Debates of Oct. 7th, 1994

Social Security Programs

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great puzzles surrounding Canada's social programs has been that they have had very little success in reducing the country's social ills. This is so in spite of the fact that expenditures per capita in real terms have increased dramatically since they were initiated during the post war years. What has gone wrong?

This question has occupied my academic research for some time. In the short time available to me today I want to share with you some of my insight on this matter. I do so because from these insights emerge policies appropriate for revisions of Canada's social programs during the present financial crisis and as we enter the 21st century.

It is part of folklore that restaurants that have fire insurance burn more often than those that do not. The insurance industry attributes this increase to what is known as moral hazard phenomenon. In simple language it is due to insurance induced changes in behaviour. The greater number of fires that occur in insured restaurants is due in part to outright arson. However, many additional fires are started because in insured restaurants less care is given to the cleaning of greasy vents and other fire hazards. They are less likely to have sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers.

The Government of Canada provides insurance against the hazards of unemployment, poverty and old age, disability, illness and a wide range of other calamities befalling people. As in the case of fire insurance these kinds of social insurance programs induce changes in the behaviour of the insured that result in higher claims and costs.

Let me illustrate in the context of unemployment insurance. Undoubtedly unemployment and the costs of insurance are raised by some criminal cheating through the filing of multiple claims or receiving benefits while holding a job.

Some claim that such illegal acts are rare while others think they are frequent. By the nature of the crime it is not easy to obtain reliable estimates. At any rate, clamping down on such cheating is not a contentious issue.

Of greatest concern for the present discussion of social insurance reform is the fact that much of the present high unemployment is due to individual Canadians reacting rationally to the changes in the environment in which they operate.

For example, persons with unemployment insurance benefits have higher standards on a new acceptable job than those without. The former will reject jobs with longer commutes, lower pay and higher retraining requirements than the latter.

People who behave in this way do not break the law. They act rationally in response to opportunities created by the government. They can afford to hold out longer for a better job because being unemployed costs less. Such legal and rational behaviour nevertheless increases the rate of unemployment and the cost of the unemployment insurance program.

Similar forces act on the welfare program, as was demonstrated when in the summer of 1993 in Ontario a woman created headlines with the revelation that she quit her job deliberately and went on welfare. She argued that by doing so she enjoyed a higher living standard than when she worked for $40,000 a year.

The media made much out of the question of whether this was true. In my view, this question misses the main point. Consider as a thought experiment that the woman's income was actually reduced by $6,000 by going on welfare. This means that full time work brought her only $500 a month and the loss of time with her family in leisure activities and valuable work in the home.

I know few people who condemn Canadians who make the choice this woman made. She was not violating any law. She was simply taking advantage of choices created by the system. Yet such behaviour swells the number of welfare recipients and raises the cost of welfare programs.

The cost of unemployment insurance is increased even further by the adoption by society of institutions which take explicit advantage of the opportunities offered by the system. Industries with seasonal employment expand. Some governments arrange hiring to accommodate eligibility requirements. They all act rationally and within the law. No one is to blame but the system which allows the creation and exploitation of these institutions.

How large is the cost of social insurance programs due to the insurance induced changes in behaviour and institutions? Social scientists do not have precise answers to these important questions. I have been the coauthor of studies of the effects of unemployment insurance on the unemployment rate and venture to guess that without the increased generosity of the UI system introduced in the 1970s, Canada's unemployment rate today might be about two to three percentage points lower than it is.

More generally, there is little doubt in my mind that insurance induced changes in behaviour explain the puzzle of the post war years, the ever increasing costs of social insurance programs and the constancy of the problems they were designed to cure.

The green book contains a graph of Canada's unemployment rate since the 1950s. It is on a steady upward trend. My analysis suggests that this is due to the effects of insurance induced changes in behaviour, institutions and the overall increased social acceptance of such behaviour.

What does my analysis imply for social policy reform? The answer is found in the practices used by private insurance companies to limit opportunities for risk increasing behaviour. Fire insurance premiums are lower for buildings with sprinkler systems. All forms of private property and health insurance carry deductibles, co-insurance on claims, waiting periods and rates that differentiate between people according to the riskiness of their behaviour. For example, life insurance premiums are higher for smokers than non-smokers; sky-divers face discriminatorily higher premiums.

It is important to note that the private insurance industry knows that moral behaviour cannot be controlled completely. Consequences of it are reflected in insurance premiums. Where control is extremely difficult and the costs vary as in the case of insurance against business losses, premiums have to be so high that no one is interested in buying the insurance. That is why there is no insurance against business losses.

For very noble reasons the architects of Canada's social insurance programs have made only limited use of such private insurance methods for controlling insurance induced behaviour.

To me the most logical solution to the excessive cost of these programs is to introduce more of the true and tried methods of the private insurance industry. Deductibles can be raised. In the case of unemployment insurance and welfare this would take the form of longer waiting periods before benefits are paid.

Co-insurance can be increased by lowering the benefits relative to previous earnings. Pensioners receive benefits only when they are older. The receipt of benefits can be lessened by requiring frequent reporting and evidence of job search, retraining requirements and a host of other measures which are equivalent to increasing co-insurance rates.

Other countries which have had similar experiences to those of Canada have taken such measures. Sweden has cut housing subsidies and brought in vouchers for child care payments. Norway is tightening disability insurance payments. In France social assistance is tied to signing on for a work training scheme. In the Netherlands young people up to the age of 27 have their social assistance set at no more than 50 per cent of the minimum wage. Germany and Italy are raising the age at which pensions can be claimed. In Britain income support is made available only on the basis of need and after means testing of applicants.

I believe that the phenomenon of insurance induced behaviour holds the clue on why in Canada and in other countries of the world the cost of social programs has run out of control. It also provides the answer for stopping these runaway expenditures. We could do better than listen to what other countries are doing to control their problem with insurance induced behaviour.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge many of the fine points that the hon. member made. His description of a disincentive to work is one of the cornerstones of what is in the green book.

I would like to ask him a question. I acknowledge that unemployment insurance social benefits may raise the unemployment insurance rate. That is hard to quibble with. Some people think we should do away with unemployment insurance or lower the benefits of unemployment insurance. They often point to the Americans and say: "Look at their unemployment rate. It is much lower than Canada's and the main reason is because they have less generous unemployment insurance benefits".

Is there not going to be a cost if we toughen up the system? Many thousands of people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. They have no available work to go to. I come from a community on the north shore of Lake Erie that suffered greatly in the last recession. We lost 5,000 manufacturing jobs in a town of 30,000 people. There were no real options for those people.

