Debates of Sept. 30th, 1994

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now debating Bill C-52, the purpose of which is to set up a new department, the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

I will resume the comments I was making before Question Period. To begin with, I would like to say that for several months, especially during the summer, all the Bloc Quebecois members have been sending letters to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services asking him to inform them of all the contracts awarded by the federal government in their ridings, which is a perfectly normal request one would think given that we are elected and want to keep an eye on the government to make sure that it runs smoothly. Surprise, surprise. The answers were negative in all cases. Across the board, the Department of Public Works refused to give out any information, saying that it was too costly.

We were surprised by that action, but of course on second thought we realize that the department is acting right from the start with a lot of secrecy about government contracts. It is becoming extremely difficult for us to get information on federal contracts in public works.

That is worrisome because, as I mentioned at the beginning, before Question Period, that somewhat reflects the government mind-set, first of all, not to act firmly about waste, not to reduce waste in government expenditures. That also reflects a lack of transparency by the government, despite its intention, its desire, as stated in the red book, to encourage transparency in government.

It is as if they wanted to hide information, as if there were something fishy, things that could not be disclosed, things that the minister and his department are trying to hide. Is it because it is too complicated? Why is it that elected government people cannot obtain information on contracts given by the government in public works and government services? Certainly, it is because of a lack of concern for transparency. And that is the least of our concerns.

I know, for example, that in the case of contracts awarded by the federal government, Quebec has always been short-changed. If you consider Quebec's contribution to the federal level and the share of public works and service contracts that Quebec should receive, the figure should be approximately 25 per cent and at least 23 per cent of all contracts. For a long time now-10, 15, perhaps 20 years-Quebec has been getting much less.

Last year for example, in 1993, the province was awarded 16 per cent of all contracts. It was 15 per cent in 1992 and 13 per cent in 1991. When you think that contracts awarded by the federal government are worth a total of $30 billion or more, this is a considerable loss for Quebec. It amounts to approximately $200 million a year. They may be trying to hide the extent of these losses.

In any case, there are hidden facts, there is a lack of openness on the part of the government. We would like to suggest at least some improvements. Unfortunately, Bill C-52 deals only with minor matters and moves things around and does not improve the operation of the Department of Public Works. With this in mind, the Bloc would like to make constructive, positive and concrete suggestions.

For example, the legislation should require that regular notices, say for example monthly notices, be given of all contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services.

Normally, this should be included in Bill C-52. These notices should be public and easily available and provide data by federal riding, region and province. Such a measure would keep the members of this House informed on what is going on in the Department of Public Works so they would be in a position to exercise their discretion and disclose cases of misuse or waste.

We also want to make a second recommendation. The responsibility for public tenders should be decentralized in order that offices of federal members of all parties be more involved in the process, that members be consulted, or at least informed of the awarding process in the case of government contracts regarding their riding. This is not complicated. It is normal for the members to be informed of the federal government contracts in their ridings, so that they can shed some light on some of these contracts, play a positive role and do something about cases of waste or abuse.

We would even have another recommendation which would be to adopt a precise code or agreement on subcontracting in Bill C-52 in order for the government and the public servants to know the government's intentions regarding this practice which has been a policy for some time now. The very complex subcontracting infrastructure costs more than $5 billion at the federal level.

Over the last three to five years, subcontracting has increased at an alarming rate because the government never established a policy in this regard and has no guidelines indicating whether subcontracting would or would not be profitable for the government. We opened the door to subcontracting with all the problems we are experiencing now and there are no guidelines. We would have liked to seen some guidelines in Bill C-52 or a code for the government to deal with subcontracting.

We have another suggestion for the government. It might be time to give the federal civil servants the right to blow the whistle on the waste of money in the public service, because they know what is going on, but they cannot make anything public. Obviously, if public servants had that right, as is apparently the case in some American states right now, they would not only be more accountable for their job, but I am sure there would be less waste in government contracts.

Even if that suggestion goes through, some steps would have to be taken to ensure that public servants with that right would be protected and would not use it against their supervisors. We must provide some measures to make sure that exposure of abuse and waste by public servants works satisfactorily, and would be useful to the government.

In conclusion, following what I said this morning about the lack of openness of this government in awarding contracts at the Department of Public Works, and there are many of them, the lack of will of this government to give teeth to Bill C-52, while it is such an important department, because of all the contracts that are awarded every year- 150,000, 175,000-because of the amounts involved and mostly because of the doubts that we have about waste within the government, in order to allow that department to become more open and more accountable toward elected representatives we would like to propose an amendment

to Bill C-52. Therefor, I move, seconded by the member for Charlevoix:

That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-52, An Act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, because it does not provide for the development of a code of ethics aimed at ensuring the transparency of contracting activities and the acquisition of all goods and services by the Department of Public Works and Government Services".

[The Deputy Speaker]

Having held consultations, I find the motion in order.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege of being able to respond to the proposal by the government to put into legislation something which it has already done, that is to amalgamate the Department of Supply and Services, the Department of Public Works, the Government Telecommunications Agency and the Translation Bureau into one new department, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Before I comment on the actual legislation before us, I cannot help but note that things are being done in backward order. The thing is already done. The decision has been made and implemented and it will not be reversed. We are now discussing it and soon we will be voting to formalize a decision already made.

I wonder if I am the only one who notices illogical things like this. The same thing was done on the question of the military. With much fanfare the government cancelled the helicopter contracts. With great flair it announced the closure of a number of military bases and moving them around. Then a military review was announced and the work started on thinking about what should be done. After some time the committee will announce its findings and we will probably discuss the report, but the actions have already been taken at huge expense. There will be even greater expense if it becomes apparent that some of these decisions need to be reversed.

We have had exactly the same thing in the last few days in the post office. We knew in June that the post office applied for an increase in first class postal rates to 45 cents. Ironically the government proceeded to do the work. The stamps were printed and distributed. Now we see cabinet deciding whether or not to actually do it. Meanwhile the taxpayers have spent the money.

No real business that has any hope of surviving can operate in this way. We need to do our analysis first and include in that analysis the most cost effective way of making changes. Why is it that government can waste billions of dollars simply by terribly poor planning and by taking hasty actions that are not well thought through? Billions of dollars are forcibly removed from citizens by the bully of taxation.

I need to get on with the main topic of my speech but I cannot forget the Pearson airport deal. Is it not another example? If the former government had not been in such a big hurry to sign contracts without having covered all the facts of the situation first, we would not be in the mess we are in now with that deal. I find it appalling that the government is now ramming through a bill respecting that deal which will hide payments made at the discretion of the minister from parliamentary or public scrutiny.

I need to turn the corner and talk about Bill C-52. After what I have just said members may be surprised to note that in general I am in favour of the legislation. In general I support the move toward downsizing, but the plan needs to be well thought out. A number of issues need to be tackled. They must be done in the right order.

In analysing the situation one should really ask the following questions: First, what public service, what actual work, what functions do we want the department to perform? Second, in order to achieve what we want the department to do, how can we best organize it so that it can perform those functions with the greatest efficiency?

The amalgamation proposed in Bill C-52 is positive in the sense that it will result in the reduction of overlapping duties and functions. It should reduce overall costs, though that remains to be seen. There will be a reduction of overhead costs. Hopefully the new department will be able to deliver the services specified in a timely and efficient manner.

Another efficiency will be achieved by combining the annual report and the estimates. It will make it possible for managers, and indeed members of the House, to make decisions more effectively and more quickly on whether or not an expenditure is being controlled by looking at the consolidated statements.

