Debates of June 10th, 1994

Environment

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable development, I think it is essential and very appropriate to make a comprehensive review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Our future depends on the measures taken today. This is why it is vital to review the effectiveness of the act and, consequently, the effectiveness of the departments concerned by this legislation.

The location of my beautiful riding of Terrebonne, which is bordered by the Prairies River, the Mille-Îles River and the majestic St. Lawrence River, and which is close to the island of Montreal, leads me to give particular attention to the management of our environment.

My constituents are directly affected by the environmental decisions and policies implemented here. It is therefore essential for them, and for me, that we take a close look at how the act has evolved and how it has been managed. As I said earlier, given its location, my riding would be an appropriate place for the establishment of institutions dedicated to the environment and environmental technologies. This would make of one of the most populated ridings in the country a leader in the field of environment.

Environmental protection depends on the sound management of allocated budgets. The idea is not to pass a law and then vote a budget to ensure its efficiency. Rather, we must closely monitor the implementation of the act, as well as the activities of the various organizations, and the departmental policies. Since the environment and health departments are the two responsible for the implementation of the act, it is essential that they both send experts to testify before the committee. This will enable us to better check and monitor how the act is being implemented.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides the necessary tools to protect the environment. It includes both preventive and corrective measures. We, members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, must see to what extent these tools are being used. It should be remembered that the Department of the Environment has a budget of close to three quarters of a billion dollars. With that kind of money, some great things can surely be achieved.

Our review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will certainly give us an opportunity to determine whether these goals and objectives have been achieved after five years of implementation. This act was sanctioned on June 28, 1988. Its ultimate goal was to help Canadians enjoy a healthy environment. It replaced and broadened the Environmental Contaminants Act. The new act has led to uniform guidelines, standards and regulations across the country.

I should explain some of its provisions to help people better understand what the Environmental Protection Act stands for.

When it came into effect five years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was aimed chiefly at regulating toxic products. It listed the products that were considered to be harmful to the environment, as well as the implementing regulations and standards designed to ensure that these products are used wisely.

Another part of the act banned other toxic products that were not listed so that any product entering or made in Canada had to undergo a review to determine whether it should be included in the list of toxic products.

The act emphasizes what we call toxic products. One of the deficiencies we will have to address is that the act does not contain any reference to the concept of sustainable development.

The people who introduced the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 1988 were certainly full of good intentions, but the concept of sustainable development was not yet in force. In reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will surely give the principle of sustainable development all the importance it deserves.

In explaining this to you, I will avoid explaining the whole Act, and I will conclude right away, because we have a little agreement with my friends opposite so that they too can conclude on this. That is why I would like to say that it is rather strange that under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the minister is supposed to make an annual report on how it was applied and on the state of the environment.

This was probably the favourite argument trotted out by Liberal members of the environment committee when we talked about the environment commissioner. The Liberals then put

forward their argument that an environment commissioner would issue an annual report on the environment, which is already being done.

But we will surely be able to discuss it when the Act is reviewed. I now want to particularly emphasize the importance of working non-stop for the environment. A report published a few days ago by Statistics Canada, on Human Activities and the Environment, 1994, which we had a chance to read this week, leaves me and, I am sure, other hon. members uncertain as to whether the money invested in the environment is well spent.

It says that Canada is among the top seven producers of waste per capita. With nearly $2 billion spent on the environment by all federal departments, Canada should do better in this regard.

In the review of the Act which the committee is about to undertake, we absolutely must consider the many international conventions signed by Canada. A reform is already required to avoid overlapping among the various agencies of the Department of the Environment. These overlaps often cost taxpayers too much.

To conclude, as I said before, this review must absolutely not overlook the concept of sustainable development adopted by Canada since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act took effect. This law is the key to environmental protection and it is essential that it achieve the objectives set by Quebecers and Canadians.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to speak to such an act. In fact it is one of the few times times since coming to the House of Commons that I have been able to congratulate the government for at least initiating a process that should do Canada so well. In my role I end up critiquing a lot of things that happen in the government and I do not have a lot of good things to say at times. But this time I do.

It is really time to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Many of the things I am going to speak about today will exemplify just what I am talking about.

In looking yesterday at a report from StatsCanada about Canada's environment, which I want to quote from, I would emphasize what the changes to this act could do to help Canadians.

Some of the comments that I get from the StatsCanada report are as follows: Canada is among the top five producers per capita in the world of industrial and household garbage, and among the highest in the production of hazardous waste. That comment speaks for itself. It is so very important that we deal with the issues at hand such as the Environmental Protection Act, and that is what this does in fact.

In 1991 each Canadian generated about 360 kilograms of urban solid waste. That is one heck of a lot of solid waste. This is not just disposed of ad hoc, it has to be controlled, monitored, legislated.

Ontario leads in the production of hazardous waste in Canada. Its total output ranks far above and ahead of some other industrialized nations such as Japan. I believe British Columbia is well up there as well, but Ontario with its large population looks at hazardous waste in a way that must be examined by the Environmental Protection Act.

Canada, Australia and the United States generate between 360 and 828 kilograms of urban solid waste per person each year. That is just astonishing. Much of the waste in Canada consists of plastics, packaging and newspapers, which must be collected and disposed of at municipal facilities. It is just not the Canadian act that is at stake here, there are other environmental agencies in different levels of government that must be examined as well. This emphasizes the importance of the committee discussing, relating and working with all these different layers of government when it examines this act.

Canada is also a major producer of hazardous wastes, which are substances posing a risk to human health or the environment, and requiring special disposal techniques to make them harmless or less dangerous. In 1991 Canada generated about 5,770 kilograms of hazardous waste for each million U.S. of gross domestic product. That again is just an astonishing number when you think about what kind of hazardous waste is coming from our country.

I have a few other comments and then I will get on to my local area in Fraser Valley West. In 1991, about one-half of Canadian households had access to curbside or depot recycling services. This access varied greatly across the country; access to recycling was highest in Ontario, which it should be congratulated for. British Columbia ranked second in paper recycling which is available at 64 per cent of households.

We are doing what we can but there is a lot more to do. I sincerely hope that when the environmental committee meets, as the minister said a little while ago, that she is going to give authority to this committee to investigate, look and discuss all of these issues and report back.

It is important to remember that when this committee reports back to the House and to the minister that the minister take positive action. I could stand here and complain about the input that we have received across the country relative to the Young Offenders Act where we see an act that was designed and is weak, to say the least-I used the word flaccid. I sincerely hope when we get into this act and these changes that we do not cop out like we did in the Young Offenders Act.

We have talked about what the act covered, the regulation of toxic substances, priority substances. My colleague who spoke earlier this morning discussed those in some detail and I do not plan to do that here. Substances new to Canada, export-import toxic substances and waste, regulation, cleaning agents, water conditioners, nutrients, international air pollution, ocean dumping; this is a very sweeping act indeed and it is incumbent upon us to give it very detailed study.

I want to take this opportunity to spend a few minutes and discuss a serious environmental problem in Fraser Valley West. Fraser Valley West is an area nestled against the mountains in British Columbia. It encompasses the communities of Langley, Aldergrove, and Matsqui.

We are also the home of the Abbotsford International Air Show. I can remember in the early eighties standing on the tarmac in Abbotsford and looking up at Mount Baker which is just a pristine beautiful mountain, snow capped all year round. You could see it as clearly as any clear day on the ocean. Today there is this brown haze over our community that is not just disgusting but it is scary. It is scary for most people in our community. We are fearful for our young. We are fearful for those who have asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases.

It is nothing in my community to walk outside after two or three days of not cleaning off your patio furniture, for instance, and getting this black scourge that comes from the air. Washing homes is a common reality in the Fraser Valley. Air pollution is a serious concern there.