If we look at the American example we see that they do not have decent unemployment insurance programs. They have people living on the street. They have entire families living on the street. They have charities for no other purpose than to provide medical care for children of people who live on the street.

Is there not going to be a cost? We are going to have more poor people in this country. While making the system tougher will encourage some people to find jobs, there will be vast numbers of people, through no fault of their own, who will simply be put in a worse situation than they are. Crime rates will go up and all sorts of other terrible social conditions will come into the foray.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his thoughtful comments. Clearly this is the tradeoff we face as a society.

I can assure him that in the sixties we expected a never-ending flow of funds. People thought so what if there is some insurance induced increases in the demand for services; we can afford it. The problem is we cannot afford them any more. We are being asked what kinds of tradeoffs there will be to reduce the expenditures.

The green book is full of ideas which will hurt someone. If we are reducing expenditures, as we have to, in order to increase spending on some other worthwhile thing or to eliminate the deficit, as we would do, then somebody has to suffer.

I am suggesting that it would be a good idea to imitate what some other countries have been doing that have thought about it a lot. If some people have to suffer let it fall primarily on those who have been induced by the system to change their behaviour. Clearly there is no such thing as a free lunch. I wish there were.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

On the member's last point, he wants the cost to fall primarily on those who change their behaviour, but there is no way to distinguish them. If we toughen up the UI rules there is no way to distinguish between persons who take a longer time to look for a job than others would and persons who legitimately cannot find a job because all the factories in their towns have closed.

There is no way; the system is not that specific that we can say some persons are not looking hard enough for a job so we are going to toughen up on them.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

I fully agree and that is the dilemma. What are we going to do about it? What is the member's party going to do about it? We have no choice.

As socialists are so fond of saying, if we want to make an omelette we have to break a few eggs. If we want to bring the country from the brink of bankruptcy we are going to have to impose on some people a reduction in the proportion of replacement of earnings they will obtain. We will have to impose on some people a longer waiting period. The co-insurance deductible will have to go up in all programs.

If we look at the green book and reinterpret some of the ideas for savings, in the light of the analytical scheme I have presented, namely how does it limit insurance induced changes in behaviour, we will see that many are directed in this way. My plea is that we recognize this explicitly and pay more attention in future debates in the House and by consultations throughout the country to this idea. I believe it underlies the problems we now have.

The first best thing society can do is to attack the problem directly rather than in some indirect way.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a New Democrat the issue of social programs is one particularly close to me. Our social programs essentially came about as a result of pressure from CCF governments, CCF politicians and New Democrats across Canada to address the concerns of people in times of need.

As a social democrat I am committed to ensuring that Canada is a more compassionate country rather than a less compassionate one. I am also committed to ensuring that if a person is unable to earn sufficient resources through the traditional economic marketplace to live in dignity, we as citizens owe it to that person to ensure that his or her basic needs are met. In order to do so we have to redistribute wealth from those who have to those who do not have.

The report we have in front of us called "Agenda: Jobs and Growth" is none of those things. It is neither an agenda nor has it anything to do with jobs nor anything to do with growth. It is a continuation of the Mulroney agenda. While that government is dead clearly its policies live on healthily with the new Liberal government. Last October we saw a government change but the bureaucrats and policies stayed essentially the same.

Those policies saw poverty numbers increase, taxes on middle and lower income Canadians increase, the deficit increase. Social programs kept for the last 10 years while tax breaks to the rich grew and while inequality in the country grew. We are now at a point where the gap between rich and poor is roughly where it was at the end of the second world war, after some gains in between. We are now heading backward to a situation of haves and have nots with an enormous gap between them.

The Liberals are continuing the same Mulroney agenda in terms of the same monetary policies, the same fiscal, economic and trade policies which have failed Canada and Canadians so completely.

Canada and Canadians support the reform of social programs. There is no doubt about that. We have a system of social programs and we have a society or an economy that is not working well for about four million Canadians. There is support for reform. There is the political will to look at reform.

Canadians want real reform. They do not want empty words, which is what this book contains. They want to have proposals they can look at and be consulted on in a meaningful way. It is not possible to consult with Canadians if there are no specific proposals with which to discuss the issues at hand.

There are a number of general criticisms that one can make before going on to suggest what might have been done. Clearly, as I have said, there is very little in the way of specifics in this paper. It is much too vague. The government has said that it is not committed to any of the proposals that are put forward in this paper. It is difficult to consult if something is not put forward that people can get their teeth into.

Where is the leadership in this paper? What is it that the government really thinks? When will the government finally start to govern after a year in office of doing almost nothing? This has not progressed us very far along the way in actually dealing with the problems of either social programs or the economy or the deficit.

It is clear, in spite of the government's attempts to hide this fact, that deficit reduction is a serious element or a serious component part of this so-called review. I would suggest that deficit reduction drives the social security review in the way it has been driven over the last 10 years. We are seeing an Americanization of social programs as our social programs continue under this government. There are choices, as many have indicated today and yesterday, between more people oriented social policies and those American ones the Liberals have chosen to follow.

The paper does not really deal with the problem we face. It does not deal with the job side of the equation. It does not deal with the taxation system whereby we will ensure we have both the resources to address the problems we face and the incentives to ensure that economic activity continues unabated.

Where are those issues in this whole debate? They are absolutely critical if we are going to ever appropriately reform social programs. It seems to me, and it seems to most Canadians from what I can understand, that the Liberals are continuing the attack on the deficit on the backs of the poor.

It is time we took a more balanced approach to dealing with the deficit. It is time that we did not foreclose on all those options that would require the rich to provide for their fair share of deficit reduction costs. It is time that we had a balanced approach to dealing with the deficit, not just one targeted at social programs.

Last, as a general comment, it is pretty clear that the consultation process with the provinces has been totally inadequate. Otherwise we would not have received enormous criticism from all across the country, from all parties both within the federal

Liberal caucus and outside, and from the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario. We would not have had this enormous outburst of criticism of the paper had there been effective consultation with the provinces.

Clearly the process of social security reform can only take place with the close co-operation of the provinces. As long as the provinces feel they are right in that the government's main intention is to slough off the deficit on to their already difficult financial situations, they will not co-operate and they should not co-operate in the whole process.