There are two broad principles governments should use. The principles have been given to us by the people. The Reform Party is articulating the principles on behalf of citizens who have not been heard by governments of the past 20 to 40 years. The first principle is that governments, civil servants, politicians and political parties exist to serve the people. They should demonstrate this service at all times.

I cannot help but interrupt my speech again to draw the attention of the House to a great misunderstanding concerning the Reform Party. Several days ago the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt gave a rather cute member's statement in which she echoed the misinformation broadcast by our sometimes untrustworthy CBC. She implied that members of the Reform Party were somehow herded along by the leadership of the party. The facts are that the leadership of the party and

Reform MPs are driven by the grassroots. Ordinary citizens are finding that their voices are being heard by us. Party policies in our party are initiated by the members and the party leadership acts as a clearing house to expedite debate and decisions at our assembly.

Yes, we believe in service. That is the first principle that should pervade all levels of government. It is government of the people, for the people, by the people. If we could do a 180 degree turn in how governments operate compared to the past and the present, perhaps that would be the single most important move in restoring the faith of the people in the governments they elect.

The second principle is that public money should be regarded by governments as funds in trust and governments should practise fiscal responsibility. In particular, they should exercise the responsibility of balancing expenditures and revenues. There are not many issues that upset my constituents more than the issue of the burgeoning debt.

If we were a board of directors of a public company the shareholders would fire us. We are spending 20 per cent more every year than we take in. We are headed for financial disaster and for bankruptcy. Yes, the shareholders of a company would fire the board of directors if that was how they carried on.

Indeed, this is what the Canadian people have begun to do. They are totally fed up with the flagrant waste of their money by governments of the last 20 or 30 years. Beginning in the west there is a massive sweep of support for Reform because we are promising to balance the budget. We just cannot go on the way we are. In some form or another, if not now then in the very near future we will have to pay the bills that we have run up.

The most unfair transfer of responsibility in this country is the intergenerational transfer of debt. We are spending our children's inheritance. From our graves we will have to apologize to them for giving them the inheritance of such huge financial indebtedness that they will not be able to enjoy anything near the standard of living that we have stolen from them. I am embarrassed to be a member of this generation, leaving my children a legacy of profligate overspending, exercising no discipline in how we handle our affairs.

In speaking to Bill C-52 I believe that we are beginning to move in the right direction on these principles. I want to show my support and commitment to the principles by helping to hold this government accountable for the steps it is taking. I want to assume that the motives of the government are honourable. I want to assume that it really means it when it says it wants to do better.

I suppose it is almost impossible to do worse than the government that was defeated last fall. But there is always the danger that the frail ship can be blown off course. We will be there to help and to remind the government to abide by these principles.

The principle of service to the public should be demonstrated by the way that business processes are developed and implemented. It should be evident in the way that public property is managed, particularly office and warehouse space. It should be evident in the way bidding and procurement procedures are developed and implemented. It should be evident in the way technology will be utilized to increase effectiveness and efficiency. Most of all, it should be evident in the way we and all civil servants meet the people, the way we talk to them and the way we serve them. There should never be an attitude of condescension but always an attitude of helpfulness and service.

I would add that we should also always have an attitude of total honesty and openness, whether it is procurement or whether it is talking about the way government influences public policy. There should be total openness. It is the people's business. The people have the right to know everything.

With respect to the second principle I mentioned, the one of sound fiscal management and wise use of the limited financial resources available, I need to emphasize it is my opinion that we are not doing enough here in this bill.

It is insufficient to merely shuffle the deck to bring together two or three departments here and two or three there. It is not sufficient to merely reorganize the management tree. We need to look very seriously at the functions of government. We need to re-examine many things government is doing that is not supported by the people. There need to be some cuts. Some departments need to be eliminated because there is no longer a need or a demand for the functions they provide.

Can this be done? Would it be possible for us to discuss this in a meaningful, non-emotional way so that we could brainstorm our way to some positive solutions?

I can think of a number of examples in which we are not serving the people well with regard to monetary stewardship. I think of the $60 million taken out of the accountability loop by the antics of the CCG. I think of the ongoing construction of a national GST processing centre in Prince Edward Island at the same time as this government is promising to eliminate the GST.

I am thinking of some extravagant offices and some unacceptable vacancy rates. I am thinking of moneys to crown corporations and special operating agencies and the way some of them are operating without full accountability. I am thinking even of the fact that the collection of hundreds and hundreds of smaller

savings could save millions of dollars for the Canadiantaxpayer.

Departmental contracting value for last year was in the order of $7.8 billion. The handling of this large amount of tax dollars must be treated with great respect. We need to assure the public that everything is done out in the open with full disclosure of who is getting what and how much they are getting.

I wish to conclude by saying that I am personally committed to doing my share in influencing the way the government does its business. I want the people of Canada to know that in the Reform Party and hopefully among the other members of this House there are individuals who are deeply committed to doing this thing right. We want to treat the people with the respect they deserve. We want to stop overtaxing them. We want to serve them and we want to be good stewards of the money that they entrust to us.

I believe that the Canadian public is becoming more and more disillusioned with the concept that the government has to do everything for everyone. There are more and more people who simply want the government to back off and give them some freedom to make their own choices and manage their own affairs. They want government to do just the minimal things that it is not possible for them to do by themselves.

The days of thinking that nothing will get done unless the government controls and subsidizes or pays for it are over. The days are ending when everyone can use the government as a means of confiscating the dwindling available earnings of the average person to spend at will on whatever project seems to meet their fancy.

Henry Samtrooke said it well when he referred to the rapturous, wild and ineffable pleasure of drinking at somebody else's expense. In giving support in principle to Bill C-52, I hope that we are beginning to move in the right direction. We will be waiting with great interest to observe that this government takes it all the way. We want to see that the deficits are stopped before its too late.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to follow the two lead critics of the Bloc and the Reform Party with respect to this legislation because it gives me an opportunity to make a few comments, not in an unkind way but to make sure that we understand each other and that we are talking from the same base.

My colleague from the Reform is supporting this bill and I appreciate that. I think it is for many of the right reasons. I want to make sure it is understood that the decision to amalgamate government had been initiated by the previous government with the order in council process. We are undertaking today this legislation to affirm that we do have the powers that we thought we had.

It would not be fair to say that we had not done our job. We are in fact doing our job. I am not sure that is what he was suggesting.

I also want to point out that we are open to suggestions. My colleague mentioned that he wanted to make some suggestions. That is not a problem.

A comment was made regarding Canada Post and increased postal rates. My colleague will know that Canada Post had anticipated that. There was a request made of government and that request is being reviewed right now. My minister, the minister responsible for Canada Post, is particularly sensitive to what the impact might be on small and medium size businesses. He will analyse that with his colleagues and look at it very carefully before proceeding.

The third point that was made was with respect to the deficit and the debt. I want to remind my colleague that by the year 1998, if my memory serves me correctly, the anticipated savings with this legislation because of what will be done are in the neighbourhood of $180 million and by the year 2000 up to $1 billion. That is a lot of money and it is going in the direction I think he would like, perhaps not as quickly but certainly in the right direction on that particular issue.

The Bloc Quebecois member commented about government waste and abuse. He mentioned contracts for Quebec. In a calm and generous manner I simply ask him to prove what he is saying. Where is the proof? It is so easy to make accusations.