If there is any one thing we will be watching from my perspective from the Fraser Valley it will be this air pollution that is a serious problem.

The cause is by and large the air drifting from the ocean over Vancouver and the clouds in the air nestling up against the mountains, dropping back, and dropping the contents in our community. A lot of it is a result of vehicle emissions.

Although the provincial government has done its best to look at vehicle emissions it still remains a significant problem. Therefore on behalf of the parents, the children and everybody else in our community I will be watchdogging this aspect of the environmental act very carefully.

The other thing in our community that is very much a concern is water quality. We have many farms in our beautiful riding. The water quality has been proven in some cases and some areas to be quite deficient and people have been unable to drink it.

What do we want to see out of this? Our vision for the future is inspired by the importance to our well-being of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I would like to remind members that-

I just want to remind members that the microphones on our desks are very sensitive and when people close by the person who has the floor speaks, it does sometimes get picked up on the microphones. It certainly blurs my capacity and possibly the capacity of other members to hear correctly and clearly.

I would ask those members seated near the Chair to remember that the microphones are very sensitive. Therefore, if they wish to carry on a conversation, perhaps they should-

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that was not intentional. These gentlemen were listening so intently to what I had to say which I think I just excited them a little bit.

The Reform Party strongly supports ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants live in a clean and healthy environment. We are working on environmental policies that go much more in depth than what many may think and understand.

The environment is a national concern. I am sure it is a concern of the parties in the House today.

We support the concept of a public education program of environmentally conscious purchasing. In fact we believe the federal government should take a leadership role in that environmentally conscious purchasing while encouraging the private sector to follow. That is absolutely necessary. So often today we talk, talk, talk and we legislate from a government perspective but we do not lead by example.

We have to meet the needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet the needs of the future. In other words, we are looking for some action now and we cannot compromise the legislative things we are doing for the future. We need a long term perspective on this environmental program.

We believe environmental considerations must carry equal weight with the economic, social and technical considerations of any project that is put into place. It is a major step forward if we can finally judge things not just on the economics and the social viability but on the environmental viability as well. All programs, whether government or private industry, should make that assessment.

I have some other things to say, but before my time runs out I want to read something that I read in the House not too long ago in statements. I think it bears repeating. It was given to me by a young lady who very much believes in the improvement and the

quality of her environment. I read it several times and it touched me so much that I think it should be repeated again.

The words on this document are actually printed in a circle as though they were a small ball. It states: "If the earth were only a few feet in diameter, floating a few feet above a field somewhere, people would come from everywhere to marvel at it. People would walk around it, marvelling at its big pools of water, its little pools of water flowing between the pools. People would marvel at the bumps on it, at the holes in it, and they would marvel at the very thin layer of gas surrounding it and the water suspended in the gas. People would marvel at all the creatures walking around the surface of the ball and at the creatures in the water. People would declare it as sacred because it was the only one and they would protect it so that it would not be hurt. The ball would be the greatest wonder known and people would come to pray to it, to be healed, to gain knowledge, to know beauty and to wonder how it could be. People would love it and defend it with their lives because they would somehow know that their lives, their own roundness, could be nothing without. If the earth were only a few feet in diameter".

I think that says it all about environmental legislation. What we have here is only one precious resource in the universal globe. It is somewhat like a ball. We would cherish it so much if it were that size, but today to some extent we do not cherish it enough.

Finally there are several other items I want to talk about on where the Reform Party comes from in establishing some policy. We support the establishment of clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters to reduce duplication, confusion and unnecessary regulation. We know this exists today. I sincerely hope the committee addresses that major important point.

The Reform Party supports promoting partnerships with provincial governments, private industry, our educational institutions and the public to promote environmental protection. The Reform Party supports the development of environmental regulations through consultation with industry and the public.

There is another item and that is ozone depletion. Much has been said about ozone depletion. In fact there are those who say it is not a problem at all. There are still no accurate measurements available today to determine whether or not ozone depletion is a fact or a myth. Conclusions that have been drawn about ozone depletion are based upon inaccurate computer models. Whether or not one believes the ozone layer is depleted, it is conclusive the items we use in society today do nothing but harm to our environment. Another issue is that of hazardous materials, whether they are considered commercially hazardous or industrially hazardous materials. It is another issue the committee should give great consideration to.

I would congratulate the government this one time for at least initiating something that will be very positive to communities throughout the country. I look forward to some action being taken that is positive, and if it is not many of us from the Reform Party in particular will be watchdogging it very closely.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my address to the House I want to thank my colleagues from Terrebonne and Fraser Valley for having graciously accepted to cut their time so that some of us on the Liberal side could speak at least 10 minutes.

I notice that it is 1.05 p.m. Would I be able to ask for the consent of the House to extend the debate by just a few minutes after 1.30 p.m. so that the three of us could have 10 minutes each?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In the spirit of the suggestion by the parliamentary secretary-I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth; correct me if I stray too far-my understanding would be that the parliamentary secretary, the member for Cumberland-Colchester and the member for Davenport would each speak for 10 minutes without questions or comments and we would conclude at 1.35 p.m. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues.

In the last 50 years since the end of the war, that is, in the latter part of this century, man has conquered space, broken the sound barrier, walked on the moon and plumbed the depths of the oceans. In a few brief seconds, we can send documents around the world. In our homes, our televisions give us a front row seat to global events.

Truly remarkable, even extraordinary, technological advances have taken place during the second half of this century.

And yet, according to an eminent scientist from Harvard University by the name of Edward Wilson, during this same time span, the earth's environment has suffered the most damage since the dinosaur age.

Each year, 27 million acres of forests, an area twice the size of Nova Scotia, are devastated. Desertification swallows up 15 million acres each year, an area slightly larger the Nova Scotia. Some three billion inhabitants of this planet do not have adequate sanitation facilities. More than one billion people do not have clean drinking water.

In 1930 the world was producing 7 million tonnes of chemicals; in 1950 just after the war, 7 million tonnes of chemicals; in 1970, 63 million tonnes of chemicals; and in 1985, 250 million tonnes of chemicals. In this decade of the 1990s the world will be producing 500 million tonnes of chemicals. According to UNEP statistics this figure is likely to double every decade from now on.

All of us enjoy the benefits of the use of chemicals. Our telephones, our appliances and our homes contain all sorts of products derived from chemicals. What we failed to do as a people, as a society, as all societies around the world, was to assess the impact of the use of chemicals before we started to produce them. The objective of CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is to control the management of toxic substances from their creation right through to elimination. The act is now five years old.

After five years we must address the following questions. Is the act as effective as it could be? What must members of the House and of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommend and do to eliminate the 11 critical toxic substances flagged by the International Joint Commission as the most harmful and hazardous to human health? What must we do to deal with the hundreds and thousands of other toxic substances that bioaccumulate every day in our streams and ecosystems and that destroy our environment?

I would suggest that we need a two tier approach. First we need to control and to eliminate gradually and as soon as possible existing toxic substances that have accumulated and continue to fester our lakes, our streams, our air and our land. At the same time as these exist, all over our countryside there lies toxic waste at the bottom of our streams and on our land. We have to prevent disasters from arising.

Sadly enough I experienced a disaster in Saint-Basile-le-Grand a few years ago. For three weeks thousands of people had to be moved from their homes because of a PCB fire. We have to make sure that environmental catastrophes arising from toxic substances already produced are controlled and that disasters are avoided.

We must make sure above all not to add to what is already in our ecosystems and in the atmosphere. We must use all our laws in an intelligent way through co-ordinated action. We must use impact assessment clauses intelligently enough to assess our programs, our policies, our activities and our advance planning to arrive together at prevention because prevention is the cure.

