Patrick Gagnon

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 28th, 1995]

Could we hear that in French?

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 28th, 1995]

More than its share.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-45 and related initiatives. It has been said many times in this House that our penal justice system lacks the means required to control high-risk offenders, including sex offenders.

The public has become increasingly fearful and intolerant of crimes committed by these offenders, especially when the victims are children. This is a very legitimate concern which Bill C-45 should help to alleviate by providing better protection for the most vulnerable members of our society. In many cases, sexual offences not only harm a person physically but also cause psychological damage that unfortunately may leave lasting scars.

If we want to improve public safety, we must act quickly and use the most effective means at our disposal. That is why we have opted for a comprehensive approach consisting of legislation and other measures that will help us deal with the problem on all fronts. As you know, Bill C-45 contains major amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that will increase public safety.

The principal changes include amending the provisions on the detention of sex offenders who attack children. To provide better protection for our young people, Bill C-45 gives the word "child" the broadest possible legal sense, in other words, any individual under 18 years of age. Thanks to the proposed amendments, it will no longer be necessary to prove that serious harm was or will be caused to the child by a sexual offence.

This change was necessary because in many cases, the impact of sexual abuse is not easy to detect in a child. The problem is further compounded by the fact that child abusers often tell their victims that the sex acts they are forced to commit are acceptable and not to be discussed with others. Research has also shown that the harm suffered by a child who is a victim of sexual abuse may not become apparent until years later.

For all these reasons, it is difficult and almost impossible to find out whether there was serious harm. Bill C-45 will fill this gap by giving the National Parole Board the authority to keep in custody any offender it deems likely to commit a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of his sentence.

I would like to point out that we have before us a piece of legislation that is intelligent and sound and based on the latest scientific research. It was well received by many of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during its study of the bill. I may refer more specifically to the clinicians representing the Canadian Psychological Association. They found the bill perfectly reasonable in clinical terms, because, as they said, people sexually drawn to children, known clinically as pedophiles, have a much higher risk of recividism than those suffering from some other form of deviant sexual behaviour.

At times, treatment appears to have no effect on pedophiles. Accordingly, since the bill concerns offenders representing the greatest threat to the security and welfare of children, we believe it should go a long way to calming Canadians' concerns.

Before I talk about other legislative changes, I would like to return to the comments by the solicitor general on the point amending the provisions on detention. The fact that the change applies only to young victims does not mean that sexual offences against adults are of less concern to us.

All sexual crimes are serious, and the vulnerability of the victim, whoever that may be, is a vital consideration in each decision on parole or detention.

We must give ourselves the means to accurately assess the risk involved in a sexual offence, whoever the victim may be. In recent years, some people have wondered whether we can really assess the damage victims suffer when there has been no bodily harm. This is particularly important in the case of victims of sexual crimes.

As many of you know, the definition of serious harm in the present legislation covers both physical injury and psychological damage. As psychological damage is not apparent most times, it is often difficult to detect. In an effort to overcome this difficulty, the Department of the Solicitor General formulated guidelines on this last fall.

Accordingly, the people responsible for identifying cases of potential detention and commissioners responsible for deciding on them are better equipped to assess the psychological wrong a victim has suffered. They can therefore better recognize offenders who are more likely to cause serious harm in the future.

The department developed these guidelines according to the most recent research available on the psychological effects of crime for victims and on clinical diagnostic criteria. This major undertaking results from the department's commitment to clarify the concept of serious harm and to better protect the public against high risk offenders. Whether they are violent criminals or sexual offenders.

The bill contains other changes along these lines, as I mentioned earlier. Some of them have to do with Schedules I and II of the act, which list the offences for which an offender can be referred for detention.

These lists will now include several violent crimes against persons and serious drug offences such as conspiring to commit serious drug offences, impaired driving, criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, criminal harassment, and breaking and entering when the planned offence is listed in Schedule I.

The addition of this last crime means that an offender who breaks and enters a home with intent to commit a serious offence such as a sexual assault will no longer be eligible for the speedy review procedure and will automatically be subject to review for detention.

In addition, a number of sexual offences that have been repealed will be included in Schedule I so that any offender serving a sentence for one of these offences will be covered. The purpose of these amendments is to correct any shortcoming in the detention provisions that may compromise public safety.