Let us look at the words of the green book. I wonder how many different coloured books we are going to have. Its main focus appears to be that Canadians are unemployed in the numbers they are because they do not have the skills to fulfil the jobs of the new economy. We all have to support increasing training, upgrading and education for Canadians. We can only see the benefits from that. It is good to focus on these issues but, as we see from the green book, the expectations are modest. Above all, there are no jobs out there for people to take once they receive this training. We have already a serious expectation of finding people continuing to live in poverty but being a bit better educated and having a few more skills.

Until we address the real problem we will continue to attack social programs. Unless we solve the jobs problem we will continue to have more and more people flowing on to unemployment and social assistance rolls and we will continue to see pressures to address the overburdened system.

We need to ensure that the skills we have are adequate. We also need to ensure that the paper deals with the so-called disincentives to work. Those programs which make a transition into the workplace more difficult need to be addressed too.

There are some specific proposals that need some attention. Among all the words here, one proposal more specific than the others deals with changing the funding arrangements with the provinces. If all the federal government is going to do is continue to address its deficit problems, albeit not very effectively in this regard, by transferring the deficit to the provinces that have done a much better job of dealing with their deficits, we have not only the continuation of the Tory agenda but we have the continuation of the consequences that generates.

We have provinces, and I speak in particular of my own province of Saskatchewan, which have addressed the problem effectively. That particular province, under a New Democrat government, has reduced the deficit from the highest per capita in Canada to the lowest. It will balance its books in the coming year. It will be the first province to do that as a have not province, a province without enormous resources. It has done that in a balanced way while at the same time, I may add, it has increased social program spending. It is not a prerequisite of addressing a deficit to do it on the backs of the poor. The only way to do it is in a balanced way which requires all citizens to pay a share, to make a sacrifice in dealing with this problem which affects us all.

With regard to unemployment insurance, it affects many Canadians. There are 1.6 million people on unemployment insurance at the moment. Many more who would have been had previous governments not changed the rules. However to suggest, as this paper does, that perhaps we should continue to make unemployment insurance even more difficult-

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is 2.14 p.m. and there was an earlier order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to give the member a few more minutes to finish his remarks.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really only need about five more minutes. I appreciate the co-operation of members.

It really is perverse for the green paper even to consider making unemployment insurance more difficult to get and indeed for the benefits to be further reduced.

It seems bizarre that we were focused on that as a solution to the problem, again continuing to blame the unemployed for their unemployment.

We need changes that would make unemployment insurance more encompassing with about 50 per cent of the population now being self-employed. Outside that system, we need to find a way though not easy to include them within the unemployment insurance system. We also need to include those part-timers who are not now included in the unemployment system.

We need to look for creative ways to ensure that all Canadians who need assistance are provided with it. Again we are seeing the emphasis on training but training out of funds which would otherwise go to those Canadians who are unemployed who need the resources to feed their families.

We still have to ask the question: Training for what? Are we really going to successfully train four million Canadians to re-enter the work place? That is simply unrealistic.

With regard to child benefits, we have here another suggestion that perhaps we should increase child benefits. Indeed the numbers suggested are to double them.

While that is fine as far as it goes, it is obviously much better for a child to have $2,500 to $3,000 a year than only $1,200, but this will basically merely delay the visits to the food bank by two or three days in a month. This will not address the problem and we cannot keep addressing problems in this band-aid way, responding to some of the symptoms of the problem.

Children are poor because they are born to poor parents. Their parents are poor because they do not have the means to feed their families simply because they do not have work.

The last point I would like to make with regard to the more specific proposals in the paper is with regard to post-secondary education. This really is a very perverse approach by the federal government. We all talk about and we all agree that a better educated, more trained, higher skilled work force is important in the new economy.

We would then anticipate if we all believe that that we will find ways to make post-secondary education more accessible and not less accessible. It really is difficult to understand how the government feels that by making tuition fees higher, perhaps five or six times as high, by increasing student loans from what are already difficult burdens for students to what would be almost insurmountable burdens and by reducing accessibility to post-secondary education, that possibly can move us toward a better trained, more educated work force. The opposition found the education community indicative of the problems with that.

Let me just close by suggesting two or three things which we really should do to address the problems that this green paper is attempting to address.

The real solution can only be to ensure that more Canadians are working, to develop the environment within the economy to ensure that good quality jobs are created and that there are enough of them to satisfy the demand. We have a long way to go on that. Other countries have been much better at that than we have. We really need a national consensus on how to move forward to ensure that all Canadians who can work will be able to work.

We also need to look at tax reform. We cannot continue to give $15 billion worth of tax breaks to those who can invest in RRSPs while children go to food banks. It is simply not possible. We have difficult choices to make as all members have suggested. That may be a difficult choice for the economy but we can clearly ensure a reduction in the deficit and an ability to fund more effectively our social programs if we look at serious, fair and progressive tax reform.

There are many innovative things we can do within the workplace itself. We can look at shorter working hours and overtime restrictions to share the work that is there. If four million Canadians are not working and another eight million are, it does not seem to me to be very effective to ensure that those numbers can continue.

There have been successes as we have seen in other countries with efforts to deal with that problem and indeed voluntary efforts on the part of trade unions and employers to move toward shorter working weeks. We have constantly done that. In past history people used to work seven days a week and now they work five days a week.

In closing I think this is a debate about the quality of Canadian life, about our collective responsibility to one another, about inequality and ensuring that social policy responds to deep insecurities, changing family structures, high poverty levels and great insecurity in the work force.

We have a lot of work today and I do not think this paper takes us very far along the way.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being approximately 2:14 p.m., the House shall now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion That Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a Committee.

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in this society of ours, criminality, and particularly the kind of sexual offences Bill C-240 deals with, is a very sensitive subject. Sure, we have to talk about it, but as parliamentarians we have the moral obligation not to turn this into a circus. This is a very sensitive issue.

The death of a child is always a tragedy. Whether a child dies in a car accident, of natural causes, or whether he is abused before being killed, it is still a death.

As individual members of a society, regardless of who and where we are, we have the fundamental and legitimate duty to protect children who, after all, represent the generation for which all of us here work. Indeed, we must protect children. We must do everything we can to provide them with the best possible future in the safest possible world. However, it is wrong to want to eliminate anyone who dares get close to a child.

I want to make it clear that the Official Opposition does not take lightly a tragedy like the one referred to by the Reform Party member, in his speech to this House, on June 10. I am alluding to the case of young Christopher Stephenson who, on the evening of June 17, 1988, was kidnapped and then physically

and sexually abused for over 24 hours by a 45-year-old individual named Joseph Fredericks.