The member knows very well that we are now in the process of eliminating overlapping and duplication with this bill. If I remember correctly this is exactly what some of my colleagues from the Bloc are asking. I hope it is not only talk, that they really mean it because this bill is tackling the problem of overlapping and duplication.

I think the member also forgot to mention the large savings this will bring about: $205 million by 1998, and one billion by the year 2000. I hope he will still be here, as well as myself, to see these savings come about.

A last comment, to be completely sure there is no misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the member gave the impression-he is not a bad man, maybe he was influenced by somebody else-that the government had been far from generous in the allocation of contracts to Quebec. As regards the whole question of access to government, openness and transparency for the government, the hon. member knows well that our open invitations to bid are very transparent and that we also have other systems. For the first time in a long while we have opened up the process. For the first time in a long while any Canadian throughout this vast country can obtain information on what the

government needs in terms of goods and services. Therefore improvements have been made that I wish to mention.

I understand the opposition because I myself was a member of the opposition for some time. I may have sometimes exaggerated but I think there was gross exaggeration today.

I want to get into my formal remarks. At the conclusion of his recent address to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of concentrating on providing good government.

This is what the legislation before the House today seeks to achieve. By giving its formal approval to the creation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Parliament goes one step further in offering Canadians everywhere good governmental services.

The bill brings together in a single department all the service agencies of the government in order to streamline government, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services and to better meet the needs of Canadians everywhere in Canada.

The new department means improved service to other government departments and agencies as well as improved service to Canadians. Taxpayers save money. Government departments have one-stop shopping for all their service needs and there is a single window to the government for suppliers and contractors across the country.

The creation of a new department simplifies the business of doing business with the government. It simplifies the process of receiving information from the government. Parliament is asked to give approval to rolling government service agencies into one department and thereby reducing overlap and duplication, which is a tremendous way to save money.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services was formed last year to provide from one source a range of essential services in support of all other government programs. The amalgamation was achieved by orders in council but this bill was required to create the new department in statute. The department brings together four common service organizations. One major component of the new department is the former department of supply and services which was the government's internal service organization. The other major component is the former public works department which administers a wide range of federal buildings and properties. The new department also incorporates the former government telecommunications agency and the translation bureau.

I know that most Canadians have heard the phrase public works and government services but I think it is fair to say many of them wonder what those phrases mean and exactly what the new department does.

I would like to take a few moments to outline the responsibilities of the new department and to explain how it affects the way government operates and how it affects Canadians.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services is the Government of Canada's chief purchasing agent, publisher, banker, accountant and paymaster. It provides office accommodation, real estate, design and construction, telecommunications and translation services for the Government of Canada and for other agencies as well.

We issue about $200 million payments a year on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan, old age security, GST, child tax benefit, public service payroll, as well as to our suppliers. We manage the government's annual cash flow of $1.4 trillion with an average daily balance of $2.7 billion. Certainly one of the most popular services is issuing tax refund cheques to Canadians.

As the principal purchasing agency for the government the department buys some $10 billion worth of products and services each year and works on major acquisition projects worth another $23 billion. We issue on average 150,000 contracts to the private sector annually.

The department handles the purchase of 17,000 categories of goods and services. Our procurement ranges from frigates and satellites to medical supplies and food aid, to weather balloons and information technology. The department buys for more than 150 federal departments and agencies.

Our new government telecommunications and infomatic service is the lead agency in moving the government toward the better service and lower costs which can be achieved through automation and electronic interaction.

Translation is provided in the official languages of Canada and some 150 other languages and dialects. Our experts also provide interpretation services for some 40 languages including sign language. The department fields over 150,000 inquiries every year regarding precise terminology.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I made a statement in the House yesterday. On behalf of all my colleagues I spoke in praise of the services that interpreters, translators and terminol-

ogists provide us. Their services are very important to us and today I wish to stress even more the excellent job they do.

The department is the largest real estate agency in Canada, providing work spaces for some 150,000 government employees across the country. We also run all federal properties under the jurisdiction of any other department. We provide a wide variety of management, maintenance and improvement services for federal properties and facilities. The department holds an estimated $6.5 billion of real estate on behalf of the people of Canada. The primary holdings are office buildings and common use facilities. We are also the custodians of national landmarks including the Parliament Buildings where we meet today, laboratories, warehouses, residences, bridges, highways, locks, dams and dry docks.

Three agencies provide services to public sector organizations on an optional fee for service basis. The Canada Communication Group offers communication services to government departments and agencies. Consulting and Auditing Canada's services include the full range of management consulting disciplines and specialities. The Canadian General Standards Board supports governments and the private sector through the development and distribution of standards for government and consumer products.

As members can see, a tremendous number of services are provided by the integrated department. By integrating all of these activities into one department we are making it easier for Canadians to deal with the government and we are making it cheaper for the government to function.

In fact the common sense rationalization of activities will result in annual savings, as I have indicated before, of some $180 million by 1998. We are proving the government can reduce costs and improve services to Canadians at the same time. This is surely a goal all members of Parliament and all Canadians see.

The reality is that we are only able to achieve these worthwhile objectives through the extremely dedicated work of the public servants who have been brought together from other departments and agencies into one. Those public servants have shown extraordinary commitment to making this new department a success and I applaud their efforts.

By the time the department is fully integrated, the workforce will be reduced from 18,00 full time employees to 14,000. It takes a great deal of integrity for people to organize themselves out of a job in order to provide better government.

As the minister for public service renewal has stated, we can and will achieve changes with the absolute minimum of dislocation and involuntary lay-offs.

I respect the excellent work of the people in this department and I understand, as my minister does, that they are real human beings with real families, real bills to pay and a real commitment to serving the public with integrity. The minister and I are determined to treat them with the decency and fairness they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wonder if I could make a request. This morning because of medical problem I have, I got to my chair a few seconds late and I missed my place, which is fair.

I wonder if could have the unanimous consent of the House to continue?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to extend his statement by a few minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add that in creating a modern department to serve Canadians better in the years ahead, we have also used the opportunity to bring forward legislation that is modern and up to date. The bill before the House of Commons reflects existing legislation and operational practices of the government. To put this in context, the DSS act dates back to 1967 and the Department of Public Works Act to 1867. That is even older than I am. This legislation must be modernized and brought into the 1990s.

The problem with making jokes about age is that some people agree it is probably true.

What we have done in preparing this bill is to eliminate unnecessary or antiquated sections of previous legislation which no longer make any sense in 1994. For example, in the Department of Public Works Act there is a long and detailed description of public works. It has been eliminated. We have modernized the legislative responsibilities of the department to reflect technological changes which have occurred in our society.

For example, the DSS act referred to data processing services. We have changed it to information management and information technology systems and services.

We have also eliminated old rules which added meaningless red tape to our efforts to provide responsive and affordable service to Canadians. For example, we have deleted the section requiring the tabling of an annual report as we are now producing a detailed report on the department's operations as part of our main estimates.

I want to assure members of Parliament that the legislation before them is based on powers contained in the existing legislation and that any changes are straightforward, common sense changes to which I am confident every Canadian would agree.

Without getting into cumbersome detail, I would like to point out some highlights of the legislation to members. This bill gives legislative approval to the department to create, oversee or transfer information electronically or by other new technologies. That is the kind of common sense change I was talking about. The point is to reflect today's world. When the government started centralized procurement policies in the 1960s nobody had heard of the information highway or personal computers.