We must use the act intelligently so that a national prevention policy takes place that ensures our industries use clean technologies and closed loop technologies in manufacturing processes to prevent toxic substances from reaching the atmosphere and the ecosystems.

Above all, we must have an integrated approach and muster all resources in the system. We must realize that we cannot do anything about the environment without talking about health, we cannot do anything about the economy without talking about the environment and we can do nothing at all without talking about education, since education forms the very basis of any action in our society. All the elements of a societal policy are tied together, and the environment, the functioning of the ecosystems, is at the root of all this. We must therefore have an ecosystemic approach and involve all those concerned, not only the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government but all stakeholders in our society, including industry, academics, environmental groups and the public.

That is why I want to strongly support this initiative of the hon. ministers of health and the environment who are giving us, in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, considerable leeway to consult all Canadian stakeholders to upgrade this act which is the basis of our environmental policy regarding toxic substances.

Together, we must work relentlessly to successfully eliminate toxic substances from our environment because the environment knows no political boundaries. This is a golden opportunity for all of us, from the various political parties, to co-operate to achieve a common goal.

The environment after all is a matter of equity.

In closing, I would like to quote the great British theologist, David Attenborough: "As far as we are aware we are the only human beings in the black immensities of the universe. We are alone in space. And the fate of our planet and indeed of all of us is in our own hands".

I suggest that these hands must be caring hands, must be helping hands, must be hands that work very hard to build a society where equity and environmental justice are synonymous, where we build, we conserve, we preserve, we enhance nature, the ecosystems that provide life and living and not destroy them because the environment from start to finish is a matter of living and of quality of life.

We owe it not only to ourselves but especially to generations to follow that we do a very, very positive, concerted job among all of us to reform CEPA in the most effective way possible.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today starts from the premise that the health condition of air, water, soil and atmosphere as we all agree is an indispensable precondition for a sustained economy and a healthy nation. The

question that arises is whether federal policies are helping in this respect and whether our values in society do so.

Today's debate on this environmental protection act is intended to come to grips with this question and to lay the foundation for our work in the months ahead.

The hon. member for Frontenac referred to the blue planet which we share. He said that we are all in the same boat, and I fully agree with him. However, I wonder how he can, in the same breath, allude to federal intrusions and accuse Ottawa of interfering in provincial affairs. When it comes to the environment, we cannot stoop to politicking.

I also want to say that I really appreciated the comments made by the hon. member for Terrebonne, as well as the feelings he expressed. I want to thank him for his co-operation and his ideas in committee.

I would also congratulate the member for Comox-Alberni for his helpful and constructive analysis of the legislation and for his concluding remarks which will certainly guide us in our deliberations in committee.

As to the act, if we are to put our economic activities on the right track so as not to damage health, natural resources and our long term economic prospects, I suggest that we must make this legislation work for the benefit of Canadians.

There are a number of points which must be noted with regard to this legislation. First, that it allow the ministers of the environment and health and welfare broad powers to gather detailed information about toxic substances from manufacturers, importers, transporters, distributors and users.

Second, this legislation requires the compilation of a priority substance list of suspect toxins for which assessment priority must be given and assessment reports prepared with intent of control by national regulation.

Third, if the government adds the names of toxic substances to the list then the government has broad regulatory powers to control all aspects including manufacturing, importing, exporting, packaging, labelling, transportation and storage. Persons who fail to give the required information or to comply with this regulation are liable to conviction of up to a $1 million fine or up to three years in prison and or both.

Fourth, a limitation in the legislation is the broad ministerial discretion to name substances to the priority list and to recommend regulatory action. There are an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 chemicals manufactured or imported into Canada. What constitutes a manageable number of chemicals for assessment priority is in itself a big challenge.

Fifth, where a substance has been on the priority substance list for five years and not yet assessed, any person may request a board of review but the resultant report would be recommendatory only. Only 44 substances have been listed over the past six years under the appropriate schedule of this act and subject to very limited regulations.

In March a number of organizations filed notices of objections because of 44 substances assessed under the priority substance list. Eleven were deemed neither toxic nor non-toxic because of the lack of data. These organizations argue that this unproven status violates section 14 of the act which states that within five years all substances on the priority substance list must be assessed and that the ministers have not fulfilled their statutory duty. These organizations can expect a board of review to investigate these 11 specific cases.

Then there is the international joint commission concerning the Great Lakes. It recommends: one, the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes, including the use of chlorine and chlorine containing compounds as chemical feed stocks in industry; two, the elimination of other chlorine uses or at least their reduction and, three, a shift in the onus of proof. Instead of government or the public having to prove that a product is dangerous, why not have the manufacturers prove that the product or substance is not harmful? In addition the commission is urging industry to re-evaluate both the material and processes it uses.

At this stage the precautionary principle comes to mind as adopted in Rio 1992 in the declaration which reads: "When there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The question is: Should this principle be included in the environment protection legislation?

There are in this legislation a number of hurdles to speedy action. Before regulations for toxic substances are imposed by cabinet a federal-provincial advisory committee must have an opportunity to tender its advice. If the Minister of the Environment and a provincial government agree that the province and the federal government regulations for a toxic substance are equivalent and both governments have similar investigative provisions, cabinet may declare that the federal regulations are non-applicable in that province. The application of this concept of equivalency continues to be controversial.

No wonder, I repeat no wonder, that as of today over the last six years not one such agreement has been entered into. A number of reasons account for the delay in implementation and provincial reticence among them to admit to any federal authority coupled with an overriding concern with a capacity for

control through the powers flowing from the constitutional concepts and precepts of peace, order and good government.

Next is the international scene. Where there is a reason to believe that an air contaminant in Canada is creating pollution in another country or violating an international agreement, the Minister of the Environment can recommend prohibitions or controls by way of regulations. However except for federal works or undertakings the minister is not allowed to make a recommendation unless consultations occur with the province where pollution is occurring as to whether regulatory steps may be taken under provincial laws.

The minister must endeavour to bring about provincial prevention or control if possible. Any federal regulation passed to control international air pollution may be made inapplicable to a province where equivalent provisions and investigative provisions and procedures are in place.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite a jungle to walk your way through, you will admit.

To conclude, this legislation of course is part of a broader picture. The parliamentary secretary has just given us a terrific framework against which we ought to approach this legislation. It is just one instrument in which we placed a lot of faith when producing it in 1987 and 1988.

Today we have to ask ourselves some tough questions, whether it can work, whether the idea of equivalency can be made to work, whether in the experience gathered so far it is sufficient to enable us and the legislators of today to conclude that CEPA can be improved by way of amendments or whether we need to start thinking of an alternative piece of legislation that would achieve the goal of environmental sustainability but through different means.

We are all aware of the significance of the assignment that the government has given to the committee. I am sure that the collective wisdom of all members of all parties in this House will help us to come back eventually with a report that will be for the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, maintaining a healthy environment is as sacred a duty as maintaining the health of our bodies.

The 18th century poets continually wrote about man and nature, the harmony that must exist between the two to find inner peace. As a girl growing up in Atlantic Canada in the 1950s, we were very much aware, very directly involved in nature: today, the environment.

As I so fondly remember, nearly every Sunday afternoon was spent cruising timber lands hand selecting each tree that was ready for harvest based on size, age, disease, overgrowth or whatever else of this evidence there was to the eyes and to the touch of the experienced lumbermen, the experienced logger.

My father was a lumberman in rural New Brunswick. My brother carries on the lumbering business today as his sons will in decades to come when he is gone. This is the saga of sustainability, taking enough natural resource today to meet one's needs but leaving enough for the next generation to sustain its needs.

