Debates of Oct. 19th, 1994

Criminal Code

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1976, the federal government amended the Criminal Code to make it consistent with its parole legislation and policy. It replaced the death sentence, which had just been abolished, by life sentence for murder.

The Liberal philosophy, to which the hon. member for York South-Weston would never have subscribed, was inspired at the time by the general principles of humanism. In 1976, the criminal was looked upon first and foremost as a victim of society in general, of his social group in particular and even of himself. His crime was above all a social act. Irrespective of the harm done, criminals were treated like the casualties of the system, individuals who had to be saved even at the expense of common sense.

We must now recognize that such noble principles overlooked certain realities. The system had come to consider all criminals, that it to say individuals convicted by a court for an offence against a criminal law, as the first victims of their actions. Our parole legislation is a product of this thinking.

Once the judicial drama is over, you deal with the real stuff. As soon as the court has passed sentence, the correctional system takes charge of the individual behind closed doors, whether in an institution or in an in camera sitting of the parole board. Regardless of the work of the court, the correctional administration undertakes to assess the criminal and to establish how much of the sentence he or she will actually serve. And all of this under the cover of a big word: rehabilitation.

The entire system is predicated on this concept that the public does not look upon favourably, an argument put forward by criminologists, these crime philosophers. In a word, the concept of rehabilitation is defined as an act of pity on the part of society towards criminals perceived no longer as individuals responsible for their faults but rather as victims of an ill-accepted social environment.

Therefore, crime no longer being a real crime, the criminal is no longer a real criminal, and a quiet reintegration into society is supposed to serve the public interest.

Even if the court feels that an individual is beyond redemption, Parole Board and correctional system officials will, in their ivory tower, decide to set that person free when he should have been kept in jail.

Even if they admit that an individual is the sole responsible for his crime, these so-called rehabilitation experts firmly believe that criminals can be rehabilitated. It is time we set the record straight.

Our criminal law is based on the responsibility of the individual. I realize that many hold less pragmatic views on the Canadian criminal law, but let me say to these philosophers that, in our judicial system, positive law still takes precedence over moods, which is certainly a good thing. Consequently, an individual who has committed a murder will be handed down the mandatory sentence provided by the law and by the law only. That is the reality.

The general public thinks that murderers are jailed for at least 25 years. This is what the law provides. However, along with our common law system, a new law full of subtleties, nuances and surprises has developed. The public does not know about it, because this new law is, more often than not, applied in an absolutely discretionary manner by crown agencies. There is now such a thing as correctional law.

If I were cynical, I would define correctional law as the set of written or implicit rules which allow criminals to serve the shortest possible sentence in the best conditions. Behind its functional aspects, correctional law refers to the allocation, by public authorities, of maximum resources to reduce the sentences handed down by the courts.

Our so-called correctional law is based on a set of laws and regulations more elaborate than our criminal law. We have developed a very sophisticated administrative legal system for the benefit of criminals.

Criminals who go to jail enjoy the protection of a true charter of rights and freedoms for convicted offenders. In fact, the correctional system abides by the following principle: the sentence is now calculated based upon the duration of the total reduction. The prisoner knows about this.

All the efforts made by the prisoner, often with the help of correctional officers, aim at changing the length of his sentence. It is a well-known fact that prisons are full of converted and born-again Christians just waiting for parole.

A life sentence should mean imprisonment until the death of the inmate, but the average citizen has come to understand that, by some work of fiction, it now means a minimum of 25 years before parole. But this is where he is wrong. In fact, a life sentence can mean 25, 15 or 10 years depending upon the inmate's eligibility for parole. And this is when the average citizen lets you know that he has had enough.

So, I understand how frustrated the hon. member for York-South-Weston feels, but I do not think that the minor amendment he is proposing will change anything in the system. I even think that striking down section 745 of the Criminal Code would do more harm than keeping it.