Bill C-52 also creates a real property disposition revolving fund. The new fund will simply permit expenditures made in selling off property to be paid from the proceeds of the sale. Right now Parliament provides a specific amount each year for these expenditures. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to know what sales opportunities may come along in any given year. Any annual appropriation by Parliament in the past was based on a guess. The new revolving fund corrects this situation and makes sure that the department's hands are not tied if the chance arises to dispose of excess property at a fair price.

There are other sections of the bill which I think will not be matters of great debate but which do represent key modifications and improvements to the way the department can operate. The new legislation improves upon the legislation it replaces by providing greater flexibility and the removal of administrative impediments to better service for Canadians.

As we stated in the red book, the government will work closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas where governments are involved. Under current law, officials on the supply and services side are only permitted to share our purchasing power with other levels of government after first seeking governor in council approval. The public works side does not have this explicit authority.

The current law does not allow the Department of Public Works and Government Services to use its size, expertise and contacts in assisting Canadian businesses to move them to new world markets. The bill before Parliament will allow the department to change all of those practices and to continue to move forward in ensuring that taxpayers get the best bang for their buck by ensuring that we can provide more help to Canadians. This is totally in line with what we laid out in the red book. We have done what we said we would do.

I do not want to take advantage of my colleague's generosity this afternoon so I want to make a few more comments and bring this to an end. I point out to my colleagues that this change is needed in order to make absolutely certain that we have the legislative authority to operate as a department should.

I want to stress that this legislative change is as a result of an action undertaken by a previous government so we are doing what the previous government might have done. I want to stress that this particular change will remove obstacles to good government.

As I said earlier, duplication and overlap will gradually be eliminated, which will allow us to save $140 million by 1998 and $1 billion by the year 2000.

I am almost finished. I do not want to prolong this unduly. I hope that I will not only get the support of Reform Party members, who indicated in a clear and honest way that they were ready to look at the bill with an open heart and an open mind, but that the hon. members from the Bloc will agree to reconsider what they said this morning and perhaps propose amendments that could improve the bill instead of simply making unsupported attacks against it. This is not the way one should react.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard an absolutely wonderful speech. You would think this is the best department in Ottawa. The problem is, I had the opportunity to work in this committee of public works and government services and I was also the official critic.

I can tell you that there is no openness in that department. The hon. member for St. Boniface made a big show of it, but the truth is we never got what we wanted. Every day we asked for information, but this department was never forthcoming. This is the patronage department. Let us be clear on that, there is no hiding it, this is a fact.

The hon. member for St. Boniface is nodding in approval, how very interesting. I know you want to answer my question, so I will give you the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we introduced a motion to amend this bill. I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface will take it into account and not launch into another one of those dramatic speeches he makes every time he takes the floor in the House. I hope he will also try to improve this department where there is no openness whatsoever, but a great deal of patronage.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment a great deal. I realize that the hon. member is the official critic and that she was not always satisfied with the answers she received.

I realize also that she is not entirely right. We received a lot of information. It was sometimes difficult to understand it all, since there was so much of it.

It is Friday afternoon, so I will be kind. This is nevertheless an unsupported attack. The hon. member was the official critic. She could have provided us with concrete examples showing where she saw a lack of openness. But she did not do it, she just attacked the department without backing up her allegations.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the day Public Works and Government Services Canada becomes really open, really very clear and transparent will be a day of celebration for me.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public works and Government Services. As I said earlier, until just recently I had the privilege of being the Official Opposition critic for this department and as such I had the opportunity to discuss matters with its hon. minister.

I would like to share with you today what I know about this department and what changes should be made to make it more transparent, more open and more accessible to all taxpayers who wish either to receive information on its activities or do business with it.

I understand, when one is in opposition one tends to exaggerate-I was there, and maybe I did exaggerate a few times. I will try not to do it now. I will give my total, sincere and deep commitment to do my best to improve the openness of this department. I understand that there is room for improvement, but I intend to do everything I can to increase the degree of openness and try to answer honestly the question of my colleagues, including the hon. member who just spoke.

All of us in this House will agree that, either way, these are legitimate demands on the part of the taxpayers and they should not be ignored in a cavalier fashion. This bill should ensure that the various demands of the taxpayers can be met, but this is not the case. The only thing the enactment does is to merge two former departments-a process which incidentally was initiated by the Conservatives-as well as various government agencies.

Section 5 of the bill states that this new department shall operate as a common service agency for the Government of Canada, and its activities as a common service agency shall be directed mainly toward providing the departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada with services in support of their programs.

Basically, this department is responsible for the acquisition and provision of goods and services for all departments of the Government of Canada. It negotiates, buys and rents an impressive number of goods and services for other departments. Last year it negotiated 170,000 public contracts. That is rather impressive.

As the member of Parliament for Laurentides and parliamentarian responsible for taxpayers' money as well as a taxpayer myself, I want to know everything there is to know-and I mean everything-about the tens of thousands of government contracts negotiated by this department every year. It is the taxpayers' money that the government spends; it is therefore accountable to them for its use.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill about how these contracts should be accounted for in all the relevant information made available to the public. The government sticks to its old ways and continues to be secretive. This government refuses to make information readily available. That is very clear, but also quite sad. It shows mainly that the government is scared to death, scared of getting caught spending the taxpayers' money improperly.

By leaving out of this bill a provision to divulge automatically all information in contracts, the government perpetuates the widespread opinion that the department still indulges in patronage, and awards thousands of contracts under the pressure of lobbyists, friends of the government, or people who contribute to the funding of the old parties. Failure to take action to change this general opinion could prove in part that it is well founded.

To leave the minister and bureaucrats free to conceal or to divulge information clearly indicates that the system does not meet the basic expectations of a democratic society. Letting the minister decide whether Canadians should know how their tax dollars are spent seems contrary to the transparent and open government that Liberals have been promising since they crossed the floor.

The Liberal government is no better than its Conservative predecessor, that it once denounced so vehemently. Members opposite are backing down. They have lost the backbone that made them so brave when they formed the official opposition and during the election. The members opposite are going back on the commitments they made in their red bible. Transparency and openness no longer figure in their vocabulary. First it was the red bible, now they dress in red and follow their great leader, the Minister of Public Works, Santa Claus personified, the main purveyor of government contracts who keeps his secrets to himself and silences his little elves gathered round him, across the aisle.

This bill is nothing but a formality, an insipid document which again hands taxpayers over to the minister and those in high places under his control. With this bill, the government is saying to taxpayers: "The minister spends your money but this is none of your business". To use an expression made famous by our illustrious Minister of Transport: "If you taxpayers want to know to whom, and how, contracts are awarded, use the Access to Information Act".

Why make it so difficult to have access to that information? In recent months, I have tried to pressure the minister into setting up a rational system to disclose contracts awarded. I even tabled a motion asking the minister to disclose, on a monthly basis, all government contracts awarded. Such a system could even be established for all departments awarding numerous contracts. The minister replied that this monthly disclosure was unnecessary, since all the information is already available and ordinary citizens can find out anything they want about government contracts. How insulting from the minister! This answer shows that the minister has no respect for us. It is wrong to claim that

the information is available and accessible. As evidence of that, I have specific requests for information on contracts awarded to entrepreneurs in my riding which have remained unanswered for more than two months now.

What is even worse is the fact that recently all Bloc Quebecois members were refused access to a list of government contracts awarded in their respective ridings during the last year. This refusal from the minister and the Liberal government to provide that information to members is, in my opinion, a very serious violation of their right to information.