No one in his or her right mind can tolerate tragedies like that. And I mean no one. We often hear people say that inmates are all like this or like that, but the fact is that they have their own code in detention centres. Indeed, even inmates who have committed crimes themselves do not tolerate such horrible crimes. All of us, including criminals, agree that to hurt a child is a terrible thing to do. In January 1992, some inmates in Collin's Bay penitentiary, Ontario, took justice into their own hands and Joseph Fredericks was stabbed while serving his sentence in that institution.

You know, the worst thing is that, whether they have raped, injured, killed or done all of the above, child molesters have to face the judicial system to be sent to jail. They have to go through the whole usual process to be sentenced. And then they end up behind bars.

Once inside the penitentiary, they have to face another type of police, as I indicated earlier. That is why these individuals need the form of protection commonly referred to as inside protection, or the protect as they say.

I am not here to champion unduly the cause of such offenders, but nonetheless, if the judicial system sentenced them once, we should not keep sentencing them over and over, any time we feel like it. The main fault we find with the correctional system is this huge number of inside policies that govern the parole procedure. In other words, giving too much of a free rein to individuals who are not necessarily appointed because of their high qualifications but, in some cases, because of their party affiliation. To put it bluntly, these positions are too often filled by party hacks.

Once a person has been sentenced, members of the parole committee should not be given the authority to "retry" the convict by trying to find out whether for some reason, it would have been better to, or not to, and so forth, because there is no end to the administrative maze. If we do that, we will get into an incredible mess, a real mountain of red tape.

When a judge hands down a sentence-it was a judge who told me this, and I think all judges would agree-he does so on the basis of his assessment that by the end of the sentence, the individual will normally have served his term and realize, after going through the system and the follow-up services that are available, that he must not repeat the offence for which he was incarcerated.

Of course, if this worked every time, it would be an ideal world, and we have yet to achieve that objective.

On the other hand, when we look at cases like the one involving young Christopher Stephenson, everyone deplores the mistakes that were made and, of course, mistakes were made, unfortunately. Everyone deplores such mistakes. However, statistics show-because we must look at both sides of the coin; we were not elected to act in demagogic or dramatic ways-that only 6 per cent of parolees reoffend within six months of their release. Granted, they can commit new offences after the six months are up. But even if we go up to 10 per cent, which is a large increase, it means that the current correctional system still works for 90 per cent of the people. After a period of imprisonment, 90 per cent of the people can regain the freedom to which they, like you and I, are entitled.

We live in a democratic and human system managed by human beings so, on the one hand, there will always be mistakes but, on the other hand, we must also work to improve living conditions for individuals like ourselves. That is what we call community.

There will always be marginal cases; there will always be people who take undue advantage of the system, be they insiders or outsiders. Of course some people will get away, but when a system has a success rate of 90 to 94 per cent, I think that we must start on that basis and try to improve it and not just focus on the 6 per cent and dwell on them and go after them.

Yes, there is work to be done, that is quite true, everyone agrees. But I think that letting people who are not even judges render a second judgement, as the bill would do, is going too far.

I will conclude with that. Of course there is a flaw, as everyone will agree. As I just said, the system is not perfect. Many people from all backgrounds are working on it in good faith, I think. Even people who do not always deal with the public but are in the community or are senior officials. They all work hard and listen to the people.

Yes, we have to look for a solution, but I really doubt that we will find it in Bill C-240.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rocks-South Langley for moving such an important motion. We obviously need to better protect our children against repeat violent offenders.

As a starting point and proof that such action is necessary, my colleague referred to the crimes committed by Joseph Fredericks. The senseless death of young Christopher Stephenson, murdered in 1988 by this chronic paedophile from Brampton reminds us, in case we need to be reminded, that we must act quickly to deal with the weaknesses of our criminal justice system and reduce the risk of similar tragedies, in future.

The federal government, the provinces and all the various areas of the criminal justice system agree that they must work together to reach this common goal. As for the federal government, he is determined to act on this issue. This is why it has already taken measures to implement several of the recommendations made in 1993 by the coroner in charge of the investigation concerning the death of young Christopher Stephenson.

Finally, most of the federal measures recommended were implemented, which helped to improve the preparation of case management and risk assessment reports throughout the federal correctional system. We were also able to improve the exchange of information on offenders, the accountability mechanisms and the coordination of management and treatment activities for sex offenders. We have made some remarkable progress, but still have a long way to go.

This is why we will work hard to implement the few remaining recommendations. These recommendations address complex issues that cannot be resolved overnight. They require global and sustainable solutions. Bill C-45, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is one measure that will help improve public protection. This bill, which was introduced by the Solicitor General last June, is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

One of the proposed amendments would make it easier for the National Parole Board to keep sexual offenders who have a preference for children in prison until they have served their full sentence. As the Solicitor General pointed out recently, this amendment does not mean that sexual offences against children are more serious than those against adults. However, in the case of children, it happens quite often that the National Parole Board cannot keep a high risk pedophile in prison because it is difficult to prove that he has caused serious harm to the child who was the victim.

The proposal would solve this problem by eliminating the need to prove that serious harm has been caused in these cases. The Board would therefore have the legal right to keep an offender in prison until he has served his full sentence if it believes that the offender is likely to commit another offence against a child. I think this proposal would be a great help in protecting our children against sexual offenders under federal jurisdiction.

However, we must keep in mind that real reform requires more than just amending the legislation. Sooner or later, most convicts are released. This is the reason why the government has taken a number of initiatives aimed at protecting society in the long run. Improving treatment programs for sexual offenders is a case in point. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on what we know about treating sexual offenders.

Research shows that sexual abuse has many roots and that there is more than one approach to treatment. However, clinicians agree that, in many cases, the chances of re-offending can be considerably reduced through continuous treatment and preventing relapses.

Preventing relapses is crucial as it helps sexual offenders control their urge when they are back in the community. In this context, the Solicitor General announced that, as part of the public security reform proposed by the government, programs for sexual offenders will be improved and reinforced.

To ensure that the corrections system makes use of the most effective means to deal with and treat sexual offenders, Correctional Service Canada undertook a complete review of its evaluation and treatment programs, last year, with a view to improve evaluation of sexual offenders' needs related to their criminal behaviour, to implement a series of treatment programs designed to meet the various needs of this group of offenders, to train corrections officers in the latest techniques for dealing with sexual offenders, and to conduct research aimed at improving the effectiveness of these approaches.

During the last five years, it made spectacular progress by increasing the number of places set aside for sexual offenders from 200 per year to over 1,800 per year.

