermen across the board 400 per cent in fees. They say the $30 lobster licence will be $310. That ought to please the fellows who are trying to eke out a living.

The government currently gets approximately $13 million from licence fees, and that is going to $63 million. Is there not a way to look at some efficiencies within DFO to get $50 million rather than license or tax fishermen? Is there not a way? Have they looked at that? It is another job for the chairman of the committee that we will be asking about.

When will it happen? The minister says the government will decide on that by the end of September. That is pretty soon. Fishermen can take note that they will get notice of when fees, licences and permits, these taxes, will be increased.

I am surprised on such a big issue that the minister stood for 40 minutes and told us about John Cabot. That was interesting but the people out there are really asking who is getting taxed, how much and when.

What is it for? The minister says they are progressive fees, progressive taxes; that is the larger the catch, the larger the percentage increase. They are based on the ability to pay. That is fair ball, I suppose. They apply to commercial fisheries on both coasts. The government presumes once again that if there is any possible way to tax them it will do it. It does not look at perhaps not spending money here or there.

We only have to look at the minister's own example that he set for his office furnishings, which we complained about in the House. We only have to look at some of his expenditures, like advertising in New York City when he was promoting himself. I wonder where these folks are coming from.

Why do they want to increase fees? Let us see what they say. The Liberals want an additional $50 million on top of the $200 million in current cuts. They say they can get away with cutting $200 million and then go back to the people they will tax and say: "Look, we cut $200 million; you can pay $50 million". Why can they not look for $250 million in cuts? It is there. Starting from the top it is there.

DFO's budget will apparently be decreased to $500 million from $700 million.

I wonder if there is not more. Where is it? We only have to ask the fishermen. They had all kinds of suggestions about where to cut when I sat down with them. The one thing common with the east and west coast fishermen is they are not asked. They get the

fees, the licences, the permit costs and the taxes but they are not asked where the cuts can come from. Does this sound like the Liberal government? You bet it does.

I talked to employees of DFO who said there are two reasons behind these fee increases. They want more money and they want to reduce the number of fishermen. I said: "If those are your reasons do you have any other alternatives? Is there something you can do other than increase taxes to the fishermen?" I suggested two things which I will suggest here. The answer was they did not think of that. There is a priceless answer. That is a pun to the minister.

What is the impact of these fees? The fees must be paid up front with no instalments. There will be a graduated fee structure. If we have landings of $25,000 worth of catch, the fee is approximately 3 per cent. If we have landings of over $100,000 the fee is approximately 5 per cent, and on it goes. It sounds like the tax structure we are working on today. It is similar to the tax structure we are working on today, so it is a tax.

What does the P.E.I. fishermen's association say about it? The money is simply a form of hidden taxation. That is felt right across the country: "It will not even be funnelled back into the fishery but will go into a consolidated revenue fund or general pot that they will blow away". That is the feeling out there.

Can we take money as was done in the case of British Columbia's forestry? Part of the fees from licences and permits goes toward silviculture. If the government has to take money could it not possibly think to put it back into rejuvenating fishing stock?

The government is looking at more fees for service from coast guard services which now comes under DFO, and for scientific investigations. One has to wonder what the methodology is here. This will be another cash cow like most things the government is involved with. It cannot deal with the fact that it is overspending. All it can deal with is it does not have enough revenue, and that is wrong.

There are some alternatives we could provide. DFO should be managed by fishermen and their dependents, the people in the indirect fisheries. Start moving them in, start training them. Get them involved in DFO in Ottawa, on inland waters, on both coasts.

If they get a piece of that administrative action maybe they will influence ministers to help the industry. Right now there is not that interlocking or interfacing. There is the DFO and a number of fishermen, a resource, a tax resource, which is the way they look at it. Therefore why not have the fishermen manage the resource by getting them involved?

If there are problems within the industry many come from UI regulations. Fishermen will tell us that. They understand that. Let us look at UI regulations. We do not have to license the fishing industry again.

There has been much talk about what happens to Newfoundland fishermen and what they do for a future. Many of them suggest the minister might want to look at inshore fishing again on handlining and getting perhaps some of the people in the villages along the shores active again in handlining and reduce the number of larger ships. They talk about that a lot. Whether it can be done, I do not know. Really all they want is to get out, get their lines in and get at it.

If we look at the number of people who could possibly be employed around the villages as opposed to the number of people employed on the larger ships there is a drastic difference. Since fish plants have been shut down on the coast perhaps there could be regional plants. Perhaps the fish caught by handlining could go to regional plants and then to larger plants. That is a possibility but I do not know if it has been looked at.

We are looking at a flat tax system but the tax system has to take into account that there have to be fewer exemptions. Perhaps if the government looked at the tax system and UI system it could come up with better alternatives than to strike larger fees and licences.

The government has to look again at reducing costs. We know the costs are high there and the government knows it. I do not think its mandarins are willing to let it have much more money. I guess the government has to learn to be a little tougher in dealing with the bureaucracy. As the Liberals are listening and whining about what I am saying, there are a lot of senior bureaucrats in that department. There are a lot of expenses. We do get letters outlining where things should be cut. The fishermen tell us and so the minister should look at it.