What we find appalling in the parole system is the philosophy behind it, the costs and the aberrations, but mostly the discretion given to the sentencing courts, despite all the information it has about the crime and the criminal.

Actually, the sentencing court is in the best position to evaluate the individual and the crimes he has been found guilty of. The sentence is contemporaneous with the offense.

Do you really believe that, 15 years after the sentencing, a civil servant would be in a better position that the court to determine if the decision was justified? Or that because of changes in his personal outlook, the criminal no longer deserves the punishment imposed for acts for which he remains responsible, despite the passage of time? Tell that to the relatives of murder victims.

In these circumstances, whether a sentence is exemplary is very much a matter of opinion. In the end, the principle of immutability and the usefulness of sentences as a deterrent should prevail over all the nebulous theories of liberal criminology.

Under its existing provisions, the Criminal Code provides for a judicial review mechanism, which seems appropriate.

In every case where the inmate has served 15 years of his sentence after being found guilty of murder, he will have to convince a jury that he should be released before his ineligibility period expires. If he is not successful, he will have to serve his full sentence.

Personally, I am more inclined to trust the judgment of six or a dozen ordinary citizens than that of a commissioner of the National Parole Board, whose qualifications are strictly based on his political past.

The statistics I obtained from the Department of Justice tend to confirm my opinion and put into context the relatively small number of individuals concerned by section 745.

Since the 1976 amendments and up to March 31, 1994, only 128 inmates across Canada were able to apply for a judicial review under section 745. Only 71 actually applied, and 43 requests were heard.

Before looking at the conclusions, we should remember we are discussing the cases of about fifty people. We are looking at legislation that is aimed at a very small group. I want to make it very clear that I do not understand the relevance of the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for York South-Weston.

As for the outcome of these hearings, I think we can conclude that the system works quite well. As a matter of fact, of the 43 applications heard to date, and again I repeat that this number covers the 28 years since the introduction of section 745, 11 were turned down, 13 have led to a partial reduction of the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole and 19 have been successful.

Thus it seems to me that the system is working relatively well. This is why I think we should end the discussion immediately since we are discussing situations so rare that I feel I am wasting my time.

Must we remind the House that in case of murder the rule is still life imprisonment?

Finally, section 745 allows any inmate guilty of a murder of either category, first or second degree murder, to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. The bill proposes to abolish this section.

In other words, imprisonment without any possibility of parole.

I will conclude by saying that by abolishing section 745 we would be replacing a necessary evil by a mandatory evil. I nevertheless congratulate the hon. member for his initiative but I must tell him and the House that I will not support the bill.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for York South-Weston for this bill. I stand in support of it.

Today there is a cry across the land for the return to capital punishment. Why is this? It is clear this cry for the return of the death penalty is a recognition of the complete and utter failure of the bleeding heart approach to criminal justice. The philosophy underlying our present criminal law is not protecting members of society. Our sons and daughters are being assaulted and murdered without end.

The most horrific sign of failure of this underlying mentality of our criminal law is the murderer who kills again after being paroled. I thank my hon. colleague from York South-Weston who told us today that 130 innocent people have been murdered by people who have been released on parole.

These politicians who have set the agenda for the administration of Canada's justice system for the past 20 years are responsible for paroling into society criminals who have raped, assaulted and killed again. The custodians of our justice system, these very same people, want to continue to release these people into society. Section 745 of the Criminal Code is the most pathetic example of this bleeding heart mentality.

In 1976 the death penalty for murderers was abolished. At that time the politicians assured us that society would be protected because murderers would be sentenced to life imprisonment and would have to serve a minimum of 25 years before release. However, the people of Canada were betrayed by these politicians.

Bill C-84 which eliminated capital punishment contained a little known clause which allowed for the creation of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 nullifies the term life imprisonment and grants murderers the right to apply for parole eligibility after serving only 15 years of their so-called life sentence.