Although it was never called sustainable development, that is exactly what it was and it was practised best by the aboriginal people, the First Nations people of this country. In rural Canada, many lumbermen, many fishermen and farmers did the same thing.

The saying went among the older people: "If you look after the earth, the earth will look after you". Mother nature has paid the bills for Canadians, in particular Atlantic Canadians, for centuries and today we have fished the seas dry. We have cut the forests. It is mother earth that has sustained this Canadian lifestyle through need and then through a period of greed we lost sight of our real basic resource.

Through greed and desire for economic growth we lost the balance, the harmony between man and his environment. Yet those committed environmentalists who have badgered the society for the last two decades are the ones whom we have to thank for creating the public awareness and sensitizing us to the urgency of maintaining the health of the environment. They have urged us to solve the problems through policies and regulations that achieve sustainable resources and sustainable environment. That is the implementation of conservation.

In many instances, we do not agree completely with the purist environmentalists. However we must acknowledge that it was they who through their persistent determination that caused legislatures to focus on a sustainable economy within a sustainable environment.

In the forest sector Canada is a leading example of applying the challenge of sustainable development, of balancing the environment and the economy. We must through this legislation today study the bill and take on the process of doing business and cost of maintaining the environment and the cost of the economy.

Through our national focus, forest strategy and model forests and through research we will demonstrate international leadership.

I do not claim to speak on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, but I do believe it is her intent to let the world know that Canada's forestry industry is working in partnership with the environment and that we will be the leaders in sustainable forestry.

We will work through new federal and provincial pulp and paper regulations. There are mills, such as the Scott paper mill in Nova Scotia, that discharge effluent into the waterways. Scott Maritime Limited has been one of those mills. It has been discharging effluent into Boat Harbour.

Stakeholders meetings are scheduled for June. Fishermen, aboriginal representatives and environmental groups will meet to identify and resolve these problems.

We will establish leadership through land use and through resource conflicts, through utilization of technology and research to manage these forests. Through increased demands and through the U.S. legislation of recycled products we are meeting the demands of using recycled paper. We will harmonize legislation to the federal government and the provinces in environmental acts.

Above all we will deal with public concern over the impact of forest practices. For example, clear cutting is not always as bad as it may appear. Cosmetically it does not look good and we are appalled at what we see. But depending on the growth stand, the species diversity, the slope and other variables, it may be the best choice for the ecosystem involved and environmental protection.

Forests are increasingly seen as a global resource. Given time, I personally believe we will have international legislation on global resources such as forestry to protect the global society. Canada can lead the global debate on sustainable development and global resources. Being the sensible nation we are, Canadians are well positioned to emerge as world leaders with environmental technology phasing in sustainable development.

The Canadian forest sector employs more than 730,000. We are the world's largest exporter of forest products and the Canadian forest is a backdrop for more than a $26 billion tourism and recreation industry.

Not only is the forest the key to Canada's economy and trade, it is vital to our health by cleaning the air, specifically by combating global warming. Did you know that use of fossil fuels to power cars, heat homes and produce electricity contributes to global warming? Few Canadians are aware that burning one gallon of gasoline, eight pounds, sucks 12 pounds of oxygen from the air. Then it releases 20 pounds of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere and we depend on our green plants and our trees to absorb this carbon dioxide and fix it into the woody tissue.

We appreciate the value of our trees. That is why today in Nova Scotia we still practise Arbour Day in the month of May having every elementary school child go out and plant a tree. Sustainability begins with one single person planting one single tree in one single community.

We look at renewable resources such as tidal power in Nova Scotia. The Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world in which technology is present whereby we can take those tides and turn turbines as the water churns through and generate electricity. This is a natural phenomena. This puts out no pollution and it costs no money to harness the tide. There is a large capital cost and it will not be done in the immediate future as we have a surplus of energy at the present time. However I look forward in the future to bringing tidal power into the debate of this House as a renewable source of energy.

This government has just introduced an infrastructure program of some $2 billion throughout the provinces. In my riding of Cumberland-Colchester we set up 10 projects through our municipalities. Each and every one of these projects was a pollution abatement project, or a sewage treatment plant, or fresh water.

When we developed a clean water system in the town of Truro, we also made donations from our construction people and our municipal government to CUSO and Watercan to set up a fresh supply of water in a third world country. This was co-operation. This is sustainability for a global society.

In closing, it is the policy of this government coming from the throne speech of January 18 to promote sustainable development as an integral component of decision making at all levels of society. Special emphasis will be placed on pollution prevention and the development of green infrastructures and industries and their associated high technology jobs.

The Canadian environmental assessment act will be proclaimed. We must be vigilant caretakers of this earth to protect the future of our youth. It is their inheritance. The challenge belongs to all of us in this House and as legislators we must be held responsible for our future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to pick up on the theme of co-operation and thank all members this afternoon for the co-operation demonstrated to one another so that as many of you as possible could speak on this important debate in the limited time we had.

I have barely a minute before I have to close the debate. I would simply like to ask: Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon this House why I believe this private member's Bill C-240 must be supported by all members of this House. I will start by relating one offender's history as outlined by Ian MacLeod of the Ottawa Citizen .

On the night of June 17, 1988, 11-year old Christopher Stephenson was kidnapped from a Brampton shopping mall. His kidnapper was 45-year old Joseph Fredericks. Fredericks took Christopher to his nearby rented room, walking right by Christopher's house. Once in the room Fredericks proceeded to torture and rape Christopher over the next 24 hours. The next evening Fredericks took Christopher into a wooded area where he choked him into unconsciousness and then stabbed him in the neck. Christopher bled to death.

As terrifying as this story is, it is made doubly worse by the fact that Fredericks was a known and convicted pedophile. Prior to his murdering Christopher Stephenson, many psychiatric and corrections officials believed it was only a matter of time before Fredericks struck again. Despite this belief, officials felt that there was little they could do and there was little that they could do, until he killed Christopher Stephenson. With the crime committed, Fredericks was quickly arrested, convicted of first-degree murder and received a life sentence without parole for 25 years.

Today society can rest somewhat easier knowing that Joseph Fredericks will never pose a threat to any more children. However, this assurance is not due to any law or court decision or efforts by Correctional Services Canada or by the National Parole Board. No, the threat posed by Joseph Fredericks was removed in January 1992 by another inmate at Kingston Penitentiary who stabbed Fredericks to death.

The death of Christopher Stephenson could have ended there like so many unfortunate murders of other children. But due to pressure by Christopher's parents, Jim and Anna Stephenson, a coroner's inquest was called to examine how Fredericks could have been walking the streets of their community and in a position to kidnap their son. For five months in 1992 the inquest heard testimony about Joseph Roger Fredericks.

Fredericks' background is not a pretty one. Born in Ottawa in 1943 Fredericks was handed to the Children's Aid Society nine months after his birth. For the next nine years he bounced from one Ottawa area foster home to another. By the summer of 1953 after a brief stint at St. Joseph's Training School for Boys the 10-year old Fredericks was a constant runaway and in trouble with the police.

By the time he was 11, Fredericks had committed his first sexual assault. Between 1954 and 1959 Fredericks committed several sexual misdemeanours with younger children at the Ontario hospital school in Smiths Falls. In addition to the sexual misdemeanours, Fredericks also escaped and sexually assaulted an 11-year old girl. On another occasion he threatened a 9-year old boy at gunpoint.

In April 1959 Fredericks was shipped to the maximum security Oak Ridge unit at the Penetanguishene mental health centre after being diagnosed as a psychopathic homosexual pedophile. He would spend most of the next 24 years there.