Indeed, how can an elected member, even if he is a minister, deny other elected members the right to know what is going on in their respective ridings? This behaviour is totally unacceptable and is exactly why people continue to believe that politicians and civil servants award contracts only to friends of the government and to contractors offering the biggest bribes.

The minister must explain why he refused to provide the Bloc members with the information they asked for. For the time being, he argues that it would cost $160,000 and that he is not equipped to provide the list of contracts required. Come on, with everyone talking about the electronic highway, no one can seriously claim that it is impossible to collect, code and release this information according to some specifications.

With all the computer equipment the government buys, I think it is a bit far-fetched to try to make us believe that all that work is still done by hand in the department.

I also think that this amount of $160,000 is part and parcel of the administration and operating costs of the department. I do not see how these costs can be considered as additional expenses.

Given the minister's refusal, we believe he is trying to hide something. He knows full well that his department is not known for its integrity and transparency. He also knows that the department does not distribute federal funds fairly among the various regions and provinces. The federal government must play fair and distribute Canada's wealth so as to support development in each and every region of the country.

However, statistics clearly indicate that the federal government supports some regions more than others. For example, the city of Ottawa alone received almost 99 per cent of all contracts awarded by the government in 1993 for the Ottawa region, while its twin city, Hull, across the river, made do with a meagre 1 per cent.

That is a harsh reality for those who believe blindly in this supposedly fair federal system. Federalists and centralists will surely find reasons, legitimate or not, to explain these statistics indicating such an extraordinary concentration of contracts.

In the view of the Bloc Quebecois, this imbalance could be corrected if all contracts were made public. Thus, small and large contractors would know which goods and services the government needs. And knowing this, they might want to do business with the government. Moreover, all this information would force the government to show greater fairness in the contracting process. Furthermore, the government should even support and help potential suppliers in neglected areas, thus creating growth and jobs where they are urgently needed. Is job creation the main goal of the federal government or not?

It is about time that the government show some openness in the allocation of contracts, not only in the department we are talking about today but in all departments. There are means to achieve this and the Bloc is proposing some.

Ministers across the aisle always beg us to suggest new ideas and new ways of doing things. Well, here they are.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will still have nine minutes next time this motion is debated.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Child Sex Offenders

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which will protect children from pedophiles by allowing members of the National Parole Board to enforce the long term incarceration of offenders whom they feel may reoffend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Motion No. 305 which calls upon the government to introduce legislation which will allow for the post-sentence detention of child sex offenders who are likely to reoffend upon release from prison.

Motion No. 305 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which will protect children from pedophiles by allowing members of the National Parole Board to enforce the long term incarceration of offenders whom they feel may reoffend.

I begin by sharing the story behind the motion with my hon. colleagues. In June 1988, 11-year old Christopher Stephenson was abducted from a Brampton shopping mall by 45-year old Joseph Fredericks, a repeat child sex offender who was known by criminal justice officials to be in a dangerous state of mind. Fredericks murdered Christopher.

The details of this need not be recounted here. Rather we must focus on action which we as legislators can take to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring. The loss of Christopher's life was both needless and preventable. This is apparent to anyone who takes a moment to review the recommendations made by the inquest that looked into Christopher's death.

Those recommendations, collectively called the Stephenson report, tell us that corrections officials knew that Mr. Fredericks was dangerous when he was released. They knew that he was certain to reoffend. They just could not do anything about it. The legislative authority required to keep Mr. Fredericks in prison simply did not exist despite the fact that he was a certified psychopath.

It is within the authority of the House to enact such legislation. It is within the authority of the House to empower corrections officials to act to keep people like Mr. Fredericks off the streets as long as they pose a threat to our children. That is what the motion seeks to do.

Motion No. 305 calls on the government to enact legislation which will empower the National Parole Board to keep child sex offenders who are likely to reoffend upon release incarcerated beyond the term of their sentence. This was a key recommendation of the Stephenson inquest and it came at a high price.

When we look at the statistics surrounding child sex offenders it is clear that many Canadians are affected by this horrible crime. Fifty-three per cent of all females and thirty-one per cent of all males are victims of unwanted sexual acts. Eighty per cent of these incidents occurred when they were children or youth. A full sixty-three per cent of victims in all sexual assaults reported to the police are young people under the age of 18. Canadian children are prime targets for sex offenders and it is time that we took action to ensure their safety.

The magnitude of the task is apparent when we look at the profile of child sex offenders. In eight out of ten cases the offenders are either related or known to the victims. They occupy positions of trust in the lives of their victims. It is therefore no surprise that a sexual assault against a child often goes unreported.

One study estimates that for every incident of reported child sex abuse two and a half go unreported. Abusers will often threaten the children, thus making them too afraid to report the offence. Other times the offender will persuade the child that the sexual acts are part of any loving relationship and are perfectly acceptable.

Because of the power offenders often enjoy over their victims, their abuse often goes unreported. That is why it is crucial that we act in an effective manner toward child sex offenders when a child has the courage to speak out about abuse.

Current legislation does not allow for truly effective action against child sex offenders. Existing provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act allow for the release of offenders upon completion of two-thirds of their sentence.

Amendments proposed by Bill C-45, which was before the House for first reading last week, would allow the National Parole Board to deny the release of offenders if it feels that they will reoffend within the term of their sentence. Bill C-45 is a giant leap forward in the fight against child sex offenders, but more needs to be done.

I do not wish to understate the importance of the amendments contained in Bill C-45. By removing the requirement to prove serious harm in order to deny parole to a child sex offender, we are giving the National Parole Board a very important instrument in the battle to protect our children.

The serious harm provision was removed out of a recognition that the effects of abuse on children are often not apparent for some time and that a unique sentencing procedure would have to be enacted to deal with child sex offenders.

It is precisely because Bill C-45 employs a non-traditional sentencing procedure that it is so progressive. Traditional sentencing procedures are simply not effective with respect to child sex offenders who have one of the highest reoffence rates in any criminal group. Studies show that 40 per cent of sex offenders reoffend within five years of being released from incarceration.

I believe it is time we took an even bigger step toward effectively addressing this horrible crime. I believe post-sentence detentions are the means to take this step. By keeping these offenders incarcerated as long as they are likely to reoffend we are acting in a constructive, progressive manner. It allows us to link punishment with rehabilitation.

The change in sentencing philosophy is long overdue. We need to send a message loud and clear that punishment is not just serving time. It is more than that. In order for punishment to have been completed convicted offenders must not be in the

same state of mind as they were when they entered prison. They cannot simply leave after serving time. If they are likely to reoffend upon release, they must remain in prison and receive further treatment. Through the change in philosophy we are saying that what offenders do in prison is as important as the length of time they stay there.

Because the model of post-sentence detention is constructive and progressive and looks after the well-being of the offender in the interest of protecting society, it poses a particular challenge for the criminal justice system.

There is no cure for whatever causes an individual to sexually assault a child. However treatment is available with limited success. One study conducted in Europe identified the reoffence rate of child sex offenders as being in the range of 25 per cent. The same study found that with treatment the reoffence rate dropped by 10 to 15 per cent. This reoffence rate is still too high, but any improvement is encouraging.

The reality is that sometimes any amount of treatment does not help. According to the Stephenson report the treatment which Joseph Fredericks received was counterproductive. Post-sentence detention would not have helped to improve Mr. Fredericks' condition, but it would have empowered the National Parole Board to save a very precious life by keeping him off the streets.