In order to improve the national aspect of the management and treatment of sexual offenders, the Commissioner of Corrections recently announced the nomination of a senior psychologist as incumbent of a new position, that of sexual offenders program consultant. This is another example of action taken following the enquiry on the death of Christopher Stephenson.

In accordance with other recommendations made during that enquiry, the government will take measures in order to help local agencies better protect children against abuse in their communities.

The RCMP is at the forefront because it gives all police forces across Canada access to the data base of the Canadian Police Information Centre, the CPIC. Thanks to those data, the local police can determine the background of any person who applies for a job involving children and can transfer that information to local community organizations.

With these data, the organizations can make sure child molesters and sexual offenders cannot come into direct contact with children through community work.

In order that our national screening process be the best possible, some representatives of the Solicitor General, in cooperation with colleagues from Health Canada and Justice Canada, are studying possible ways of improving on the data bank of the CPIC so that the acquisition process would bring in more complete data on criminal convictions and investigations.

For our part, we will have a much better screening system at the national level and we will be able to prevent contacts between children and paedophiles or sexual offenders.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank once again the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley who raised this vital issue in the House.

We have the responsibility, in memory of Christopher Stephenson and as a protection for all children and parents in Canada, to do everything in our power to protect our young people against sexual predators.

However, protection does not depend exclusively on legislation. It also depends on the design and implementation of effective treatment programs for sexual offenders, so the risk can be manageable once they re-enter society. It is only through a balanced reform of the criminal system that we will be able to build a safe society where children will not live in fear of violence or exploitation.

The initiatives I just described and the efforts we will continue to make over the next few months exemplify the commitment of our government to a better protection of our children. I am confident that all members will co-operate with us in the fulfilment of this goal.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-240. This bill, introduced by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, offers important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

Once again the Reform Party has taken the initiative to ensure that dangerous offenders are not permitted to walk free and commit more deadly crimes and to threaten their victims' families. Reform policy supports tougher punishment of crime and the protection of law abiding citizens before the rights of criminals. It is unfortunate that members on the other side of the House continue to be so reluctant to introduce substantive reforms to the justice system.

The intention of Bill C-240 is not to lock up prisoners and throw away the key. Instead this bill protects Canadians by keeping the most dangerous inmates behind bars. As my colleague stated previously in the House: "This legislation is targeting individuals who are not designated as dangerous offenders at the time of their original sentence but their behaviour subsequent to incarceration coupled with their criminal record has led Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board to deem them too dangerous to be released into society".

On this side of the House we have often spoken of the need for widespread criminal justice reform and Bill C-240 would do just that.

Look again at the fear that Helen Leadley and her family face daily while they await word of the date of Robert Paul Thompson's escorted temporary absence. This House is well aware of the history of this man and his criminal record dating back to 1969 and I am not going to let go of this issue.

By 1983 Robert Paul Thompson had served time for aggravated assault on a former girlfriend and was incarcerated for two hit and run incidents. Even then with his record of criminal activity and violence he was issued a day pass from prison. While on this day pass Thompson went to the home of his former common law spouse, Brenda Fitzgerald. He tried to kill Brenda's male friend by beating him with a hammer and stabbing him. He then brutally stabbed Brenda Fitzgerald to death. How stupid, how irresponsible that he was issued this day pass.

For this brutal murder and attempted murder Thompson plea bargained and pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He was never classified as a dangerous offender. He was sentenced to life which made him eligible for parole in the spring of 1995. Is that not a flagrant contradiction in terms: sentenced to life yet eligible for parole.

The case does not end with Thompson's conviction and sentencing. Two and a half years later Thompson stabbed two prison guards and took a 63-year old prison nurse hostage. During the hostage situation it took 10 guards to restrain Thompson. For these subsequent attacks Thompson received a sentence of 11 years to be served concurrent to his original sentence with parole eligibility still in April 1995.

Even after these violent offences Thompson was still not classified as a dangerous offender. What does it take? What does it take for such a violent criminal to be considered a dangerous offender? The parole board recently approved an ETA for Thompson. His brother has a non-life threatening illness and is in hospital. Thompson wishes to visit him for two hours.

It was an irresponsible decision to grant this man a day pass in 1983. It is even more reprehensible that the parole board has elected yet again to grant this ETA. Despite the pleas of his victim's family who live in fear of this man, despite the fact that I have spoken in this House on this matter four times now asking that this man not be released on an ETA, despite all of this, the Solicitor General has chosen to ignore these requests. Apparently the parole board, correctional services and the Solicitor General do not consider Thompson's proclivity for violence to be sufficient to keep him safely locked away.

A member of the parole board in New Brunswick admitted that about 70 per cent of parole requests are granted and stated publicly: "Honestly, we would like to see 100 per cent". Vengeance is not part of the mandate of the board. Does the parole board not have a moral obligation to prevent vengeance against the victims and their families? That is what this is all

about. Thompson has been able to reach beyond his prison walls and terrorize Brenda Fitzgerald's mother. My colleagues and I are fighting daily to ensure that victims' rights are not compromised for the rights of the convicted.

The parole system allows offenders such as Thompson to serve only one-third to one-half of their sentences. The board even admits that fully one out of three violent offenders will re-offend, yet classifying an offender as dangerous can only occur at the time of sentencing. Even then current legislation only allows the correctional service to keep dangerous offenders in prison until the last day of their sentence. Then they must be released back into society.

Convicted serial rapist Larry Fisher served his entire 23 year sentence never once taking any rehabilitation program and he is now free to offend again.

Bill C-240 would put a process into place that would permit the re-revaluation of an inmate's release. Bill C-240 would allow the crown attorney to apply the dangerous offender provisions when recommended by correctional authorities.

When the evaluation of an offender suggests the likelihood of reoffending, the offender would face continued detention. The option for continued detention would include the imposition of a definite or indefinite sentence or long term intensive supervision of up to 10 years. Provisions such as these would permit the detention of offenders beyond their sentence for those who demonstrate their continued violent tendencies even while imprisoned.

Canadians are frustrated at the government's lack of real action to make criminals more accountable for their actions. They are growing tired of watching the government tinker with the edges and not make real changes. They are beginning to question the government's ability to keep Canadians safe on their streets.

This weekend is Thanksgiving. I find it appalling that the corrections system would choose today as the date to decide on Robert Thompson's ETA. It hardly seems fair that Brenda Fitzgerald's family will have nothing to be thankful for, while her murderer celebrates the holiday.