When he turned 20 Fredericks was transferred to a minimum security facility, but he escaped within a month. While on the loose he sexually assaulted a 6-year old girl at knifepoint and committed buggery on a 15-year old at gunpoint. Since he was already incarcerated under the Mental Health Act Fredericks was not criminally charged for these acts.

After being transferred back to the maximum security facility at Oak Ridge he told a doctor he wished he had killed that little girl. For the next 16 years Fredericks remained at Oak Ridge undergoing drug therapy. For 18 months beginning in late 1979 he received heavy doses of a tranquillizer to control his sex drive. However doctors believe he was taking the drug only to appear well enough to be transferred to a lower security institution.

In September 1980 Fredericks was transferred to a more open psychiatric hospital in St. Thomas. While there he sexually assaulted a mentally handicapped childlike female patient. This attack got Fredericks sent back to Oak Ridge. Diagnosed as a sociopath and a violent homosexual pedophile Fredericks was certified as an involuntary patient under Ontario's Mental Health Act. However, since psychopathy is not considered a mental disorder it became more and more difficult to keep him certified.

There were only two ways that Fredericks could have been confined indefinitely: by being unfit to stand trial, or found not guilty by reason of insanity. For that he could have been kept indefinitely at a psychiatric hospital, or he could have been declared to have been a dangerous offender under the Criminal Code. Either way Fredericks would first have to commit another criminal offence.

Well, it did not take him long. Within days of leaving the Oak Ridge facility in 1983, Fredericks sexually assaulted a 10-year old boy and a 15-year old girl at knifepoint. Despite all his previous sexual assaults he had no official criminal record. Therefore, he only received a 22-month sentence and was sent to a minimum security provincial jail in Brampton. Within a year he was sent to the maximum security Millbrook Correctional Centre near Peterborough because of behavioural problems.

In August 1984 Fredericks was granted day parole and sent to an Ottawa halfway house. For the first time in 30 years he was living outside an institution. Even though a condition of his parole was to receive treatment for pedophilia at the Royal Ottawa Hospital arrangements were never made at that hospital. Despite warnings that Fredericks would continue attacking children, parole officers were never told of the dangers he presented.

Only 10 days after arriving in Ottawa Fredericks came across an 11-year old boy and sodomized him. After his arrest the crown attorney wanted to have Fredericks declared a dangerous offender. He certainly had the evidence. Dr. John Bradford from the Royal Ottawa Hospital and one of the country's leading experts on sexual offenders called Fredericks the worst and most sadistic and most impulsive pedophile he had seen. But the sexual assault victim's parents did not want their son to go through the ordeal of testifying, so the crown accepted a plea bargain from Fredericks lawyer for a 5-year sentence. The dangerous offender application was abandoned. Three years into a sentence Fredericks was transferred to a halfway house in Toronto. Once again, none of the sexual assaults that occurred while he was a psychiatric patient appeared on his criminal record.

Part of Fredericks' release plan included his participation in a hospital sex therapy program, the taking of a sex drive suppressant drug and an order to stay away from children. His parole officer was unaware that Fredericks was trying to coach a children's sports team at a nearby security centre. However before anything could happen another parolee at a different halfway house raped and murdered a Toronto woman.

In response to public outrage the federal Solicitor General ordered that all violent and sexual offenders on parole in Toronto halfway houses were to be removed. Three weeks later Fredericks was released again, this time on mandatory supervision and he chose to move to the Brampton area.

Prior to his release all four members of the case management team believed there was a high probability that Fredericks would commit another crime. Three months later Fredericks picked up a knife, headed for the local mall and spotted Christopher Stephenson.

In January 1993 the coroner's jury made 71 recommendations to help prevent such tragic deaths as Christopher's. Chief among the recommendations was a call for a new law to keep violent predators behind bars after their prison terms expired if they still pose a public risk. Then Solicitor General Doug Lewis announced that he hoped to have such a law in Canada by the end of June 1993. The legislation was never introduced by the Conservative government as its leadership convention disrupted the legislative agenda.

One year later the need for this legislation has not decreased. The recent release of Larry Fisher from a British Columbia prison is another example of the need for such legislation. Here we have an individual who was sentenced to a total of 23 years for raping seven women.

While incarcerated he refused to participate in any treatment programs. The National Parole Board considered him to be such a threat to society that they denied him statutory release.

Larry Fisher served every single day of his 23-year sentence. Two weeks ago his sentence was over. Larry Fisher walked out of a prison a free man, a completely free man. He is not under any form of community supervision. He does not report to a parole officer or the police. He does not have to inform anyone where he is living or travelling to.

He is creating a lot of frightened people. This past weekend he was spotted in Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and very quickly citizens' groups sprang up to get him out of their town. Four thousand homemade posters with Fisher's picture, criminal record and a description of his vehicle were displayed at grocery stores, gas stations, convenience stores and restaurants. Schools were asked to make the students aware of Fisher's presence. On Sunday Fisher was on his way out of town apparently on his way to Edmonton.

These are just two examples of individuals who should have been designated dangerous offenders, but since it was not done at the time of the original conviction it could not be done later. In one instance they had to wait for Fredericks to commit another crime and it was a fatal one. With Fisher only time will tell.

Some may ask how widespread will this legislation be. Not very. This legislation is designed only for the most dangerous inmates in our system. There are currently about 13,000 federal inmates incarcerated in Canada and another 9,500 on some form of community release programs.

According to the correctional service only 111 are classified as dangerous offenders. In addition there are currently 115 offenders who are being detained; that is, they have been denied statutory release. It is these individuals who 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 the Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board to deem them too dangerous to be released into society.

In essence, this legislation is designed for only the most dangerous 1 per cent of the current federal inmate population. What will this legislation do with these individuals? It gives us an opportunity to prevent further tragedies. It gives us the ability to obtain post sentence detention orders.

The process uses every conceivable check and balance. First, as an offender nears the end of his sentence, the correctional service shall refer the case of an individual it deems to be dangerous to the National Parole Board.

Second, after reviewing the case and if in agreement with the referral from the correctional service, the National Parole Board may in turn refer the case to the attorney general of the province in which the offender was most recently sentenced for a serious personal injury offence. This referral cannot take place more than one year prior to the expiration of the offender's sentence.

Third, if the attorney general is in agreement, then a dangerous offender application can be made. The requirements for an application will be the same as they are for current dangerous offender legislation under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

Fourth, on hearing the application the court may find an offender to be a dangerous offender.

Under this legislation before an individual is deemed to be a dangerous offender, one needs the unanimous agreement of the Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, the provincial attorney general and the court. I suggest that if all these four bodies together come to the conclusion that an offender is a dangerous offender the individual should be declared one.

Members may be asking what happens to an offender once he has been labelled a dangerous offender. The court may make one of the following orders; first, that the offender be detained in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, second, that at the expiration of the offender's current sentence, he may be detained for a determinant period and then may subsequently be released under community supervision for a period of not more than 10 years, subject to any conditions that the court may prescribe.

Third, he may be released under community supervision for a period of 10 years and subject to any conditions that the court may prescribe. Thus there is a great deal of judicial discretion on how the offender is dealt with. What we would avoid happening is what occurred in the Fisher case where he was kept until the end of his sentence and then released with absolutely no supervision.

There is one other major aspect to this bill. For an individual to be declared a dangerous offender today, the crown must show that the offender is likely to commit an offence causing the death or serious bodily harm to another person. Bill C-240 would remove this necessity in those cases that involve sexual offences against children.

The reason for this change is twofold. First, the actual harm to child victims of sexual assault may not be apparent for several years and second, given a child's limited ability to clearly communicate the effects of a sexual crime, serious harm is very difficult to detect.