There is nationwide support for legislation introducing post-sentencing detention procedures for child sex offenders. Earlier today I presented a petition that Mrs. Carole Horan began. The wording of my motion is actually very similar to that of Mrs. Horan's petition. The petition began as a local initiative and soon began circulating across the country. The petition was only in circulation for six months. I was pleased to table it in the House. It contains 6,100 signatures of Canadians from across the country, and no doubt across the political spectrum, who feel it is time that an effective post-sentence detention mechanism was introduced.

Recent initiatives to enact the post-sentence detention of child sex offenders have not adequately addressed the problems which child sex offenders pose to society. I am referring to a draft bill circulated by the previous government and reintroduced in Parliament by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley as Bill C-240.

That legislation would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and remove the provisions that restrict the application of a dangerous offender finding to the sentencing court only. That means offenders would be declared dangerous offenders after having completed their sentence and incarcerated indefinitely, subject to periodic reviews to determine whether they still fit the dangerous offender category.

While I sincerely appreciate and share the concerns of the hon. member, I respectfully submit that Bill C-240 is too narrow in its application to child sex offenders to be a truly effective piece of legislation.

Bill C-240 would not have the wide ranging power to enforce post-sentence detention which most of us would like to see. This is due to provisions found in clauses 16 and 26 of the legislation that have the effect of restricting the number of applications for post-sentence detention that would be approved.

Clause 16 empowers Correctional Service Canada to identify offenders who it feels may reoffend and refer them to the National Parole Board. If the board concurs with Correctional Service Canada, clause 26 allows it to refer the case to the appropriate provincial attorney general who may proceed with the case before a court. This procedure would apply to a very small number of individuals because in order for Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board to take steps to apply a dangerous offender finding, evidence must be presented that could not reasonably have been presented to the court that sentenced the offender.

This is a problem for detaining child sex offenders who we know will reoffend. Often the only evidence that can be presented, and the only evidence that should have to be presented, is that they are of a state of mind to commit the same crime again. However it is the same state of mind with which they entered prison so it does not qualify as new evidence. We need to be clear in saying that part of the original punishment for child sex offenders is that they cannot be of the same state of mind when they leave prison as when they entered.

Some would argue that this philosophy of sentencing runs counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically they would argue that section 11(h) of the charter, which prevents an individual from being punished twice for the same crime, prohibits the enactment of any post-sentence detention scheme.

The courts have been clear in declaring that post-sentence detention is not a violation of individual rights under the charter. They have ruled that the dangerous offender designation of the Criminal Code which allows for the indefinite incarceration of an offender is primarily in the public interest and is not a violation of an individual's charter rights.

I refer to the 1987 decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in Regina v. Lithium. The court ruled that in dangerous offender applications under the Criminal Code the public interest is a primary concern and that the specific object of the provision is to protect society from an offender who had been convicted of a serious personal injury offence and who had shown a propensity for violent crimes.

In its precedent setting decision the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench clearly stated that post-sentence detention in the case of dangerous offender provisions is in the public interest because it serves a protective function. The court recognized that the charter exists to protect the freedoms of all Canadians. Post-sentence detention should be viewed as an instrument for promoting the safety of Canadians.

The model of post-sentence detention for which I have argued today goes beyond existing dangerous offender provisions and is not only in the best interest of society but of the offender through the provision of rehabilitative treatment.

Many of these offences occur when people are on parole. We look for someone to blame and we often blame the parole board. I was on the provincial parole board. Many times we had to make a decision on releasing an offender whom we were not too sure about. If we have two-thirds of the sentence, or even if it is a three-year sentence, when we have people in front of the parole board who may reoffend do we let them out or not? Many times they are let out because the parole board feels they are going to be let out anyway and it is better they be let out under supervision. This gives the parole board more authority to hold these people.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that the legislation which this motion directs the government to introduce is long overdue. The post-sentence detention of child sex offenders who are likely to reoffend upon release is sound, responsible policy. When dealing with legislation or directives to introduce legislation we must always ask ourselves what kind of statement the proposed legislation makes about society. We must always be sure that this action is focused on the problem it is meant to address, effective in dealing with this problem and in the interests of all Canadians.

I believe that Motion No. 305 fulfils all of these criteria. It says that we as a society care about the safety and well-being of our children and that we want to protect them from sex offenders. It proposes that the government enact legislation which will protect our children by imposing the post-sentence detention of offenders who are likely to reoffend.

It says that this action is in the best interests of all Canadians because it moves to assist not only those individuals who need rehabilitative help but those Canadians who need protection from these offenders.

Given the importance which passage of this motion has for the safety and well-being of all children in Canada, I request leave of the House to give unanimous consent for this motion to be deemed votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion does not have the unanimous consent of the House.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brampton who presented this motion in the House for giving us this opportunity to discuss a very important topic, and as far as I am concerned, I felt that the motion as drafted was entirely acceptable and could have been referred to a committee for consideration.

The hon. member gave us an excellent and carefully crafted speech on the threat that child sex offenders represent to society. There are of course certain aspects I would like to discuss with the hon. member. I said this week, and it is my conviction, that there are various ways of expressing one's sexuality. When I say various ways, I do not include pedophilia, because I believe a sexual relationship should involve consenting partners, those partners being adults. Clearly, when pedophilia is involved, one partner is in a position of power and dominates the other, and there is also the exploitation aspect.

As Quebecers and Canadians we are right to be concerned about pedophiles being at large. We could, of course, talk about why some people in our society are pedophiles. A number of theories, including psychoanalytic assumptions, the frustration concept and the behaviourist approach are used to explain this phenomenon. The fact remains that as legislators we have a responsibility, as the hon. member for Brampton said, to take the corrective action that is necessary. That is why I am glad she has drawn the attention of the House to one of the aspects of this problem.

However, I thought that the hon. member, being on the government side, would have shown more support for the contents of Bill C-45. I may have misread the bill, however, and that is why I would like to discuss it with her, because I understood that Bill C-45-I know we have some people with us this afternoon who are familiar with the mechanics of the bill-I thought that Bill C-45 gave the National Parole Board the option of extending sentences.

I thought that Bill C-45, in two specific cases that I will refer to precisely, allowed for a criminal to be found to be dangerous and not eligible for a reduced sentence or parole. As I understood it, criminals convicted of sexual crimes are almost automatically determined to be dangerous and it is extremely difficult for them to obtain a reduced sentence or a conditional discharge.

The opposition parties support Bill C-45 on the whole, but, as my colleague, the member for Saint-Hubert explained, we do have some reservations about the mechanics of its application. I thought that Bill C-45 authorized the National Parole Board to refuse parole provided two conditions were met.

First, the convict would have committed a criminal act causing serious harm to the victim, and second, that harm would be related to a crime of a sexual nature. Naturally, I am not a lawyer, and with all due respect for lawyers I certainly do not think I am a lesser person for that, but I was under the impression that Bill C-45 was a proper answer to the motion. It would have been interesting to have the member for Brampton explain why Bill C-45 does not deal entirely with her motion.

Some of the people who talked to me about this motion, put by the member for Brampton, were concerned that it might turn a quasi-administrative body into a tribunal. I repeat that we support the basic principle of the motion. It is truly the duty of the Canadian society, and of all other societies, to protect children from possible contacts with pedophiles.

According to our present legal system, a judge may impose life-long sentences to offenders guilty of criminal acts. Judges already have that authority. Naturally, I believe we should exert pressures and stir public opinion on this issue so that the judges themselves impose sanctions like the one suggested by the member for Brampton.