Another important set of amendments provide for the house arrest of some high risk offenders who do not meet detention criteria. These amendments had been demanded by the members of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the former Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, the Ontario commission responsible for investigating the Stephenson case, and the Canadian Police Association.

In response to their recommendations, the government recently made legislative amendments to Bill C-45, which were approved by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last March.

These amendments will enable the National Parole Board to require that offenders who must be released because they do not meet detention criteria but who need additional community support live in a community based residential facility.

This will allow the board to better monitor and manage these offenders and the risk they present, in order to strengthen the released offenders monitoring system and facilitate their reintegration into society.

While the legislative or policy changes I mentioned represent a sound reform, we must bear in mind that these changes alone cannot ensure greater public protection. We must not settle for longer prison terms for offenders. Most sexual offenders are sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment and, sooner or later, they are back in community.

To properly deal with the problem of sexual offenders, sustainable solutions must be developed. In this regard, many of the witnesses who testified at the justice committee hearings on Bill C-45 were of the opinion that the best way to protect society against sexual offenders in the long term was through formal phased release programs combined with treatment and support.

This has prompted the government to undertake a number of initiatives with regard to programs, including enhancing treatment programs for this category of offenders.

I will briefly comment on what we know to date about treating sex offenders. Research evidence shows sex offenders are not all the same. Their offences are influenced by a host of motivating and situational factors which vary from one individual to the next. Consequently, there is no single cause for sexual abuse and no single approach to treatment. However, there is general agreement among clinical practitioners that for many offenders the risk of reoffending can be reduced through continuity of treatment programs and relapse prevention.

In keeping with this view, a key component of our public safety strategy focuses on the expansion and enhancement of treatment programs for sex offenders. Research and pilot projects in support

of rehabilitation and safe reintegration of sex offenders are an integral part of this endeavour.

To ensure the federal correctional system uses the most effective management and treatment methods for sex offenders, Correctional Service Canada created a national committee earlier this year. This committee has developed standards to deal with the important issue regarding the assessment and treatment of sex offenders. The committee is undertaking consultations with provincial mental health and correctional agencies with a view to developing a national consensus on these and other issues of mutual concern.

To facilitate this effort I had the pleasure of opening the first conference on the national sex offender strategy in Toronto last March. This conference brought together sex offender experts from across Canada as well as from other countries to share their knowledge, refine our assessment and treatment methods, and find innovative ways of restoring public confidence in corrections and criminal justice. This is an important milestone, and I am confident good progress in this area will continue.

We are also active on the local front to help community organizations protect children against sexual abuse. Over the years, the RCMP has played a major role in this respect with its Canadian Police Information Center, or CPIC, a data base made available to police across Canada. This center provides computerized information on the criminal records of individuals who have been fingerprinted. Thus, local police can now check, on behalf of community organizations, the background of those who want to do volunteer work or work for pay involving children. It is one of many ways of helping to prevent direct contact between child molesters or sexual offenders and children in our communities.

Last November, the government announced that the CPIC had been upgraded so that checks run through this national data base can be even more efficient.

As a result, the CPIC now provides information on restraining orders issued in cases of family violence, orders prohibiting holding positions of trust around children and peace bond orders issued to child sex offenders. It also provides more detailed information on the criminal background of offenders, including a list of all sexual offences, whether summary or indictable, committed against children.

These improvements will provide a better profile of those people who could be a threat to the safety and well-being of our children. However, are these improvements sufficient? Some victim advocates have said that better information will be of little use if community organizations do not know it exists, or if they do not systematically check the track record of applicants with the local police force.

In response to that legitimate concern, the solicitor general, justice and health departments are working to set up a national awareness program, in co-operation with the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres. Starting this fall, and for the next few years, public information and education documents will be prepared, and training sessions will be provided to police officers as well as to volunteer and sports organizations in more than 200 communities across the country, in an effort to ensure better screening of volunteers and staff.

As for high risk offenders who remain a danger to society at the end of their prison term, we are pursuing our efforts to find an adequate solution to the problem. We work in close co-operation with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and quick progress is being made. Every province and territory has agreed to make the best possible use of the Criminal Code provisions which relate to dangerous offenders.

These provisions authorize judges to impose an indeterminate jail term to offenders who, in their opinion, remain a danger to society.