The bleeding hearts assured us that in exchange for the abolition of the death penalty, society would be protected by a 25-year minimum sentence. Then they deliberately betrayed us. They provided the murderers with the right based in law to be released back into society after serving only 15 years.

I ask these people who support section 745 and the early release of killers into society: What is a human life worth to them? I ask these politicians: What penalty should Larry Sheldon pay for having raped and murdered a little, innocent 9-year old girl? What penalty should Norman Clairmont serve for brutally and savagely murdering the 19-year old Potts girl? What penalty would the bleeding hearts have Charles Simard pay for murdering two innocent teenagers in the province of Quebec? I ask again: What is the value of an innocent life to these politicians?

On April 28, 1994 Judge Demetrick of the Alberta provincial court declared that portions of the definition of firearm contained in the Criminal Code of Canada were so convoluted as to be legal fiction and twice removed from reality. It seems incredible that the Government of Canada is producing legislation that is being declared by our courts to be fictitious and twice removed from reality.

The only explanation for this type of legislation is that the political thinking and reasoning that is producing this type of legislation is fictitious itself and is itself twice removed from reality. Can the families of victims murdered by criminals who have been released on parole come to any other conclusion than the politicians responsible for this are twice removed from reality and do not know what they are doing?

When we look at our national debt, our Young Offenders Act, the horrendous mess our immigration policy is in and the betrayal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, is it any wonder that our courts are pointing out that some of this stuff is twice removed from reality. And by so doing are they not clearly implying that our politicians do not know what they are doing?

The hon. member for York South-Weston has my support for this bill. I believe he has the support of the entire Reform caucus and I believe he also has the support of millions of Canadians who back in 1976 were conned into believing that the abolition of the death penalty was to be substituted for a term of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take offence to the term that Canadians were conned by a piece of legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order as I suspect the member fully knows. The hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe as well the hon. member for York South-Weston may even have the support of many of his own colleagues in the Liberal caucus if they are allowed a true free vote on this private member's bill. I shall wait and see. I am sure millions of Canadians who are demanding the return of the death penalty are also waiting to see how many in this House consider the taking of the life of an innocent human being to be worth less than 25 years imprisonment.

We will see if the twice removed from reality mentality still controls the agenda in the Liberal caucus. If it does, then the only real hope for the people of Canada who want change to legislation like section 745 of the Criminal Code is to wait until the next federal election. They can then remove the Liberals from power as decisively as they removed the Tories from office in the election one year ago.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I owe it to my constituents and the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CAVEAT, the families and friends of victims of violent crimes and tens of thousands of Canadians who signed petitions, to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

During the last Parliament and through two years of work my own private member's Bill C-330 attempted to introduce similar changes to the Criminal Code that among other things would eliminate section 745. Consequently I applaud and second the member for York South-Weston's bill to reintroduce this initiative to the House of Commons for consideration. I thank him for that honour.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

The Reform Party should wait to hear my whole story before applauding.

In our society first degree murder has always been considered to be one of the most heinous crimes punishable by law. Despite our unswerving disgust with the premeditated destruction of another life, our approach to punishing first degree murderers has changed somewhat over the years.

With regard to convicted first degree murderers, the most significant change to take place in our criminal justice system occurred in 1976 when the members of this House passed Bill C-84. In addition to creating two new categories of murder, first and second degree, this bill also brought about two significant changes to our criminal justice system. It abolished the death penalty for Criminal Code offences such as first degree murder. It went even further by creating a legal loophole, section 745, that allows convicted first degree murderers to apply for early parole consideration after serving only 15 years of a so-called life sentence without parole for 25 years.

The actions taken in this House by my predecessors 18 years ago constitute what I call a double compromise. This double compromise is unwarranted and unjust. It serves only to confuse, frustrate and even traumatise the many families and friends of murder victims throughout this country.