Bill C-240 introduced by my colleague introduces real changes to the corrections system. It is time the Solicitor General re-establishes some credibility and supports this bill. I will not let this rest. Thompson's parole comes up in April 1995 and I will be back.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate at second reading of Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

Sexual offending is an issue of great public concern. The Coroner of Ontario has used a series of inquests to focus public attention on heinous acts committed by individuals. The reaction generated by such cases often implies that there are no current provisions for dealing with such persons or that the mechanisms available are entirely inadequate.

The Criminal Code of Canada currently has extensive provisions regarding dangerous offenders. These provisions have evolved significantly over the years. In 1948 criminal sexual psychopath legislation was introduced, which permitted the court to determine that person was a criminal sexual psychopath if he had been convicted of an offence such as rape, carnal knowledge, indecent assault, buggery, bestiality or gross indecency, or an attempt at any of those offences.

If the court found the offender to be a criminal sexual psychopath it could impose a specific term of imprisonment for the substantive offence and an indeterminate period of preventive detention to begin after the initial sentence had been served.

The concept of criminal sexual psychopath was modified subsequently to specify habitual criminals and dangerous sexual offenders. There was particular concern to distinguish between dangerous sexual offenders and petty offenders. The Criminal Code was amended in 1969 and the concept of a fixed term sentence was removed from the dangerous sexual offender legislation, leaving only the indeterminate sentence. The Ouimet committee considered dangerous sexual offenders and recommended creating a new category entitled simply dangerous offender.

Dangerous offender legislation was enacted in 1977 to replace former provisions for habitual offenders and dangerous sexual offenders. The current law is described in the Criminal Code in part 24. In that part the definition of serious personal injury offence is given in section 752 and the practical definition of the nature of behaviours covered is given in section 753.

This section is applicable to offenders who constitute a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of other persons. This threat can be established on four different bases. The first is that the offender has demonstrated a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of his causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage through failure to restrain his behaviour.

The second is a pattern of persistent, aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference on the part of the offender for the consequences of his behaviour.

The third is any behaviour by the offender that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that his behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.

The final category relates to any conduct by the offender in a sexual matter where the offender has shown failure to control his sexual impulses, and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to persons through a failure to control his sexual impulses.

If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender it may impose an indeterminate sentence on the offender instead of any other sentence that might have been appropriate.

I raise the history of the development of this section and the definitions in it to bring to the attention of the House that various governments over an extensive period of time have been involved in wrestling with the problem of dangerous offenders. The current provisions have been tested at the Supreme Court of Canada and have been found to meet appropriate legal standards.

The possibility of changes to the current provisions has been the subject of consultations with the provinces who administer the provisions and the result is that there is general satisfaction with the current state of the law among those required to apply it.

The issue of the potential danger of charter invalidation, which has been raised in respect to the content of Bill C-240, has been addressed by other speakers and I will not repeat those points at this time.

The important issue which has to be addressed here is whether it is good policy to consider amendments such as those proposed in Bill C-240 which carry a significant risk of invalidation, when we already have comprehensive and effective measures to deal with the criminal aspect of dealing with dangerous offenders. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice have recognized that there are other important areas that need to be considered. There are jurisdictional difficulties which need to be addressed through greater and more effective collaboration between jurisdictions. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice will be meeting with their health counterparts to address these concerns.

The identification and effective prosecution of individuals using the dangerous offender provisions is also a matter which has been recognized. A process to track high risk violent offenders and make information about these high risk individuals available to crown attorneys for subsequent prosecution is another important undertaking for dealing with these offenders.

In closing, it is important to reiterate that the current state of our law and practice is the result of a long evolution. It seems clear that the informed opinion among criminal justice professionals who administer provisions respecting dangerous offenders is that the Criminal Code is an effective vehicle for dealing with dangerous offenders.

The proposals in Bill C-240 present a significant risk of invalidation to a system that has evolved over a long period of time. We are much better served over both the short and the long term by improvements in inter-jurisdictional collaboration, and by administrative and procedural improvements than we are by proposals carrying excessive legal risks.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor on Bill C-240, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

If this bill, introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, were passed, authorities would be able to review, while it is being served, the sentence of a inmate guilty of a serious and violent crime, if they believed he would reoffend upon his release.

Bill C-240 would even allow an inmate to be kept in jail for an indeterminate period of time if he were to be considered beyond rehabilitation.

As one can see, the judicial system would be given significant powers. Before I explain my reservations about this bill, I would like to clarify a few points to avoid any misunderstanding.

Like most Canadians and Quebecers, I am absolutely not in favour of releasing under probation offenders who are dangerous for society. I agree that violent offenders who are obviously not rehabilitated should be punished and serve their sentence. We must keep them behind bars as long as they are a threat to our society, and they should serve their full sentence. It is a matter of public security, and that position is generally accepted.

In a system based on the rule of law, the judicial system, the law enforcement agencies and the political institutions should make sure criminals serve their sentence and law-abiding citizens can lead a normal life. That is the basis of the social contract binding the citizens and the State.

We know that if we do not have clear rules and adequate penalties for those who break the law, we run the risk of anarchy.

The bill before us, if passed unamended, would seriously undermine fundamental rights and rules of justice we want to protect at all costs. Let me explain.

As I said previously, we live in a free and democratic society based on the respect of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. In the field of criminal justice, that means the inalienable right of every individual to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is a rule of law that we inherited from the British

common law and which still remains a basic foundation of our legal system.

Also, under these principles, an individual can only be punished once for the crime that he or she was found guilty of. In other words, no one can be tried and condemned twice for the same offence. Trying to forego this fundamental principle of justice would amount to unduly suspend the civil rights of the individual and to use the rule of the arbitrary. Obviously, this kind of situation is unacceptable in a society such as ours.

The bill before us contains, in clause 25, a provision which would allow a court to keep an individual in prison despite the fact that they served their time. This situation would result of the fact that, in view of new evidence which had not been or could not be produced at the time of the trial, the individual is considered dangerous and should be kept in prison.

From my interpretation of this bill, evidence that was not produced at the time of the trial against the accused could be introduced in court in order to keep them longer in prison. This provision, I think, would seriously undermine the fundamental rights of that person.

I remind you that since it was enshrined in the 1982 Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been the best means of protection available to Canadians against otherwise absolute powers of the modern state. The Charter provides a list of rules and principles intended to protect the fundamental rights of an individual. In this regard and for the purposes of the debate, section 11 of the Charter clearly states that: "Any person charged with an offence has the right (-) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again". In other words, under the Charter, a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence in Canada. This is a fundamental right entrenched in the Constitution.

