Rex Crawford

[Petitions, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first is signed by several dozen residents of Walpole Island, First Nation, who call upon the government to maintain at all times their no GST status on or off the reserves for any purchases they might make.

[Petitions, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from the residents of Kent.

The petitioners request that the federal government support an ethanol plant in the city of Chatham, Ontario, an area devastated by free trade and NAFTA agreements. Jobs will be

created in sustainable development and environmentally friendly agricultural outlets.

The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.

[Ethanol, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Liberal delegates at the Ottawa convention earlier this month who approved all resolutions boosting ethanol production. It is great to see grassroot Liberals showing this leadership, but it should come as no surprise.

In 1991 the leader of the opposition and now our Prime Minister called on the Conservative government to introduce legislation supporting ethanol.

The historic ethanol plant announced for southern Ontario, the eighth largest in North America, will add $2.7 billion to Ontario's economy over 12 years. Even the city of Sarnia bid on the plant.

The U.S. is already planning 49 new ethanol plants.

Tens of thousands of area residents have signed petitions and written letters to our Prime Minister urging federal involvement in the Ontario plant.

Grassroot Canadians and Liberal delegates alike know we have a government for the people, not for the bureaucrats. The people are for ethanol.

[Witness Protection Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today for two reasons. One reason is to thank the hon. member for Scarborough West for bringing the important issue of witness protection before the House today.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General rightly pointed out in the first hour of debate, the member deserves the thanks of all hon. members for his many months of hard work on this bill, for his determination and commitment to this issue and many other significant justice related issues. He is to be commended. His commitment and dedication reflect credit on the entire House.

My second reason for rising to speak to one aspect of Bill C-206 is the question of the scope of a protection program. More specifically, I would like to examine in some depth the categories of persons who might be deemed eligible for protection under a witness protection program.

We are all familiar with the concept of protecting crown witnesses who provide testimony against criminals. This group is the focus of the bill we are being asked to consider today. I am sure members recognize that court proceedings are the culmination of many months or even years of diligent work by enforcement authorities and prosecutors.

Witnesses are crucial to this process, but there is also another group of persons whose activities are equally important and who often operate at great personal risk. These people inhabit that shadowy nether world between the courtroom and the criminal underworld. I am speaking here of informants, or sources as they are typically referred to by police, and of agents.

The activities of both of these categories of persons are often crucial to the process of building a case that can be taken to court. Sources are persons who pass information to the police on the activities of criminals. They are usually paid for their actions and not infrequently are criminals themselves.

As with witnesses, sources run the risk of violent retribution if their co-operation with authorities is exposed. Betrayal is not treated lightly in the violent criminal subcultures and retribution can often mean death.

Agents are not only paid sources of information. They often take on another role. As the word agent suggests, persons of this category acting at the direction of the police can undertake specific actions to help further investigations.

For example, during drug investigations an agent can be used to introduce an undercover police officer to the criminal suspect or suspects. Performing the agent role can involve additional risk as one is not only providing information but also actively working against individual criminals or organized crime networks. Such work by its very nature entails greater risk of exposure.

Most sources and agents are motivated by the prospect of money and there may be little or no altruistic dimension to their behaviour. Despite their suspect motives the employment of such persons is necessary. The use of sources and agents is fundamental to our dealing effectively with organized crime and protecting such persons is often the only way to guarantee their co-operation.

The promise of protection also allows us to neutralize the weapons of fear and violence that criminals use to cow potential sources into submission.

Protection programs offer safe havens for criminals fearing for their safety. Their only option may be turning themselves over to the authorities. We must address these types of issues in a comprehensive manner if we are to construct strong and lasting legislation.

For this reason and because the activities of sources and agents are so fundamental to police investigations we must consider fully the categories of persons to be included in any protection program.

In this context, I would like very quickly to outline for the House my understanding of the situation in the United States, as I feel it is instructive to our examination of this bill.

The U.S. marshal service witness security program began operation in 1971. The program only deals with organized criminal activity or other serious offences. As its title suggests, the program is limited to providing protection for those persons testifying in major federal criminal proceedings. Police sources who do not provide testimony in court are not eligible for the program.