When the death penalty was abolished 18 years ago, it was done in recognition of several key factors: one, the fact that capital punishment was not and is not an effective deterrent for heinous crimes such as first degree murder; two, the death/ penalty obviously eliminates the entire notion of rehabilitation of the convicted criminal; three, at the time this legislation was introduced, Canada's social conscience was more conducive to sentencing a convicted first degree murderer to life imprisonment rather than authorizing state sanctioned murder; and four, the legal and administrative costs associated with successfully carrying out a death sentence are often, I say to the Reform Party, far greater than the costs of incarceration.

Clearly the abolition of capital punishment represented the first compromise between two extremes. Those at one extreme were like our friends in the Reform Party who believe that all first degree murderers should be lined up and shot immediately. Those at the other extreme believed that we should simply rehabilitate first degree murderers for a few years instead of subjecting them to the harshness of long term imprisonment.

As though that compromise were not enough, section 745 of the Criminal Code allowed for what I call a double compromise. Not only would first degree convicted murderers escape the death penalty, they would also have a chance to escape their so-called life sentence by applying for early parole consideration after serving only 15 years of a minimum 25-year sentence.

I personally do not agree with the death penalty but let us be reasonable here. By compromising ourselves twice in this area we went too far. Whose interest does this second compromise really serve anyway? Does section 745 serve the interests of the victims who were brutally murdered in cold blood? Of course not. Does section 745 serve the interests of a society that is led to believe that it will be safe from first degree murderers for at least 25 years without parole? Of course not. Does section 745 serve the interests of a criminal justice system that aspires to be balanced, fair and effective when dealing with first degree murderers? Certainly not.

People across the country are asking us to say what we mean and mean what we say when a person is convicted of first degree murder. If an individual is convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years then that is what should happen. If people think that life in prison without parole for 25 years is inappropriate for the same reason then we should debate what the actual sentence should be, reach an agreement and codify it in our laws. We should stick to it until we have reason to change those laws.

Under the current provisions of section 745, the sentence of life imprisonment is nothing but legal doubletalk. According to the statistics of the National Parole Board there are over 2,000 offenders serving life sentences in the Canadian correctional system. Furthermore over the next 15 years-and this is for the Bloc's edification-655 inmates in federal prisons will be eligible for this judicial review courtesy of section 745.

As of May this year there have been 60 judicial review applications made under section 745. A staggering 42 of them have been successful. That means 72 per cent of the convicted first degree murderers, first degree premeditated murderers who applied for early parole consideration, were successful under the current provisions of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

To anyone who is thinking that I am just a vindictive individual, I ask them to consider this: crown attorneys, our public defenders, tell me they are not prepared to handle the sheer volume of judicial review cases that are about to come crashing down upon them. Most crown attorneys have little or no experience with this type of judicial review, which makes me a little concerned with the proper administration of justice in the country.

Canadians are fed up. They feel their rights are being superseded by the rights of the criminal. They feel that the scales of justice are no longer balanced but tipped in favour of the criminal and that there is not enough justice for the victim in society in general. For the benefit of those who may have forgotten why we need to seriously punish for heinous crimes, allow me to awaken their collective consciousness.

Daniel Gingras was convicted of murder in 1978. Nine years later he was released from a maximum security prison on a day pass for his birthday. He escaped his police escort and later celebrated his birthday by brutally killing two women.

Clifford Olson was convicted of murder in 1981. He still managed to murder 11 children while out on parole, one of whom was a young boy who was repeatedly raped for several hours before he was killed. He has the right under section 745 of the Criminal Code to be eligible for parole in less than a year.

Joseph Fredericks was convicted of raping and sodomizing a little boy in 1984. While on parole this man raped and murdered an 11-year old boy.

Patrick Mailloux was convicted of a long list of violent crimes. While on parole he walked into a corner store, pulled out a gun and murdered a 17-year old girl in cold blood.

Charles Simard killed two teenagers in Quebec. He had his parole eligibility period reduced by a judicial review from 20 to 15 years. Also there were Gilles Lavigne, Larry Sheldon and Serge Roberge.