To me, some provisions in this bill clearly violate this principle, as we could, from now on, convict for a second time someone who has already served his sentence if a court finds that the offender still represents a danger for society. Clearly, we would have to wait for a Supreme Court judgment to determine if this bill could overrule the principles set forth in the Charter. And I think that the Supreme Court would declare the bill unconstitutional.

For the purposes of the debate, we must also consider that the Criminal Code of Canada already includes provisions for continued detention of dangerous criminals, even after their sentences are served.

Indeed, we know that the courts have the power to declare that these people are "dangerous offenders" who should be sentenced accordingly. But-and this is absolutely fundamental-the Crown attorney must make the point during the trial and not a few years later when the accused is about to be released, as would be allowed with Bill C-240.

Why should we pass new legislation to protect society against dangerous criminals while the Criminal Code provides us with all necessary tools to that end? Either we let the Crown attorney do his or her job, or we, as legislators, tighten the definition of a criminal offender.

Finally, according to this proposal, it would be the responsibility of the National Parole Board to inquire and determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to another trial and, ultimately, to extend the sentence. I think this would substantially increase the Board's case load, with all the additional delays and costs. Besides, this is not its jurisdiction in the first place.

To conclude, I want to reiterate my firm belief that fundamental human rights are inalienable and should not be suspended. Sure, we can present some foul crimes in such a light that people will think that, given special circumstances, fundamental rights should be disregarded. But I do not think this is justifiable, because as legislators we must uphold certain principles.

If Bill C-240 is adopted in its present form, it would be possible, I repeat, for the courts to detain individuals for longer than their original sentences, under the pretext that they still represented a danger to society. In other words, they could be punished for longer than their original sentences. It is obvious that this is unjustifiable.

Citizens must not be deprived of their fundamental rights under the pretext that society or the correctional system can find no other way to protect the public against dangerous criminals. This solution does not resolve the problem of dangerous offenders, who can pose a serious threat to society.

In conclusion, I would like to say that once society begins to make exceptions to the fundamental rights of the person, its members have every reason to believe that society is becoming dangerously intolerant and that, in the long term, their personal freedom is at risk.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-240 seeks to address concerns about the incidence of offenders repeating violent offences, particularly sexual offences.

The focus of the bill is upon the identification and further detention of a select group of offenders who are identified after sentencing during their period of incarceration as presenting a continuing and substantial threat of harm to the physical or mental well-being of other persons.

Predicting violent behaviour is undeniably a highly valued goal in terms of achieving community safety. Attaining this goal is very elusive. Other speakers have addressed the wide variety of measures which have been tried or which are currently under way to deal with the protection of society from dangerous offenders.

There are, however, a number of obstacles to effectively carry out this highly laudable goal. Approximately 10 per cent of all crime can be called violent. The base rate for violent behaviour is therefore quite low. For example, given the fact that only 10 per cent of all crime is violent, if we were to predict that no one would behave violently we would be correct about 90 per cent of the time.

The crux of our problem is that no one is satisfied with even a 90 per cent rate of prediction. Research over the past decade has made significant strides in the prediction of violent behaviour.

Correctional Service Canada has been working hard at developing risk assessment instruments and has developed one of the better assessment and prediction tools in the world.

The major predictors of criminal and violent behaviour have been reasonably well identified in research. These predictors include criminal companions, a history of anti-social behaviour, anti-social attitudes, family problems, cognitive dysfunction and low educational and vocational achievement. Some of the items in this list can be assessed relatively easily through extensive and detailed individual histories. Some, such as cognitive dysfunctions, require sophisticated testing.

One of the better predictors relates to assessment of psychopathy which comprises many traits including callousness, manipulation, dishonesty, irresponsibility and persistent anti-social conduct.

There are childhood predictors of violent recidivism associated with difficulties in pregnancy, especially the addiction of mother to alcohol or drugs, early childhood problems such as temper tantrums, and being the victim of or witnessing abuse or parental conflict.

Various conduct disorders characterized by stealing, lying, fire setting, truancy, sexual aggression, violence, cruelty and running away from home are strongly related to violent recidivism.

The research seemed to suggest that there is an increasing ability to predict dangerous behaviour. Accurate identification of the highest risk offenders can be achieved by combining measures of psychopathic traits, demographic variables and criminal histories.

Although using such tools will optimize the accuracy of predictions, it will not unfortunately identify all persons who will commit violent crime after release from custody.

Attempts to refine the predictions even further will result in high numbers of people wrongly identified as dangerous persons. It will greatly increase the costs of such measures and will impinge upon the rights of the many individuals improperly identified.

One of the striking things about the predictive factors which have been associated with violent recidivism is that virtually all of them occurred years before the violent offence for which we are concerned. They were known or could have been known at the time of sentencing.

The Criminal Code contains extensive provisions for dealing with dangerous offenders. The definitions in these sections have evolved over time and have survived or have been modified by a variety of legal challenges. Since we are increasingly able to predict dangerous offenders, the tools for managing the kind of problem being addressed in Bill C-240 already exist within the Criminal Code.

What is needed to address the kinds of cases leading to the current expressions of public concern is better early identification and prosecution of the most dangerous offenders. The various jurisdictions involved in administering criminal justice need to carefully scrutinize cases of violent and dangerous offenders to ensure that the appropriate use of existing dangerous offender provisions are made.

Finding ways to identify and track high risk offenders from as early as possible in their contacts with the criminal justice system throughout their involvement with the law will enable prosecutors to better apply the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code. Finally it must be recognized that some offenders will slip through the net of criminal justice prosecution.

For these individuals, better co-operation and co-ordination at the policy level, at the level of prosecutions, in the correctional domain and, most important, with mental health can provide effective solutions to dealing with high risk offenders without exposing our current, effective and tested tools to the risk of invalidation on charter grounds.

In closing it is important to recognize an unpleasant reality. It is ultimately impossible to identify in advance all those individuals who will commit heinous acts. Our long term interests are better served by more effective crime prevention.

I quote from the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General entitled "Crime Prevention in Canada: Toward a National Strategy":

The Committee accepts that crime will always be with us in one form or another and will require police, court and correctional interventions.

At the same time, it believes that our collective response to crime must shift to crime prevention efforts that reduce opportunities for crime and focus increasingly on at-risk young people and on the underlying social and economic factors associated with crime and criminality.

This comprehensive approach involves partnerships between governments, criminal justice organizations, and community agencies and groups.