We have to bear in mind that the intent of the U.S. marshal's program is to elicit testimony that will convict major criminals. With a caseload of 500 witnesses per year the program is fully occupied with these witnesses alone. Police sources who do not testify remain the responsibility of the police. This restriction could create difficulties for Canadian enforcement.

Before acting we must deliberately and carefully explore what categories of people should be covered by any future Canadian witness protection program. If we move in haste we run the risk of limiting ourselves as the Americans have done with their federal program.

Certainly we may wish to be restrictive about the types of cases in which protection can be granted. To restrict a protection program to witnesses alone would in my opinion be self-defeating without a great deal more in depth consideration of the underlying issues.

Other related issues that might be dealt with in the legislation are questions of how parolees or probationers can receive protection while serving their sentences.

Practical issues aside, I also believe that the state has a moral responsibility to protect people who assist the authorities in criminal investigations. I believe this holds true even recognizing that the unsavoury character of many persons in the protection program makes them in the public eye unworthy recipients of taxpayers' dollars.

I would re-emphasize, however, that unsavoury or not, protection arrangements are crucial to effective enforcement action against criminals and organized crime. The proposed act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses has raised an important issue. We now have the opportunity of using the bill as a starting point to take comprehensive action on the issue of providing protective services for people who assist the authorities during criminal investigations and prosecutions.

In my view this may mean going beyond the boundaries of the protection program proposed in the current bill by examining how protective services could be provided to the full range of categories of witnesses, sources and agents. Anything less would be a disservice to the intent and spirit of the bill and to the hon. member who sponsored it.

I congratulate the member for Scarborough West. He and I share the same views on most other matters as well. It was a pleasure for me to take part in the debate.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions of several hundred names from my riding of Kent requesting the continued exemption of the excise tax on ethanol fuels.

The petitioners cannot understand why the government is delaying this when in opposition it demanded the banning of MMT and the withdrawal of the excise tax on ethanol.

[Justice, May 3rd, 1994]

Get tough with criminals is the message I am hearing in my riding, Mr. Speaker. Chatham, Ontario, with a population of only 43,000, is still reeling in shock and horror at the brutal murder last week of seven-year old Daniel Miller at the hands of a teenager.

Some residents are calling for vigilante justice and curfews. Mothers with kids in elementary school are calling me. Their children are afraid to go to school.

Let us beef up our justice system so Canadians feel secure that criminals are punished with more than a slap on the wrist. Calm and level heads must prevail. With sinister events recently in Chatham and Hull shaking our faith, I encourage and support the Minister of Justice as he reviews the Young Offenders Act.

The nation is waiting for the minister to act.

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in complete, full and total support of Bill C-217, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Contraventions Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof. It was placed before the House by my colleague, the hon. member for York South-Weston. I congratulate him for the bill and for his distinguished efforts at drawing much needed attention to the issue of young offenders.

When I was first elected to the House of Commons one of my goals was to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. Recent events in my riding only give me greater resolve and strength to push for tougher sentences.

As many in the House may be aware the city of Chatham, Ontario, population 43,000, is still reeling from the brutal murder last week of seven-year old Daniel Miller. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. A local teenage gang member has been charged with first degree murder in the beating death.

My heart goes out to the Miller family. They lost a son before the prime of his life, before he had a future. The slaying has sparked angry demonstrations and a series of petitions calling for action to prevent more violence.

A railroad bridge near where the boy's body was found was covered with graffiti by a group called Criminally Minded Corporations or CMC. A young concerned citizen painted the bridge on the weekend to erase the gutter language. The CMC is the best organized of six youth gangs in Chatham and boasts over 100 members. Many gang members wear army boots with symbolically coloured shoelaces.

In addition, this totally random act of murder is seemingly just one more example of the crumbling decline of our society, morals and family values. The day after, a 17-year-old was charged with assault causing bodily harm to a security guard who was watching over the abandoned yard where the murder took place.