Perhaps the most stirring case is that of Saul Betesh, Josef Woods and Ronald Kribs. In 1977 those three men lured a 12-year old boy into their apartment and raped him for 12 hours before strangling the little boy to death. Betesh and Kribs were convicted of first degree murder and Woods was sentenced to 18 years without parole, which means that he may be released as early as next year. All three prisoners are expected to seek judicial review courtesy of section 745.

Mr. Speaker, think about what that 12-hour torture was like for that little boy. Now think about what it would be like if he were your child.

In my own riding of Hamilton West there was the case of John Rallo who brutally ended the lives of his wife, his five-year old daughter and his six-year old son, whose body has yet to be found. Indeed the list goes on and on.

What exactly are the people of Canada saying to us about this issue? I have received a great deal of feedback from my constituents over the years that illustrates the public sentiment out there. I will give one before I conclude: "Only a politician and/or a lawyer could come up with a penalty which turns out to be not life imprisonment for 25 years but 15 years, and our politicians wonder why people do not trust their words".

How much longer must Canadians live with the double compromise presented by section 745 of the Criminal Code? Let us say what we mean: truth in sentencing. Life without parole for 25 years should mean exactly that and section 745 of the Criminal Code must be eliminated.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-226 could have been called "sink the shipwrecked" or "shoot the ambulance". In actual fact, it comes to the same thing. In the society we live in, the light at the end of the tunnel is part of daily life, irrespective of the environment we are in.

For example, we are currently going through an intense recession. The Minister of Finance knows it, he does not see the light at the end of the tunnel either. We have difficulties imagining that one day this country will come out of it, financially. Yet, we do not shoot the Minister of Finance. The system is not perfect, only human, and no human is perfect.

To understand the consequences of Bill C-226, we have to put it back in its context. In 1961, murders fell into two categories: capital and non-capital. Before that, death was the only sentence available for convicted murderers, even though the governor could grant a stay of execution and intervene in favour of the sentenced.

Those convicted of non-capital murder were sentenced to life in prison, but were eligible for parole after seven years. We are talking about 1961.

After 1967, people sentenced to life in prison needed permission of the governor in council to be released. They had to serve at least ten years before becoming eligible for parole.

In 1974, changes to the Criminal Code allowed judges to raise to 20 years maximum the period during which no parole could be granted.

As we can see, sentences are becoming more and more severe. In 1961, we were talking about seven years; in 1967, ten years; and in 1974, we could go to twenty years.

On February 24, 1976, the Solicitor General introduced Bill C-84 which abolished the death penalty altogether. At the time that was a hot topic. We were wondering whether the death penalty should be kept on the books or abolished.

It is still a very contentious issue today, so imagine what it was back in 1976.

Bill C-84 offered a new variation, namely different categories of murders: first degree murder and second degree murder. People convicted of first degree murder had to serve 25 years before being eligible for parole, whereas people convicted of second degree murder had to serve between 10 and 20 years, depending on the sentencing judge's decision, before being eligible for parole.

Therefore, in 1961, seven years, in 1977, ten years, in 1974, maybe 20 years, and in 1976, maybe 25 years. Bill C-226 is aimed at removing any hope of parole for convicts serving a life sentence. Everybody agrees that society must be protected, but to what extent? As parliamentarians, do we have the right to pass laws regarding the probable behaviour of individuals 15 years from now?

As it now stands, the law gives individuals the opportunity to be tried and sentenced to penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the crime which brought them to court. Bill C-226 claims that none of us believes that individuals who are sentenced today will be rehabilitated 15 years from now. It closes the door to hope. It shoots down rehabilitation. Do we have the right to do that?

As parliamentarians, we have rights, but we also have the fundamental duty to do our best so that, when we leave, society is a bit better off than when we arrived. It is to meet this humble objective that we must strive. Statistics show that only 6 per cent of inmates on parole re-offend within six months of their release. That is to say that the present judicial process and parole system are not working too badly.