And it situates the crime problem in a community context and sees its solution as a social question.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

This is a private member's bill and we are debating it at second reading with the hope that it will be sent off to the justice and legal affairs committee of the House. Private Members' Business is one of the few opportunities members who are not in cabinet have to bring forward ideas in the form of bills or motions. They are debated and on some occasions are even put to a vote by members of this House.

I mention this because it was not so long ago that my private member's motion on relaxation of the confidence convention thus allowing freer voting in the House came forward for debate. It was a votable motion. Due to the support this motion found among members opposite it passed.

I mention this now because I believe it is important in the period called Private Members' Business that we as members should be able to use our own best judgment when determining how to vote on a particular matter. The whip should not be on for any vote in Private Members' Business. Members should be able to study the legislation on its own merits, not on the basis of its origin. That is the suggestion that all bills introduced by the government are good and must be supported and all bills and motions proposed by the opposition are bad and by definition should be defeated.

This idea is not conducive to allow parliamentarians to do their job which is to listen to the people of Canada. It prevents members of this House from truly working together in the best interests of our country's government and in the best interests of all our constituents, the Canadian people.

I remind members that this House did approve the motion I sponsored which endorsed freer voting. I hope members opposite as well as members of the Bloc will find this bill worthy of their support.

On the law and order issue which is being debated across this great country, there is no question where the Reform Party stands. It stands squarely in favour of law and order. That is why this bill is coming forward at this time.

Bill C-240 is one more initiative by Reform members to bring the necessary changes to our justice system to protect Canadians. It is a response to a need in our society, a need which has been eloquently expressed by those who are the friends and relatives of persons killed by criminals who are being let out of prison and who we all know will commit violent crimes again.

My hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast spoke a few minutes earlier about the need to retain such criminals as Robert Paul Thompson who murdered Brenda Fitzgerald in 1983 while out on a day pass. This offender has been sentenced to life and is eligible for parole in the spring of 1995. Such a bill as C-240 would allow corrections to keep dangerous criminals such as Robert Paul Thompson in prison.

As my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has mentioned, under current legislation corrections officials have the power to keep dangerous criminals in prison until the expiration of their sentence. However, there is no legislation in place to allow the federal corrections system to keep high risk offenders in prison upon the expiration of their sentence.

At present there are high risk offenders who still retain violent intentions toward society but will be released on the Canadian public. The need for change is also expressed by families of murder victims and by those few who have survived brutal attacks by criminals who should have been kept behind bars for the rest of their lives.

This bill is similar to a bill that was introduced in the last Parliament and seems to be similar to proposals now being put forward for discussion by the present government. If that is the case, then why would any of us oppose it?

Let me take the time now to deal with two criticisms that have been raised. First, the government proposal is that public discussion and action on this matter should wait for the conclusions of this consultative process.

My riding has provincial institutions such as the Fraser River Correctional Centre, Alouette River Correctional Centre, Boulder Bay and Stave Lake Camp. It has federal institutions as well, such as Mission Institution and Ferndale Minimum Security.

Between the riding of Mission-Coquitlam and adjacent ridings we have provincial institutions such as Surrey Pre Trial, Ford Mountain, Mount Thurston, Centre Creek (Youth) and Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre. There are also federal institutions such as Matsqui, Kent, Elbow Lake, Mountain, Regional Psychiatric Facility and Harrison Mills. That is a lot of prison institutions.

The people of my riding and the surrounding ridings know of whence they talk. The people who work and live in the cities and towns found in Mission-Coquitlam want this type of legislation put in place immediately. They do not want violent offenders who have caused sufficient trouble in prison and therefore have been required to serve their complete sentence getting out and living unsupervised in the community. This bill only applies to the most potentially violent of incarcerated prisoners. I am sure the people in my riding would much prefer that such offenders stay in jail.

My householder contains a questionnaire to my constituents with questions relating to reform of the criminal justice system. I received what I believe is a very good return, over 6 per cent, on questions relating to criminal justice reform, particularly 87 per cent and 95 per cent who wanted changes to respective criminal justice reforms.

What is even more interesting is in the top concern in the general comments, over 76 per cent commented on changes to the Young Offenders Act, to sentencing, the parole system, victims' rights and it goes on and on.

Canadians want change.

Listening to my constituents is all the consultation I need to convince myself that this is a necessary piece of legislation. Moreover, with whom is the government going to consult if it asks the person in jail what to do as part of the consultation process? It is quite likely the response would be that that legislation is not needed.

If government consults with the friends and relatives of those who have died at the hands of recently released offenders I am sure the response would be that legislation is needed.

In her speech on this bill presented to the House on June 10, 1994, my friend from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley eloquently pleaded the case in support of her bill by giving us details of the murder of an 11-year old boy at the hands of such an offender. I believe his parents would support this bill. Therefore I believe the people with whom the government is going to be carrying on discussions have already spoken and spoken eloquently in favour of this bill.

The second criticism raised against this bill is that it might contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, I suppose a bill which deals in a harsh manner with dangerous offenders could be found in contravention of some section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but is it? The charter has a saving clause, clause 1. By virtue of clause 1 the charter may be violated by a statute but if such a statute would be acceptable in a free and democratic society then that statute is valid.

This is one of the compromises that went into the charter when it was drafted and I believe it is helpful in relation to Bill C-240.

I submit that in a free and democratic society that it would be unacceptable to deal in the way proposed by Bill C-240 with society's most dangerous offenders.

My Liberal friends will say that such treatment violates the convicted person's individual rights. That would be the classic argument raised by Liberals but is it not time that we looked at the rights of the community as a whole? Is this not a case where the greater good for the greater number of people in our society should win out over the rights of an individual, the rights of a person who is so dangerous to society?

I believe in cases such as this the rights of society as a whole should be protected and, yes, protected at the expense of the rights of a very few to whom this bill would apply.

I endorse what my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley said when she first spoke in support of this bill, that if this bill can save even one life it is worth it.

I believe the time to act on this matter is now. There is no point in consultation on this matter. People are demanding that we deal in a tough straightforward manner with society's most dangerous offenders. I urge all hon. members to look carefully at the purpose of private members business and if they believe this bill is necessary then vote for it, regardless of the party whips.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this important matter for the safety of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, I think we will call it the end of the day. The member for Churchill would have 30 seconds or something to speak, if that is acceptable to the member for Churchill.

It being 3.20 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 17, 1994, pursuant to Standing Orders 22 and 24.

(The House adjourned at 3.20 p.m.)