The solicitor general also announced last March a national flagging system to identify at an early date those offenders who may later be considered for a dangerous offender application. Should any offender who is flagged be prosecuted in the future, all relevant background information held by other jurisdictions will be available to assist prosecutors in deciding whether to bring in an applicant.

The solicitor general and the justice minister in conjunction with their federal, provincial and territorial counterparts have agreed to an examination of legislative changes with regard to creating a new category of long term offender. This could lead to special preventative measures for a broader range of violent offenders, especially sexual predators such as pedophiles, including up to 10 years of supervision following the usual penitentiary sentence.

The ministers have agreed that other criminal justice options will be explored for offenders who are at the end of their sentences and who are still believed to be too dangerous to be released into the community. In this regard the solicitor general and the justice minister convened a meeting of leading constitutional lawyers and other experts this past spring to review the limits and possibilities related to the detention of offenders beyond the end of their sentence. This will allow for a full examination of possible strategies under the criminal law which might be viable to achieve greater public safety.

All these measures seek to increase protection of the public against high risk offenders and to restore the confidence of Canadians in our criminal justice system. They are based on a progressive policy dealing with practical issues related to therapeutic programs for offenders, and with the development of the most effective program strategies to treat sexual and other high risk offenders.

Our criminal justice system must be balanced, so that we can truly make our country a place where Canadians and their children can live without fear of being victims of violence or sexual abuse.

I believe that Bill C-45, along with related initiatives and the work that will continue to be done in the months to come, clearly shows that the government intends to do its utmost to make our communities safer. I am sure that members from both sides of this House will help us achieve that goal through this bill.

[Referendum Campaign, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the PQ Premier said in a radio interview that the National Capital Commission of Canada had sent all its employees in Hull a letter telling them not to come in on October 31 if the Yes side wins, which we know perfectly well will not happen.

Mr. Parizeau said that based on that kind of statement, they would know what to expect. After the facts were checked, the reference made by Mr. Parizeau was shown to be completely untrue, and his office even had to apologize. After the constitutional document which the PQ Premier tried to link to the Quebec Liberal Party, the Premier is back with an alleged letter that in fact never existed.

Mr. Parizeau should concentrate on explaining his separation plans to the public instead of getting involved in these exercises in scaremongering.

[Criminal Code, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the fine contributions made by the hon. member in committee. I would also like to remind the hon. member that we have a mechanism in place. We have the National Parole Board, which is going to review that case, no doubt. I am sure that a number of the concerns raised by the hon. member as well as the victims will no doubt be taken into consideration when this will be deliberated by the National Parole Board of Canada.

[Salomon Brothers, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign in Quebec, the PQ leader often rejoiced over comments made by Salomon Brothers on the election of a separatist government and an eventual referendum. The firm said: Moreover, contrary to current rhetoric, the end of the debate on Quebec's separation will benefit Canada and Quebec, regardless of whether they remain together or separate.

Mr. Speaker, that same firm, which the PQ leader was so happy to quote back then, just advised its clients to sell their Quebec bonds and to wait until the eve of the referendum before buying them back, so as to take advantage of the better interest rates which will be generated by the political insecurity that will prevail.

Salomon Brothers is doing what it should in trying to ensure that its clients make as much money as possible. As for the Quebec separatist leaders, they are only interested in their separation project and they unfortunately leave it up to the public to pay for

the higher interest rates that will result from the insecurity generated by their separatist obsession.

[Canada Post Corporation, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the motion of our Bloc Quebecois colleague concerning the preservation of postal services in the regions.

I believe the government of Canada has reacted very well since the Liberals took office. It declared a moratorium on local post office closures. Of course, this applies to Quebec as well as to the rest of Canada.

What I found particularly interesting, in the motion as well as in the comments of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is that he seems to recognize the important role the federal government has to play in regional economic development. When listening to the speeches of these sovereignists, I felt that these unique centres of Canadian visibility had to be preserved in small communities all over the vast regions of Quebec. I thought it was a bit odd to hear these people say, on the one hand, that Canada does not work and that the only way Quebec can get whatever it deserves is by separating but then, on the other hand, that this House should maintain postal services as they are. This is very interesting. I feel it emphasizes how important the role of the federal government is and how much the Canadian government is welcome in what we call remote areas, in rural areas of Canada.

I think we are about to reach a turning point in our history, not on a political level, because Quebec still wants to be part of the Canadian federation, but on an administrative level, if you wish, for postal services in Canada.