The controversy surrounding the review process is fuelled by two often contradictory objectives. On one hand, there is the way we feel about crime and, on the other, the desire to rehabilitate offenders, which are often mutually exclusive. The initial reasons for a judicial review are always the same. At the time, in the years 1961, 1967, 1974, and 1976, reactionary views were predominant. There were debates on the death penalty and life imprisonment. Those were the buzz words, back then.

The right wing is back, and we hear the same debate all over, especially with the emergence of victims' rights groups, the word victim being used in its widest sense. The emphasis is now placed on the problems those victims experience. We should realize that arguments for repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code are based on retaliation.

Retaliation does not justify shattering one of the few hopes lifers have left. When you are in prison, the light at the end of the tunnel is essential. I do not mean to put up an all out defence for prisoners, but we must recognize that those people are not animals. They are human beings, and we have no moral right to utterly deprive them of hope.

Let us not forget that judicial review after 15 years does not mean lifers will automatically be released from prison. It is just another step a prisoner has to take before parole is granted. People who sit on parole boards are there to determine whether individuals can be safely released in our society. If not, parole boards have every right to keep them behind bars till the end of their sentence.

I am puzzled by Bill C-226. First of all because I honestly do not think victims will be better protected. Nor do I believe that sentencing will be improved by this bill. Moreover, we have to wonder if Bill C-226 really serves any purpose since there are already, within the parole system, people whose job it is to be sure that the individuals they choose to release will make a positive contribution to society. Obviously, it is important to protect society, but as members of this society we have a role to play. When we see an ambulance going down the street, we do not fire at it. We give it the right of way without even asking who is inside.

For a person who has received a life sentence, the parole system is the light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think that the victims' relatives will suffer after 20 years. They certainly have suffered and everybody deplores that fact. However, we do not have to always give in to the people who shout the loudest.

A politician must be able to stand up and defend his views. My view is that Bill C-226 serves no useful purpose.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the debate on these bills under review this evening gives me the opportunity to dispel certain myths concerning the Criminal Code provision which Bill C-226 would repeal and that is the section providing for a judicial review of the parole ineligibility period.

This provision was adopted in 1976. The legislation adopted at that time stated that people convicted of first degree murder or high treason were to wait for at least 25 years before being allowed to apply for parole and for those convicted of second degree murder, the jury would set a 10- to 25-year parole ineligibility period.

But Parliament was wise enough to determine that in both cases, once the convict had served 15 years of his sentence, a jury could be formed and the parole ineligibility period could be reviewed and revised if appropriate.

This provision was based on the principles of justice and rehabilitation, two principles which are still very sound today. Parliament added that section to the legislation because it believed individuals could improve.

They considered then, and the argument is still valid today, that the possibility for the parole ineligibility period to be reviewed could be an incentive for the convicts to make special rehabilitation efforts.

I should remind you that this provision was linked to the abolition of capital punishment which occurred in several countries where authorities instituted life imprisonment without any eligibility for parole as a compromise to please both those in favour and those against the death sentence.

No doubt the creation of section 745 was unique in the criminal law of the country. However the section was included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976. It was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs committee at that time before it was finally debated and passed by the members of Parliament.

In fact, rather than the original proposal to have three judges to hear a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would decide the case instead. This was done specifically to increase public participation in the process.

Clearly there was debate and communication in the public arena. Efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as possible.

Let me review briefly how the provision works. I think the Reform Party-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Pearson International Airport is a vital asset to the Canadian economy.

I recently chaired a Toronto Liberal caucus task force investigating the immediate needs for runway construction at Pearson. The task force reviewed the available documents and held two public meetings. There were several issues considered: the immediate completion of a second north-south runway; the construction of two additional east-west runways and the impact these runways would have on the travelling public, the economy and the surrounding communities.