Where does it end? Local parents and other citizens are calling for vigilante justice. They do not trust our current system of justice, that it lets off criminals with a slap on the wrist while the victims are left in limbo for the rest of their lives.

One resident, Jason Gale, who moved to Chatham recently with his two young daughters, mother and grandmother said this: "They are terrorizing people. I think if the people of Chatham started fighting back, if a few of these gang members got beaten up pretty bad or had something happen to them, I think a lot of it would stop". Is that where our society is today?

I appeal for calm and level heads to prevail in my riding. We must improve the justice system so that criminals are punished for their crimes. Bill C-217 is an important step in the right direction.

Several years ago the former Conservative government introduced some tougher sentences. For instance the maximum sentence for murder was increased to five years from three. I said at that time when the bill was introduced, and I will repeat it

today, that the current Young Offenders Act is too soft. It is a joke.

I have presented over 25,000 names on petitions collected by Roy Asselstine Jr. and his parents calling for a reinforcement of the act. I am told by lawyers and police that if some young people are involved with the Young Offenders Act it is a badge of honour. It is a measure of distinction. That is what they are saying on the streets. No ivory tower mentality of Parliament Hill is going to change that reality. It is a reality not just in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver but also in many smaller cities such as Chatham.

Bill C-217 will augment the debate. As my friend from York South-Weston pointed out, his bill is endorsed by the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence and is co-sponsored by 17 members of Parliament.

The purpose of the bill is threefold. First, the young offender would now be between the ages of 10 and 15. As a result 16 and 17 year olds would be held responsible for their criminal acts and prosecuted in adult court. Second, the maximum penalty for first and second degree murder would be increased to 10 years from the current 5 years. Third, after a second conviction the young offender's name could be published.

These are reasonable improvements to the current Young Offenders Act which is not an effective deterrent and does not allow correctional officials a sufficient opportunity to rehabilitate young people. Bill C-217 goes a long way toward balancing the needs of the public as well as our youth.

Yes, we must work to prevent crime, to give hope to young people that their futures can be meaningful, that their lives can make a difference in this world of ours. Rehabilitation must be a vital component of any new law.

I am pleased to offer my backing to the bill. I urge hon. members to send it to the justice committee where it can receive more in-depth study.

In closing I have an article from the Chatham paper. The headline reads: "Family of teen beaten up by gang moves out of Maple City". These are the Asselstines whose son was beaten up by the gang CMC and hospitalized. On his release from hospital he and his parents went around the Chatham area getting signatures on a petition. They have been harassed ever since and have moved with no forwarding address. This is not what we want in our society today.

It is on their behalf and that of young Daniel Miller that I stand in the House in support of Bill C-217.

[Petitions, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Kent.

I have several hundred signatures pursuant to Standing Order 36 concerning the ethanol plant they hope to have in the city of Chatham through the help of the federal government.

They say: "Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada".

I am pleased to note the Minister of Natural Resources in tabling her report was stressing energy conservation and clean fuels.

[Petitions, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, once again I am honoured to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition with several hundred names on behalf of my constituents of Kent.

The petitioners state an ethanol industry will provide definite stability for Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy in general. Ethanol is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels available. Chatham, Ontario was recently selected as the first site for a major ethanol plant, 20 times larger than any in Canada to date, creating approximately 1,100 person years of work and contributing an estimated $125 million in annual economic impact.

Noting this petition, one of the signatures is the former hon. member of Parliament, Maurice Bossy, who was here 12 years ago and another is John Burgess, QC whose father was a member of Parliament here in the early 1950s.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question pertaining to students and repaying their loans.

I have had many students come to my office, especially over the last two weeks when we had a break, who are worried about this. They are now being billed by the banks and they do not have jobs.

The government through supporting job creation, youth internship and apprenticeship programs will certainly help to alleviate their problems.

I cannot give a figure on how much money right now, but I was talking to UIC and it is putting quite a few students back to work right now. UIC is giving them the opportunity to carry on their education or to be able to pay off the money they owe. The government is on the right track in helping these students and I certainly support it 100 per cent.