I have outlined the problem and in true Reform fashion I have provided the House with an alternative. I believe this bill is fair and balanced. It cannot be used in a haphazard manner or on a whim. While some may argue that it infringes on the offender's charter of rights, I respond that this bill does not create new dangerous offender legislation. It only changes the timing when it can be applied.

The change as it applies to pedophiles where there is no longer a need to prove serious harm I believe is long overdue and is a significant step in protecting our children. For those who argue that this is just another Reform Party attempt to lock them up and throw away the key I remind them that the indeterminate sentence is only one of three options. Quite frankly, there are people in our prisons who deserve to have the key thrown away on them. But most important, I believe that this bill adds to the level of protection of society. It corrects what has been a flaw in the system and unfortunately it has been a fatal flaw.

I believe that if this bill can save even one life then it is worth it.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that although I support the objectives of Bill C-240, I strongly object to its approach, since it has a number of deficiencies and is a contradiction of the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The present government is committed to making public safety one of its priorities, and an important part of this commitment consists in taking steps to respond to the concerns raised by high risk violent offenders.

The bill would allow post-sentence detention of such criminals, based on current provisions in the Criminal Code for dangerous offenders serving the last year of their sentence.

Some of you may recall that the provisions of Bill C-240 on post-sentence detention were among the proposals tabled by the previous government in this House in May 1993. The proposals were given thorough consideration by a wide range of groups and individuals and were carefully examined by a federal-provincial-territorial task force, created specifically to find ways

to improve the protection of the public against high-risk violent offenders.

Consultations were conducted in August and September 1993 and ministry officials met with more than 200 groups in 44 separate consultative sessions. Included in those sessions were representatives of the judiciary, defence counsel, crown prosecutors, provincial and territorial corrections and justice officials, police, victims, voluntary agencies, municipal agencies, women's groups, aboriginal groups, inmate committees, mental health professionals and academics.

While there was a general consensus on the need to do something about a small group of dangerous offenders, there was no agreement that the post-sentence proposal would right some things. There was significant support for an examination of the current dangerous offender provisions, strengthening their applicability and ensuring appropriate use of these provisions at the time of sentencing.

The vast majority of those consulted, including members of the task force on high risk violent offenders, had serious concerns about the charter implications and potential ineffectiveness of the post-sentence detention proposals.

The main concern with these proposals, Mr. Speaker, can be summarized. The proposals permit what amounts to a re-sentencing of someone who has already served his or her sentence, contrary to section 11(8) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That section states:

If finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again, and if finally found guilty and punished for the offence not to be tried or punished for it again.

There is concern that a prediction of future dangerousness would result in a violation of a person's charter rights.

There remains doubt that the proposed scheme would capture the target group of federal offenders who are identified as posing a significant risk upon release.

The requirement for new evidence of dangerousness is thought likely to have a negative impact on treatment participation. Since offenders' disclosures to treatment professionals could be used to substantiate a dangerous offender application under the post-detention sentence scheme, offenders may be reluctant to participate in treatment programs.

The expense of such proceedings is of concern to the provinces, particularly because of the requirement to link the application to the original offence, which may have occurred many years ago.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the concept of post-sentence detention has raised numerous concerns. The government recognizes that controlling high risk violent offenders is a complex problem. This requires us to look not for a single solution that will address all cases but to take a broader view of all aspects of the criminal justice process and the links between the criminal justice and mental health systems.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the federal government and the provinces share responsibility for Canada's criminal justice system, while mental health comes under provincial jurisdiction. Since the problems caused by high-risk violent offenders are a shared responsibility, it was decided to establish the federal-provincial-territorial task force on high-risk violent offenders, which I mentioned earlier.

The task force is looking into a range of legal solutions and policies for treating, managing and supervising high-risk violent offenders. We admit there is no single solution to the complex and difficult problem of violent repeat offenders and that there must be co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, especially between our criminal justice and mental health systems. That is why the task force has looked into a number of measures that would protect the public more adequately against repeat offenders who commit acts of violence and sexual assault.

I agree with the task force that even if the proposed legislation were found to be constitutional, something I do not expect because of the problems raised by dual punishment and other measures in terms of the charter, these proposals create a problem that is even worse: they would apply to a relatively limited number of the repeat offenders in question. In order to treat high risk violent offenders as effectively as possible, we must reinforce our present system for treating dangerous offenders.

It is a fact that the provinces are increasingly using the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning dangerous offenders, hence the increase in indeterminate sentencing. The provisions regarding dangerous offenders allow a judge to sentence, for an indeterminate period, an offender believed to be likely to commit other violent offences. At a March meeting of federal-provincial justice ministers, it was agreed to continue to make every effort so that such requests be presented whenever appropriate.

Moreover, the provinces are in the process of establishing a system to identify high risk violent offenders and monitor them. This information will be made available to crown prosecutors, even if offenders move to another province; this will ensure that repeat offenders do not fall through the cracks and that they will be prosecuted as dangerous offenders.

We believe that, instead of detaining offenders at the end of their sentence, as proposed in this bill, when an offender has finished serving a sentence of determinate imprisonment and is believed to be still dangerous when released, he might be committed under provincial mental health legislation. Even if the situation varies widely between provinces, they all permit mandatory confinement of persons considered a threat to themselves or others, because of mental illness.

The mental health of prisoners who are detained until the end of their sentence because the National Parole Board believes that they are too dangerous to be released, is carefully assessed to determine whether they should be committed to a psychiatric institution. If they meet the criteria, they are transferred to a provincial psychiatric hospital.

[English]

The federal-provincial task force on high risk violent offenders is looking to see if changes to provincial mental health legislation could be recommended to improve the system's ability to commit and hold mentally disordered dangerous people.

In addition it is studying the extent to which other factors such as the lack of appropriate secure facilities play a role in preventing mentally disordered dangerous people from being civilly committed. I would like to mention another initiative in this area. A federal-provincial joint action committee on corrections and mental health is reviewing operational issues related to the management of mentally disordered and sex offenders.

The mandate of the action committee is to examine alternative methods to manage, treat, and supervise offenders with a disorder be it mental, sexual or behavioural. The aim is to find solutions that bridge the correctional and mental health fields and aid in the co-ordination of effort.

In conclusion, the post sentence detention provision of Bill C-240 does not present a realistic option for our federal structure. Detaining offenders in penitentiaries after they have served their court imposed sentences raises serious charter concerns. Solutions to this problem lie with the link between the criminal justice and mental health systems.

In Canada, mental health legislation is the constitutional responsibility of the provinces and therefore the federal government cannot act alone in this area. That is why the government is committed to working closely with the provinces to find real solutions. In order to bring about meaningful, effective reform in protecting the public from the threat of high risk violent offenders, the federal and provincial governments are working together to advance solutions that tackle the problem in a comprehensive fashion.

This government is committed to the work currently under way which brings the federal and provincial governments and the criminal justice and mental health systems together to ensure the best protection for all Canadians.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to this bill presented by my colleague, the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. First, I listened carefully to her presentation and I would like to briefly comment on it.

She spent a good three quarters of her time describing fully, some details being more lurid than others, events which occurred during the last few years in Canada, and she particularly brought back to mind the tragic case of the young Stephenson boy; finally, during five minutes, at the very end of her speech, she talked about her bill.

I mention this because I personally wonder what kind of consequences might result from this constant rehashing, day after day, of such sordid cases which, in my view, give rise to heated debates and appeal to our most primal instincts. I respect my colleague's opinion of course, but I wonder. As a member of Parliament, I think it is quite proper to question our method of debating such important subjects which have an impact on the daily life of our fellow Canadians.