Currently air traffic at Pearson is handled primarily on two east-west runways. Five per cent of the time, about 70 times per year, severe cross winds force planes to change to the one available north-south runway for periods of up to five hours, a total of 350 hours per year. Capacity is cut in half, disrupting airline schedules, forcing delays and re-routing, allowing potentially dangerous landings to occur on the east-west runways at higher cross wind limits than are allowed at U.S. airports.

Does Pearson need a second north-south runway at this time? The Minister of Transport recently announced a second north-south runway will be tendered for completion. This construction will not increase the overall capacity at Pearson, only the efficiency and the safety.

An environmental assessment report completed in 1992 recognized that a second north-south runway was needed to eliminate the current imbalance of two east-west with only one north-south. They wanted a safety and operational feasibility of a shorter 4,500 north-south runway investigated. This short runway would have had less noise impact on the local residents.

Two studies were undertaken by Transport Canada and the Canadian Airline Pilots Association in 1992 and 1993. They found that 85 per cent of the aircraft that use Pearson could not land on a 4,500 foot runway. Arriving aircraft would have to be kept at high altitudes of 10,000 feet to facilitate sorting and sequencing. These restrictions would increase the probability of mid-air collision. The operational separations imposed for safety reasons might even result in less capacity than exists now.

Both reports concluded that safety concerns would have to be given priority over all other considerations. They recommended

against the short runway. The caucus committee concurred that a full length north-south runway is needed at this time. It further recommended the new north-south runway should be used for landings only during severe cross wind conditions only.

Does Pearson need two more east-west runways at this time? The Air Transport Association of Canada has provided figures which indicate aircraft movements are down 12 per cent from their pre-recession high. Currently Pearson processes 20.5 million passengers per year, a volume easily handled by the two existing east-west runways.

Travel replacing technology such as faxes and tele and video conferencing are being increasingly utilized with fewer people travelling for business purposes.

Our committee concluded that any additional runways should not be contemplated until the threshold of passengers exceeds 30 million per year. This will not take place before the proposed Canadian airport authority takes over the management of Pearson.

I endorse the minister's decision to complete the second north-south runway for economic and safety reasons. I applaud the innovative plan to turn the operation of airports over to local airport authorities so they can be financed and improved in a self-sufficient, cost-effective, businesslike manner.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to expand on the concept of the Canadian airport authority for the residents of Mississauga. What assurance do we have that this will be the most efficient and economical solution to Pearson's current problems?

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport I would like to respond to the question from my hon. colleague, the member for Mississauga West.

Let me first assure my colleague that she can reassure the residents of Mississauga that when the new north-south runway is completed at Pearson it will be used primarily for landings. In recognition of the concerns of the residents living near the airport about noise I want to reiterate that the new runway will only be used 5 per cent of the time when severe cross winds make landings on the two east-west runways unsafe.

The only time the new north-south runway would be used for take-offs would be on those extremely rare occasions when, combined with adverse weather conditions, the existing north-south runway is unavailable due to emergency or repairs. On these occasions only take-offs toward the north following the established departure path of the existing north-south runway would be permitted.

The minister wants to assure the member and her constituents that absolutely no decision will be taken on the matter of additional east-west runways until the Canadian airport authority is in place and functioning at Pearson International Airport. In any event it is anticipated that the additional east-west runways would not be constructed until traffic warrants it. This is not expected to happen until the turn of the century.

One of our colleagues from the Reform Party has said that we do not intend to move on the new Canadian airport authorities for Pearson until 1998. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the minister has made very clear we will be moving to establish CAAs at many airports as soon as the communities involved identify their representatives and pass the necessary local resolutions which is indeed the case for Pearson. There is no question about waiting until 1998.

The fact is that the local municipalities have named their representatives and the minister has indicated that we will proceed with all that needs to be done at Pearson. The only logical option though is to work with these representatives in an advisory capacity for the time being.