Some people worry about the possibility that this authority could be assumed by a quasi-administrative body which was not a count. We all recognize that we must believe in rehabilitation. Otherwise, it would mean that some individuals are born bad.

I had the opportunity to air my views on the topic when we reviewed the Young Offenders Act. Personally, I do not believe that individuals are born bad, mean, devious, criminal or obsessed. I believe that they become that way due to a combination of factors, especially social, environmental and family factors.

The motion presented by the member for Brampton caused concern because historically, in our justice system, parole has been considered as the best road to rehabilitation. I understand the member for Brampton and I respect her point of view. I do not claim to have the answer. It may be that pedophiles, contrary to other criminals, cannot be rehabilitated, and I would have liked her to expand a bit on this point.

As legislators we must be aware that in our justice system parole has always been considered as the very best road to rehabilitation.

This is the reason why the Canadian Police Association, whose objectives are the same as the member for Brampton and most legislators, namely to make Canadian society more secure, would have felt more comfortable with some kind of life parole. This way, we would recognize that pedophilia is a threat to be taken seriously, that it has nothing to do with homosexuality, that it is not a way to express one's sexuality but an offence, a criminal act which should absolutely not be encouraged.

Of course, as legislators, we can try to understand what turns someone into a pedophile, but our first duty-and again I want to thank the hon. member for Brampton for drawing our attention to this issue-is to protect the public. Would it have not been possible, as suggested by the Canadian Police Association, where pedophiles are concerned, to combine jail sentences with more severe controls and what we called parole for life, which requires offenders to report to their parole officers, live in designated areas and refrain from any contact with children?

Anyway, I support the initiative of the hon. member for Brampton as well as her motion and I thank the Chair for letting me complete my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to and in support of this motion. I believe that my hon. colleague from Brampton is introducing an issue of great concern to all Canadians.

I know that when I raised my children I did not have to worry or I never gave any thought as to whether they were outside in my yard playing by themselves, whether they were at the corner park or whether they were at the hospital grounds playing. I did not feel a need to be watching over them every minute. I find this attitude has certainly changed over the last number of years. Parents are terrified to let their children out of their sight. They walk them to school and they sit and watch them play at a playground.

My hon. colleague from Brampton has indicated that Canadians want something to happen to those people who prey on children. I believe that what she wants is to get them and to keep them off the streets so that our children are free again to wander without parents watching over every move.

The government missed a golden opportunity with Bill C-45. It could have incorporated this in that bill. I feel that it did lose an opportunity there. I would hope when the committee is reviewing it gives consideration to the concern that has been raised in the House this afternoon.

I feel Bill C-45 does eliminate the need to prove that sex offenders who victimize children have to commit serious harm to be considered dangerous offenders. I feel that is a good thing.

When it comes to the issue of post-sentence detention this government decided to avoid the issue by making it a subject for provincial health authorities to deal with. I know from an incident that happened in our province of B.C. not too long ago that the provincial health authorities do not have the ability to keep dangerous offenders off the street.

We saw a dangerous offender walk away from a provincial hospital because the two guards did not have the authority to stop him. I do not think that is what Canadians are looking for.

I think there is a better way and that is to enable the National Parole Board to apply to the courts for a dangerous offender designation. That is what my private member's bill, C-240, tried to do. I disagree with my hon. colleague. I feel that Bill C-240 does allow some flexibility and would address the problem of pedophiles.

It allows the correction and parole board members to apply to the appropriate provincial attorney general and to initiate a dangerous offender application for those inmates who they believe will reoffend, not necessarily just pedophiles but also adult sexual offenders, but it does include pedophiles who they feel will reoffend.

Like Bill C-45 it also removes the need to prove the likelihood of causing serious harm in the case of pedophiles. This is exactly the type of legislation the member for Brampton is looking for in her motion.

Unfortunately, the two members of the Liberal caucus who spoke to Bill C-240 during its first hour of debate did not speak in favour of it. I know the member is sincere in her efforts to motivate the government to take action on this matter. Perhaps she can speak to her colleagues and reconsider her own belief that by passing C-240 it would allow these changes to be made possible. I believe that Bill C-240 would accomplish that which she is seeking.

Over the summer months I had the opportunity to tour a number of penitentiaries in British Columbia. One of them, Mountain Institution in Agassiz, has an inmate population that is largely sex offenders. I had an opportunity to discuss one of the ongoing treatment plans. The five month program is extensive but only works on the outside if the released inmate is under community supervision.

The therapist advised me there was one situation where the parole officer observed that one of the parolees was falling back into his crime cycle. It was only because he was a parolee and under community supervision that they were able to revoke his parole and reincarcerate him. This action probably prevented another sexual assault from occurring.

On the other hand we have a case like Larry Fisher who ironically was released from the same prison earlier this year. He was convicted of raping seven women. He was deemed to be so dangerous that he spent his entire sentence behind bars. He served 23 years before he walked out free because he had fulfilled his full sentence.

Larry Fisher is currently out there with absolutely no community supervision. One day he is an inmate whom the experts consider too dangerous to be released and the next day he is a completely free man. There is something wrong with a system that prevents society from protecting itself from the worst type of sexual behaviour.

I agree completely with the member for Brampton that the National Parole Board has to have the ability to keep dangerous pedophiles off the streets of Canada. Experts on pedophilia agree that the chances of ever completely curing a pedophile are remote. Convicted pedophiles and other dangerous offenders should be kept incarcerated as long as they pose a threat to reoffend. If this turns out to be an indefinite sentence, so be it. We should feel no obligation to release any dangerous offender who is likely to reoffend.

Even when we reach the point at which the experts believe that the chances to reoffend are low, there must be community supervision. This way if a parole officer believes there is a likelihood of an offender committing another sex crime his parole can be revoked. For those offenders who have shown that they have adapted well and are of little risk, the reporting conditions of their parole could be minimal.

What we need is a bill that would keep pedophiles and other dangerous offenders incarcerated as long as they are likely to reoffend and a bill that would provide for lengthy post-incarceration community supervision to ensure that once these individuals are released their activities on the outside are closely monitored. This combination will provide society with the greatest amount of protection.

I repeat that this legislation can be found in Bill C-240, my private member's bill. I respectfully ask the member for Brampton and all those who support her motion to likewise support my private member's bill which could bring this motion to fruition.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 305 proposed by the member for Brampton.

There is no doubt our criminal justice system is flawed when it comes to dealing with high risk offenders, in particular sex offenders who prey on young children.

There have been several tragic cases in the past few years which have exposed terrible problems of how the justice system deals with sexual predators, but perhaps the most tragic is the case of Christopher Stephenson.

The criminal justice system failed 11-year old Christopher Stephenson of Brampton in 1988 when it released Joseph

Fredericks onto the streets. Christopher Stephenson was abducted at knifepoint from the Shoppers World mall in Brampton on June 17, 1988 by Joseph Fredericks, a known pedophile and psychopath.

Fredericks had spent his childhood in foster homes, his teens in an institution for the severely retarded, although he was not actually retarded, 24 years of his adulthood in a hospital for the criminally insane, and his middle age in Ontario prisons. This man who repeatedly raped, tortured and then murdered Christopher Stephenson on June 17, 1988 had been given early release from Warkworth Institution after the National Parole Board and Corrections Canada ignored an Ottawa judge's warning not to release him without psychiatric reassessment and extensive monitoring.