During the last few years, we have seen the emergence of computers, modems, fax machines, and a whole new telecommunications technology. Thanks to all kinds of technologies, regions and above all the self-employed workers of these regions will be able to better communicate with the outside world.

Quebec does not need sovereignty, separation or independence to develop its rural regions. Services are in place, we have offices and the expertise necessary to meet the needs of the population, the business people and the students, to help them in their regional economic development rojects.

For the last 30 years, Quebecers, especially in the rural regions, where I come from, have always asked for further decentralization of federal government services and especially of provincial services.

Nevertheless, I must tell you this. Nothing prevents the province or the federal government, as things now stand, from decentralizing services. Obviously, 30 years ago, it was impossible to do that, for the simple reason that the new technologies did not exist in 1960.

Governments, businesses and social services in Quebec, particularly in remote areas, will be able to create some form of partnership and set up service points to serve local communities. If I understand the logic of the Bloc Quebecois, of the separatists, these service points designed to promote regional economy should naturally be located around the post offices of the Canadian government.

It is quite something to hear the opposition say that the regions have a future, provided that post offices remain open in small communities throughout Quebec and Canada.

We could do more. We have other departments. For example, the department responsible for science and technology recently announced a new service designed to make Internet more accessible to Canadians.

Last April, in Carleton-sur-Mer, in my riding of Bonaventure, I held an information session with officials of Science and Technology Canada, in co-operation with Québec Téléphone, as well as various other people involved in the region's socio-economic development. We came to the conclusion that, for example, the federal government has the means and the programs to establish this Internet network throughout Quebec.

Unfortunately, few municipalities and provincial organizations answered the call. This is sad. We have the tools and the moneys to create this new synergy and promote regional economic development.

Efforts are being made and we must forge ahead and find partners. Above all, we must convince school boards. We must convince CEGEPs, hospitals, as well as social services of all kinds, particularly those which fall under provincial jurisdiction, so as to ensure a better partnership and set up new ways of communicating with the rest of the world.

I believe that regions in Quebec and in Canada will prosper thanks to new technologies. It would certainly be possible to establish videoconference centres in those Canada Post buildings in order to give residents of those regions an opportunity to take courses or to communicate with people outside Canada.

I think that Canada Post has a new social role on top of its economic role. It must discover new technologies and encourage people to use those technologies in order to take care of their own economic development at the local level.

The Canadian postal service has quite a history. As mentioned by the parliamentary secretary a few moments ago, I think that the postal service has played a glorious role in Canada over the last 300 years. Now, because of the new technology and because of the reality of today's world, we have to find different markets for our products and different ways to provide our services. I think that our postal service is a bit like the PTT in France, which offers a wide range of services to its clients.

Today's clients are not necessarily in office buildings in Montreal or in other large cities. Teleworking is becoming more and more popular. For example, there is a new trend emerging in the

United States where people are leaving the cities and even the suburbs for small communities of 1,000 residents or less.

With today's technology, it is possible for, let us say, a translator-or an engineer, an architect, etc.-to work out of a small community somewhere in Quebec. If educated people, who often come from remote areas themselves, decide to go back to those regions, we have to ensure the presence of the federal government and its many services.

I see that we are running out of time, but I must tell you that I am very happy to hear the Bloc Quebecois say that this basic service provided by the government of Canada is still welcome in the regions and also that we must maintain this federal service to have an even more glorious future.

[Economic Agreements, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the separatists can no longer lead the population of Quebec to believe that they will force all of the foreign countries to their knees, as they said last week in connection with Ontario, when it comes time to negotiate economic agreements.

Contrary to their claims in their referendum agenda, a separate Quebec will not be able to join the North American Free Trade Agreement automatically. This claim they have been making, the Leader of the Opposition in particular, has just been contradicted by an American expert who took part in the Free Trade negotiations.

According to him, accession by a sovereign Quebec would not happen automatically and there might be a danger of the negotiations reopening issues dear to the heart of Quebecers, such as culture, the marketing of agricultural produce and even our hydro-electric energy treasure, Hydro-Québec.

In conclusion, the Bloc's separatist agenda does not serve the true interest of Quebec and that is why they will be hearing a resounding no this coming October 30.

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

Exactly. I am happy to see that the hon. member for Wild Rose is approving our initiative. We are trying to do what was never done in the past. The previous government did not measure up and that is why it was soundly defeated.