I want to stress that the Official Opposition believes that we must send a clear message to all Canadians saying that it is absolutely necessary for the government and Parliament to ensure the security of our children and our families and, of course, the protection of society as a whole. All necessary measures must be taken in order to reach that goal.

I also want to stress that the Official Opposition certainly does not want to leave itself open to criticism that its attitude towards cases like the one mentioned by our colleague from the Reform Party is too lenient.

No parliamentarian in this House would ever endorse such actions. The bill before us is identical to a bill introduced last year by the solicitor general of the previous government, Doug Lewis, the first objective of which was to permit the revision of the sentence, while it was being served, imposed on an individual found guilty of a violent crime, to allow for an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

Such a provision already exists in our Criminal Code, as mentioned by the hon. member for Témiscamingue a short while ago. There is, in the Criminal Code, a provision that allows the court to find an offender to be a dangerous offender and thereupon impose a sentence of imprisonment for an indetermi-

nate period, which means until we are convinced that the person is no longer a threat to society.

The difference is that the individual must be found to be a dangerous offender at the time of sentencing, whereas the bill before us would permit that at any time, even a few days before the end of the sentence, so that the individual could stay in jail all his life.

It seems to me that such a provision is contrary to fundamental principles of Canadian law, in particular the one according to which you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. In other words, case heard case tried, meaning that once you have been brought before the court for a given offence, found guilty and sentenced, you cannot be charged again with the same offence.

To act in accordance with this bill would depart from this principle. Moreover, clause 26 of the bill provides, and I quote: "The evidence relied on by the court in making a finding under subsection (2) must include evidence that could not reasonably have been presented to the court that sentenced the offender for the serious personal injury offence".

In my view, this provision departs from another principle, namely that of reasonable doubt, which is fundamental, especially in criminal law. In every court case, to be on the safe side, the judge reminds the jury that a decision must be rendered based on the fact that, if there is any doubt left in their minds, they must let the accused go free.

What this means is that, if years down the road it turns out that some evidence had not been presented to the court because the Crown had not done its job or had botched it, it would be possible to reopen the case to have the sentence extended and the offender retried on the same charges.

The Parole Board would also be given powers of investigation in that respect. The bill's sponsor would want the Parole Board not only to be permitted but required to investigate to find out if, in fact, there are further developments that warrant reopening the case.

We already know the huge workload of the parole board. I think that adding this mandate would further hinder or impede the work of the parole board and, besides, the parole board is not an investigating body. Its mandate is to rehabilitate people, criminals who for one reason or another are behind bars.

I think that this provision significantly changes the Parole Board's responsibilities.

I conclude by repeating-and this is the crux of my remarks-that we must question the approach we are now taking. It is not that the goal in itself is unacceptable or unworthy of our support. We fully agree that criminals who commit such heinous crimes should remain behind bars as long as possible or until society is assured that these people will not commit such crimes again. But I think that the current laws can now provide such assurances and properly protect society.

One final comment, Mr. Speaker, if you allow me. Such an approach must be part of a total strategy and not just an attempt to give the impression that we parliamentarians or members of this House want to act out of vengeance. It must be part of an overall strategy. That is what the former Solicitor General wanted to do when he put forward a series of measures. During these debates, I would like us to refer to this total strategy as well.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and proud to be asked to speak to private member's Bill C-240 put forth by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.

My colleague previously spoke briefly about stirring up passions and primal instincts when talking about such a subject. I guess my colleague would do well to live in a community like mine, surrounded by seven prisons and correctional institutes. He would know what passions would be in a community that has many offenders wandering the streets on day parole.

My colleague has given a picture of what ails the criminal justice system specifically in the area of detaining dangerous offenders. I would like to tell a story that illustrates just how bad things have become. Bureaucratic mismanagement in itself is not much of a story. Unfortunately people are killed in these stories, innocent people who leave behind families filled with rage and sorrow. Let me be absolutely clear that although these tales read like detective novels, the real reason we in the Reform Party are focusing on them is the human suffering caused by the criminal justice system that we feel has fallen apart. I was quite incensed today to see the justice minister stand in question period and suggest that the system is working well. It is not working well.

My first story is this one. In a basement apartment in Seattle at the end of a hallway, out of sight of windows and doorways, rests a chair. At the base of the chair is a pool of blood three inches in diameter. The trail leads upward to a stab wound in the chest of a 57-year old man slumped slightly to the right and forward. A large band of masking tape covers his mouth and the rope used to strangle him dangles loosely around his neck.

Although this may sound like fiction it is not. This is fact. It is a description taken directly from the police report and documents I have received from prosecuting attorney Norm Maleng of King County, Washington.

Why Washington? The two men charged with the first degree murder of Elijio Cantu on June 5 were escapees from a minimum security facility in the Fraser Valley where my home is. The corrections system classified these men as low risk offenders yet one of them had been convicted of attempted murder of a police

officer and had killed another inmate. The story we get from the government is that these escapes are rare and not statistically significant. I would challenge any member of the government to tell that to the family of the victim.

I have another story that comes from a woman in the same town the prison is in. Two young men walk into a pizza place in Abbotsford, British Columbia, where I live. One of them is armed with a sawed off shotgun. No one is shot during the robbery but the restaurant employee who had to stare down the business end of a sawed off shotgun testified he will never be the same. However the story does not end there.

Rosalie Turcotte's son was 19 years old when he was savagely beaten to death with a baseball bat and buried in a shallow grave near Mill Pond in Mission, British Columbia, just a few miles from my house. The young man who was recently convicted of the murder is the one who wielded the sawed off shotgun in the pizza place robbery. He was trying to silence his accomplice, Ken Turcotte, who had told his friends he wanted to confess to his mother about the robbery.

Zachary Finley who killed Rosalie Turcotte's son, Ken, will be eligible to apply for temporary absences immediately. He will be eligible to apply for day parole three full years before the date set by the judge for parole.

Zachary Finley killed Rosalie Turcotte's son, Ken, and was convicted of second degree murder which carries a maximum sentence of life with parole eligibility set at a minimum of 10 years. When the crown's request to increase that to 15 years was denied, a member of the victim's family became distraught. The convicted criminal who committed the brutal act laughed.

What does Rosalie Turcotte have to say about our criminal justice system after her ordeal? Let me quote, and I have talked to Rosalie a number of times: "This is supposed to be our system, paid for and accountable to us. How has it eroded to such a sorry state of affairs? The only ones being served by the system as it stands now are the offenders and their lawyers who are laughing all the way to the bank".

I find this funny. No, let me rephrase that. I find it ironic. It is really the criminals who find it funny. Last week I was asked to debate the head of the John Howard Society over the rights of prisoners to receive old age security, GST rebates, Canada pension plan and other payments. During that interview he was adamant, and I quote: "The prisoners are not laughing at the system". I said it then and, just in case the John Howard Society or any other prisoners rights groups are listening, I will say it again. Listen closely. They are laughing at us.

There is another story that my colleague spoke about previously but I want to indicate some more details that I have been given from certain sources. The House may have heard a bit about the saga of Larry Fisher from my colleague and in the newspapers. He has been released recently after serving his full sentence. Mr. Fisher who has reportedly been sighted in the riding of another one of my colleagues this week has a history familiar to anyone not living in a cave.

Mr. Fisher was released from his latest prison term two weeks ago. It was a 10-year sentence for the rape, stabbing and attempted strangulation of a Saskatchewan woman. Mr. Fisher has been behind bars for 23 years except for a brief taste of freedom on 1980 when he was granted escorted parole. He grabbed a 56-year old woman, dragged her into an abandoned house, raped her, stabbed her three times, slit her throat, tried to suffocate her and left her for dead. He was convicted of six previous rapes.