In the final analysis we have to look at where the Liberals are coming from on bills such as this. Although I compliment the minister on some of the issues within the bill, particularly the conservation areas, I continue to worry about traditional governments. We have thrown out that other party and the country brought in this party. They are traditional parties intent on looking at balancing books by way of taxing more as opposed to cost cutting. They are intent on perpetuating programs like the Conservative program on the moratorium and the TAGS program which was Liberal.

We are looking at a government truly looking backwards to a future. If anything I sincerely wish this committee well because we will be spending a lot of time on this committee. We will be asking a lot of questions of this minister. We sincerely hope he keeps the interests of the fishermen in mind, not the interests of the bureaucrats in Ottawa.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-98 today. Some of the things in the bill bring back a lot of memories from watching politics over the years as to whether the bill will be a success or failure in future years. One never knows but I trust the minister is going in the right direction on the issue. We will speak to a few things on that in a moment. I want to talk about the minister's introductory comments on the bill in general. I want to spend some time on the fees issue which he seemed to disregard in this comments.

First there is something amiss about planning in the department of fisheries over the last two decades particularly. I can recall about a year and a half ago talking to the previous deputy minister of that department. It took me so long to get out of this fellow exactly how many years the department of fisheries undertakes its strategic planning activities. He really did not want to answer but I badgered him until he did. The answer was three years of strategic planning within that department.

The reason I was asking that question was that if there is a three-year planning cycle in the department of fisheries why then did the previous Conservative government come out with a five-year moratorium plan in fisheries and this current government came out with the five-year TAGS plan?

First of all if there is a three-year strategic planning session, it is beyond me how the department can come out with a five-year plan not really knowing what the end results will be. It seems to me the reason the five-year plan came out was it had a lot to do with when the next election was and a lot less to do with the planning, the conservation value and qualities of fish. That is truly unfortunate.

This government, as was the previous government, is intent on passing money out to unemployed fishermen. That is a subject of discussion in itself, whether it is good or bad or how indeed it is going to deal with the conservation of fish. One thing in Bill C-98 that I heard here this morning is the area set aside for conservation. I think it is good but there is a non-commitment in that aspect of it which I shall address very shortly.

We have a department with three-year plans. The minister would be well advised to have that department look at longer term plans as they do in certain forest industries. The business cycle in some forest industries is as long as the life of a tree, from start to productive cutting. Perhaps the length of planning in the department of fisheries should relate to the cycle of the fish. It would not be a bad idea.

I want to mention some of the comments from the separatist member who talked about some convoluted exercise. He mixed it in somehow with the fact that the minister wants to create a certain amount of sovereignty over our waters. He has it mixed up a bit as to what is right and what is wrong about sovereignty in this country.

The very fact that the government is trying to make the waters surrounding our country a part of our sovereign nation is certainly not only for Newfoundland, British Columbia or P.E.I.; it is for all provinces, including Quebec. Why the member would have a disagreement with that just baffles me.

As much as the government may complain about comments from the separatists, as a member of the parliamentary committee on fisheries I find it hard to understand how government members can unanimously endorse that committee's vice-chairman from the Bloc. On the one hand they complain about the comments about sovereignty and so on but on the other hand they allow that to happen. Do the Bloc members actually represent interests of Newfoundlanders, people in P.E.I., people in British Columbia? I have not heard it in this House if that is the case. What is the mind set for that kind of move? I suspect it is appeasement, once again, and that is unfortunate.

The minister talked about the pride we have in our forefathers, the founders of the nation, people like John Cabot who at times had difficulty steering through the waters off the Grand Banks because of the amount of cod. I wonder what John Cabot would say today after 20 to 30 years of government bungling. He would have probably said: "It is a darn good thing we do not have government or an overbureaucratic organization. At least I was allowed over here. There are lots of fish, but what have you people done?" The question on the minds of most Canadians today is: What have politicians done to the fishery?

I am aware that something like 14 formal reports have gone through the House of Commons on the east coast fishery, most of which were ignored. What do we have today? I have family members on TAGS and they are not proud of it. Their boats are sitting on the slip, never to go back in the water again. They are wishing for work. They are hoping some day that there may be work in the fishery. However it does not look good.

Canadians are wondering what we allow government to present in the House of Commons. How bad will this hurt them? There are so many unknowns and so many people out there saying they have been hurt time and time again and asking if this will help that one never knows.

The minister talked about several happenings in the recent affairs of fisheries. In 1958, 1967 and 1993 there were UN conventions. There was a new binding convention to protect ocean resources. I wish just for once the government would stop talking and start doing. I cannot blame the minister. He has to try to improve operations and bring in organizations, but there is no confidence left that good will come of the legislation.

The bill will formally assert Canada's jurisdiction over its coastal waters. However there was no mention about the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks with respect to fish.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to know what I said that was offensive.