We will move to activate a Canadian airport authority which we believe is in the best interests of the Canadian public as soon as the Senate puts the interest of the taxpayer ahead of its rhetoric.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 17 I put two sets of questions to the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister effectively declined to answer those questions at the time saying they were hypothetical. However, the exchange after question period between the leader of the Reform Party and the Speaker would indicate the questions as put were of course not hypothetical and were in order. The questions were in order because they dealt not with the government's political plans but with its competence, jurisdiction, and role in the matters of constitutional law and the possible separation of Quebec.

The first question was formed from a quotation from the Prime Minister of Canada. He said a Prime Minister of Canada has a constitution he must respect and there is no mechanism in the Constitution permitting the separation of any part of Canadian territory.

While that is very narrowly true in fact the Constitution does have provisions relating to amendment of various things that would be required in the event of the separation of a province. These are things as elementary as the transfer of the legitimate powers of the federal government to a province which would generally speaking require the consent of two-thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. In other cases where it actually involves institutional change it would require unanimous consent. These clauses are laid out in part 5, sections 38 through 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

My question to the government was merely that it affirm that it is the position of the Government of Canada that the constitutional status of a province could only be changed legally and would be done through this amending formula. This would of course not apply simply with a separation scenario but to any constitutional change. I would maintain that it is the duty of the federal government which purports that national unity is its highest priority to recognize that it does have an obligation to uphold the Constitution.

I would also note that politically there would be considerable advantage for it to make clear to the people of Quebec that when they are being told that separation can be achieved unilaterally that this is legally untrue. In fact, it would also be political untrue, politically unfeasible to pursue in that manner.

We would also of course be interested to know what the position would be of the leader of the official opposition on such an illegal position as unilateral separation. However I do not expect the parliamentary secretary to comment on that particular question.

My second question concerned an article recently written in Canadian Parliamentary Review , Autumn 1994, by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. He held that today the federal government retains full constitutional options to allow or not to allow a referendum vote, to control the content and wording of any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any vote, and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally superseding any Quebec vote.

As you well know, the opinions of the member for Vancouver Quadra are of some interest not simply because he wrote the article but because he is a noted constitutional expert and also a member of the governing caucus. While I do not subscribe necessarily to all his constitutional views I would certainly think that the government would take note of them and would be prepared to comment on whether it believes these are in fact the constitutional powers of the federal government.

I would note that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs himself has previously commented that the federal government should consider the option of a national referendum. I believe this is an option our own party would suggest should be considered, not necessarily acted upon but certainly considered given that ultimately the unity of the country and its future constitutional status is the business of all Canadians.

I put that question and hope to receive more enlightenment than I did on Monday.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It is quite an extended question and is obviously a subject of considerable debate.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for whom I am answering believes that the Constitution Acts do not provide any rules or procedures for secession of one of the provinces.

The argument which has been presented by the hon. member for Calgary West that the amending formula can be stretched to include the secession of a province is a point of view. However as the hon. member suggests there are many points of view on constitutional questions. Colleagues of mine have expressed constitutional views. Members of the opposition have as well.

It is very clear that when the time comes there is international precedent and their is domestic precedent in this regard. However, what I think the record shows internationally is that in cases of secession what is likely to occur is so much confusion and trouble that it would be impossible to proceed in an orderly and fashionable manner and indicate what goes before.

It seems to us that the premise of the member's question is that we should say: You cannot leave unless we let you go. That does not seem to be a very helpful approach at this time. Our approach is to argue to Quebecers that the case for secession cannot be sustained. It involves costs and risks that are unnecessary and that this country is too precious to be destroyed.

We want the question to be put fairly and quickly. We agree with the leader of the Reform Party who has expressed that point of view. I do not intend to talk on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, but I believe he said this morning in Toronto that he is a democrat and we are all democrats. Certainly we in this Chamber are all democrats and a democratic decision is appropriate and will occur we hope promptly and with a clear question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.)