Let me quote from yet another significant document I have received on the parole board's official reasons for denying Mr. Fisher's parole on April 1, 1993. Mr. Speaker, note the date, April 1, 1993, April Fool's Day, and ask yourself, when I am finished with the story who is fooling whom.

At the time the board said of Mr. Fisher: "There are no significant changes to demonstrate that your release can be managed in the community on any form of conditional release or that your likelihood of reoffending and causing serious harm has been lessened in any way. Therefore detention is confirmed".

Let us jump ahead in the story to February 1994, not too long after that, the next time the board ruled on his case: "There is no new information on file to suggest that your risk of reoffending in a violent manner has been mitigated or reduced since your last review and the detention order is confirmed".

Just a few weeks later this man was released into the community because his sentence had expired. Let us think about this for a moment. After issuing two clear statements about the dangers this man would pose to society if released, the system is forced to release him anyway.

Our question is simple: Why? Why can the system not take its own advice and keep high risk offenders like this where they belong, behind bars? The criminals are laughing at the government whose members day after day stand in the House to tell a story. Their story is that the system works, everything is okay, and the Reform Party is playing politics. Our story is that the system is laughable. It is beneath contempt.

More important, I want to stress before closing that our story is not really our story. It is the story of Rosalie Turcotte who lost her son. It is the story of a man in Seattle who lost his life. It is

the story of Larry Fisher and all the people living in fear in the communities where he is sighted. Increasingly it is becoming the story of a government that has not only lost touch with reality but has lost the courage to act responsibly and to make the necessary corrections.

My colleague's bill is an excellent one. We need the courage to stand up to the naysayers, those who will do nothing, and send a clear message to the justice system that these dangerous offenders must not and cannot be allowed back on the streets until they have proven they are ready.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the bill tabled by the hon. member gives us an opportunity to address important issues central to the efforts to make Canadians safer.

We clearly need effective measures to reduce the crime rate, especially violent crime. The government is moving in that direction, as its recent legislative initiatives demonstrate. Its actions in other areas are just as important.

Today I would like to go over the progress the government has been making on the important issues of risk assessment and the treatment of offenders to better protect people in the long term.

But first I would like to consider for a few moments the situation now prevailing in federal penitentiaries, particularly the effectiveness of imprisonment as punishment. As we all know, Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, around 130 per 100,000 people on average. The number of offenders under federal responsibility has risen rapidly in the last five years. The annual increase jumped from 1.6 per cent in 1989-90 to 4 per cent in 1993-94. A 5.1 per cent increase is forecast for next year. Keep in mind that this increase is occurring at a time when federal correctional services face substantial budget cuts.

In this era of fiscal restraint, we must remember that incarceration is extremely expensive, much more in fact than the supervision of offenders in the community. It costs Canadian taxpayers $47,760 a year on average to keep an offender in jail compared with only $9,400 to keep him under supervision in society for the same period of time.

We must therefore resort to incarceration only to the extent necessary to protect the public. While it is true that some offenders must be jailed for a long time in the interest of the public, the fact remains that the vast majority of criminals serve definite sentences and that most of them can be released without danger to society, provided they receive appropriate treatment and are under adequate supervision.

Parliament recognized this reality when it passed the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which favours using the least restrictive measures without jeopardizing public safety.

Conditional release under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is effective in protecting the public. While I do not desire to minimize certain tragic incidents, released offenders are not becoming more dangerous.

Although this perception may result from media reports on crime, statistics simply do not support this position. For example, in 1991 only 1 per cent of admissions to federal custody were the result of a new violent offence committed while on release. Indeed, keeping offenders in prison longer instead of gradually integrating them into the community may in fact increase public risk over the long term.

Research evidence shows that strictly punitive measures which result in longer terms of incarceration have little deterrent effect on serious offenders and do not lead to a reduction in reoffending.

I believe that the key to improving public protection lies in our ability to develop effective treatment programs and to effectively assess offenders in their ability to benefit from treatment and the level of risk they present to the community.

The research strongly supports this approach. Risk which one could define as a likelihood that an offender will engage in dangerous behaviour upon release is the overriding consideration of correctional authorities and parole board members.

Because of its central importance to the correctional process risk is managed and assessed throughout an offender's sentence. In brief, risk is managed by identifying factors that contribute to an offender's criminal behaviour, determining an offender's treatment and program needs, developing correctional plans that address these needs, matching treatment programs and services to the needs and risk level of the offender, and providing the necessary level of custody.

It is on the basis of risk assessment that offenders are moved from higher security to lower security and eventually considered for conditional release on the basis of their changing level of risk.

Prediction of human behaviour is not a perfect science nor will it ever be. However, the effectiveness of the tools that have been developed to assist professionals in assessing offenders have improved dramatically over the past few years.

Efforts continue to be made to improve the system's capacity to monitor changes in an offender's behaviour, situation, and circumstances which are clearly related to the likelihood of further criminal behaviour. Today we have a much better understanding of what factors may be valid risk predictors. Over time our capacity to better distinguish between high and low risk offenders will continue to improve.

I would also like to bring to the attention of hon. members that individual offenders who at one time represented a high public risk can with appropriate treatment both in an institution and in the community be safely released to the community.

There is a growing body of research pointing to the rehabilitative potential of well formulated research based treatment programming. Some things do work.

Correctional Service Canada has invested a lot of time and money to develop programs with a proven record as regards their usefulness to help reduce the number of repeat offenders. Based on these data, the service designed and implemented a number of programs to meet the various needs of the federal inmate population. Here are some of them.

An education program has been established. According to a classification test, about 80 per cent of offenders under federal jurisdiction have less than a grade 10 level of education when they are admitted. This low level is a major obstacle in their rehabilitation, because it greatly affects their chances of finding work.

A treatment program was instituted for sex offenders. At the end of last year, 17 per cent of the inmates in federal penitentiaries were classified as sex offenders. The correctional service now has more ways of meeting their needs and can offer treatment to nearly 1,800 such offenders every year, compared to 200 in 1988.

A program aimed at developing cognitive abilities was created in 1989 to help offenders alter their modes of thought which lead to criminal behaviour. The program is offered in 71 locations and the number of participants has increased from 50 to over 3,000.

The correctional service also offers a drug treatment program to nearly 5,000 inmates and to roughly 1,800 people in the community. It endeavours to ensure that programs are geared to the different needs of offenders.

Another initiative is the program for native offenders. While natives account for only 3 per cent of Canada's population, they represent up to 12 per cent of the federal inmate population. Studies have shown that native inmates are more receptive to programs that are specifically designed for them and the Correctional Service is working to increase the number of such programs.

A program aimed at helping offenders with mental disorders has also been established. According to a survey of the federal inmate population covering the past four years, a significant proportion of inmates suffer from acute psychosis, depression or anxiety. Since there is a definite need, in the years to come it will be vital to establish appropriate evaluation services, various types of specialized care in institutions and support programs in the community.

A family violence initiative has been taken. Research has shown that federal offenders are very likely to commit acts of violence within their family, especially those who abuse or have previously abused family members, who have committed assault in the past or are judged to be very likely to commit abuse. Community pilot projects for the evaluation and treatment of these offenders have already been set up in a number of cities, the necessary resources are being assembled to be able to treat 300 offenders, compared with 100 in 1992-93.

In concluding, I want to emphasize the importance of risk evaluation methods and therapy programs in achieving our main objective, which is to protect the public.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made a mistake earlier today when I moved concurrence in the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I indicated to the House that the changes would not come into effect until the end of June. It is not true. They came into effect today. They are minor changes but they did come into effect today. I am sorry for having made that error in my presentation at that time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sure the House appreciates the correction. It will be duly noted.

It being 2.37 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.37 p.m.)