We on the government side after two years in the House are starting to show Canadians we are taking very seriously these concerns. That is why I have a duty as a parliamentarian and we have a duty as a government to explain this to the public, to explain this to, I must admit, the misinformed and ill-informed members of the opposition.

Another private member's bill came to our attention, the witness protection program. Again we are trying to encourage Canadians who in some cases are in difficult situations and we are asking for their help in trying to find the criminal elements in Canada and to bring them out to public view in order to try them in a court of law.

What we have done over the past two years is quite commendable. There are a number of instances where we can do more no doubt. The various accomplishments of our most competent Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada prove once again the the Liberal government is taking Canadians' concerns very seriously.

This is all within the purview of Motion No. 19. Why we are opposing the hon. member's motion is that in our opinion, and given these recent accomplishments by the Government of Canada, there is sufficient inquiry powers under the Inquiries Act and Corrections and Condition Release Act to address instances where a conditionally released offender commits a serious crime. The disciplinary inquiry should not be misused for that purpose.

In all fairness to the government, in all fairness to the people of Canada we are very concerned about their security. I regret to say the opposition benches have not been paying much attention to our accomplishments. That is why in Reform country and in other parts of Canada we are trying to reassure Canadians we are taking their concerns in a most serious sense.

I am very pleased the hon. member for Wild Rose has invited me once again to his wonderful riding. I have never had the privilege of going to that part of Alberta. It is one of the most beautiful provinces in Canada, especially with the Rockies. During the referendum debate this is an issue we would like to bring up.

However, we will not support this opposition motion and I would gladly like to debate this a little further with the hon. member for Wild Rose in his constituency.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the opposition on Motion No. 19, on Motion No. 16, and on all the other motions. I think we have been patient enough on this side of the House by giving these people the chance to express themselves. What we have heard all day is a well-founded concern about the safety of Canadians. However, after hearing a number of those debates it is my opinion and that of most members of the House that often the information that was introduced by the opposition was not entirely correct.

We have the obligation to explain to these people, as it concerns Motion No. 19, that we have done a number of things to make Canada a safer place. I will make this point very briefly. I think that members sitting on the opposition benches should know that money has been put into the system. We are out there protecting Canadians. We are now spending considerable amounts of money building new facilities. That was a concern raised by the opposition. Five new facilities are going to open in the short term here in Canada in order to accommodate the incarcerated members of our society.

There was also talk about CPIC, the screening mechanism we now have in place. We should also inform the hon. members of the opposition that they have the right through various service and volunteer associations, for instance the brownies, the scouts, minor hockey and what not, to screen volunteers in these organizations for a previous criminal record to avoid endangering the lives of many young innocent Canadians. We have instituted that. It is a tangible benefit from the Liberal government. We are concerned about the safety of the younger members of our society.

We also spoke about gun control. If opposition members are concerned about the rise in criminality, why did they oppose gun control? That is a fundamental issue. Most crimes committed in Canada are committed with guns and rifles. Often these weapons are acquired illegally. We are trying to make Canada a safer place, and this is all we have heard all day. The opposition benches are supposed to be the law and order side of government, but we have done the tangible thing. We have done the right thing. We pushed

through the gun control law because it was the will and the wish of the Canadian public, as numerous polls have suggested.

I could continue. We have made amendments to the Criminal Code to tighten up the intoxication defence. We were referring to cases where someone was under the influence of certain drugs and alcohol and had committed a crime. That will no longer be admissible in court. That is very tangible. I think the ministry and the Government of Canada should be applauded for their efforts.

We have set up the task force on high risk, violent offenders. We are reviewing that with our provincial and territorial counterparts. We have experts in the field looking into this. Of course more can be done, but we do have the commitment of the government. We have the commitment of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice to do something about it.

There was also Bill C-37. They made no mention of it. We have tightened up the Young Offenders Act. We are making it more difficult for youngsters to come out. We are imposing different rules and regulations in order to make Canada a safer place. The public should know that. The public has a right to know what we are doing, instead of going on with these debates and these unfounded arguments, which are not based on fact. Factually, I think we have done a commendable job.

We have also created a national crime prevention council. The Government of Canada, after two years, with its so-called liberal values as members opposite like to call them, has proven to the Canadian public that it is taking these concerns very seriously.

Another one is the DNA legislation.