To make matters even worse, it was revealed during the inquest into Christopher's death that the prison psychologist believed there was a high probability that Fredericks would reoffend, but he crossed his fingers when he dropped Fredericks off in Brampton. A criminal justice system that simply crosses its fingers and hopes that a psychopath will not reoffend does not serve the interests of Canadians. In particular it does not serve the interests of young, innocent children like Christopher Stephenson.

We must make the necessary changes to ensure that such tragedies are not repeated.

Several years following Christopher's murder an inquest into his death was held by the ministry of the solicitor general in the province of Ontario. The inquest jury made 71 recommendations, the first of which was that legislation be enacted to "provide for the protection of the community by permitting the continued detention of sexually violent predators beyond the expiry of their sentence and to provide treatment during their confinement".

The jury also recommended that legislation be modelled on the Washington state protection act of 1990, a law that allows the attorney general to launch court proceedings against an individual even if that individual has been released from jail, to commit him to a special facility, possibly for life. While the Washington state act was considered to be somewhat extreme by Canadian standards, members may recall that in the dying days of its administration the Conservative government introduced legislation to deal with high risk offenders.

That particular bill proposed to allow the National Parole Board to detain any inmate believed likely to commit a sexual offence involving a child before the expiry of their original sentence. The bill in question was of course lost when the federal election was called.

The time has come to introduce new legislation to deal with this serious problem. My colleague's motion echoes the recommendation of the inquest jury that legislation is needed.

There have been many proposals for reform which have come not only from the Stephenson inquest, but from a working group on high risk offenders constituted by the previous Solicitor General. The time has come to act on those recommendations.

I believe that legislation to keep high risk offenders in prison much longer would go a long way to improving public safety. I am also of the opinion that any legislation brought forward by the government should include a provision which would allow sentencing courts to impose a post-detention term of supervision for high risk offenders.

A supervision provision would allow for the monitoring of an offender's behaviour and actions for an extended period of time following sentence expiry. In addition to placing a high risk offender under supervision for a period of 10 years residency for example, treatment and reporting conditions would also be imposed.

Any breach of those conditions would land the offender back in jail and remove any chance of future early release. That is the only way we will be able to monitor the serious sex offenders who we have no choice but to release after sentence expiry.

Perhaps if such provisions had existed in June 1988 Christopher Stephenson would be alive today. Perhaps if the parole officer responsible for Joseph Fredericks had known where Fredericks was living Christopher could have been found in time. But there were no residency restrictions placed on Fredericks and he had not bothered to report to his parole officer. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

At a recent criminal justice conference in Hamilton, victims rights organizations including CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, stressed the need for high risk offender legislation.

Criminal justice reform advocates and even the new chairman of the National Parole Board have stated that supervision and residency restrictions are necessary if we are to protect innocent children from sexual predators and other high risk offenders.

As terrible as the murder of Christopher Stephenson was, we must learn from it as we must learn from all other cases in which high risk offenders have preyed on innocent victims. We cannot stand by and let such tragedies recur. We must act now by supporting this motion and supporting any forthcoming legislation that will keep sick people like Joseph Fredericks off our streets.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are times when being a member of Parliament is very difficult. It is particularly difficult when having to deal with this type of issue especially when one does some research in order to make some

half intelligent comments. I have had a feeling of putting my head into a toilet.

Members of Parliament must make the protection of children a first priority. I mention the frustrations of being a member of Parliament. From time to time I get the impression that we move at glacial speed in this House. No matter how urgent the issue, it is highly unusual for this House to move with dispatch. Even as we sit here speaking again and again about awful issues like this one, we move at glacial speed.

In doing some research I came across an article from the Globe and Mail of June 1, 1994. The headline is ``Ottawa ponders nationwide registry of child abusers''.

The article reads in part: "A national registry of people convicted of sexually abusing children could help prevent schools and child care centres from unwittingly hiring offenders, says a government discussion paper released yesterday. Children could be better protected from sexual abuse by preventing known sex offenders from having positions of trust or responsibility with children, says the 19-page document. But it draws no conclusions about how to set up such a registry or what it might cost taxpayers. However, the report says research suggests society pays roughly $200,000 each time sex offenders repeat their crime, on investigations, prosecutions, imprisonment and judgment". In other words, clearly on the basis of this report it is basically saying that we are already spending the money so why do we not spend the money more wisely, particularly in the area of prevention?

By way of this speech I remind the justice minister that it says here "the justice minister, Allan Rock, has promised the registry will be operating by fall once the government has reviewed comments from the public".

I can appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, particularly as it relates to charter issues. I can appreciate that this has to go forward responsibly and well by the justice minister. At the conclusion of the article it says: "A similar provincial registry in British Columbia was shut down in 1984 after a court challenge. A Manitoba registry survived a challenge last year when three teachers suspected of child abuse lost a legal effort to keep their names off the list".

I raise that because it was clearly evident on the basis of the motion put forward by the member when she asked that this House give unanimous consent that this go forward that unanimous consent was denied. We have to ask the question then in the light of that what is it that we can do?

I have three suggestions. The first suggestion I have already made, that the justice minister as quickly as possible fulfil what I took to be a commitment that there will be a registry so that repeat offenders will not have access to the young children of Canada or at least as easy access as they presently have.

Also, from The Toronto Star of March 23 of this year: Pedophile gets three years for assault on boy 12 years of age''. It reads in part:It was a matter of trust, a trust bought by camping trips and outings to amusement parks like Canada's Wonderland. But as Kevin Starnaman himself admitted yesterday after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a 12-year old boy and filming the deviant acts'', and this is the quote of a convicted pedophile, ``society must be protected from persons like myself''.

I say again that a convicted pedophile says to us in this Parliament as legislators: "society must be protected from persons like myself".

One of the difficulties, again as a legislator coming to this august assembly, is that very frequently there are measures taken, whether we are talking about justice issues or whatever the legislation before us that are half measures, quarter measures, mincy steps, sometimes in the judgment of individual members steps in the wrong direction. Clearly there must be unanimous consent on the part of all members of this House that our first priority must be the protection of Canada's children.

What is another thing we can do? In light of the fact that we are having difficulty in terms of coming forward and there are charter concerns and so on and so forth, and we have already uncovered one which is a registry, let us take a look at what might happen if we were to take tougher corrective action and actually bring a grid to sentencing.

I will give just a few examples. A 41-year old male was charged with several counts of sexual assault and gross indecency on five children between the ages of five and nine. Pictures of the sexual act were taken and retained. These pictures were seized along with sex aids and other pornographic movies. Do you know what he got? He was convicted and sentenced to an amazing 23 months.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

A 43-year old male was charged with gross indecency on several young females aged from 4 to 13 years. He took pictures of the girls during the acts. These pictures were seized, plus other pornographic tapes. That is several young females.

He is presently before the courts.

A male was charged with gross indecency involving two 13-year old boys. A search warrant located photographs of young males in a very compromising position that I do not choose to read to this House. He was sentenced to all of two years.

A 51-year old male sexually assaulted two boys aged seven and eight years, taking various photographs of them. The accused distributed these photographs to pedophile magazines in the United States. A search warrant located the photos of

numerous young males. Guess what he got? Nine months. That is a tough one.

A 30-year old father attempted to get his nine-year old daughter to touch his penis and he in turn attempted to have intercourse with her. Investigation revealed he had taken photographs of other young girls in his basement. A quantity of pornographic material was seized. He received a real toughy, a suspended sentence and probation.

A 16-year old male sexually assaulted an 11-year old female neighbour. He took photographs of her in various sexual poses including sexual intercourse. When arrested he had several Penthouse magazines-I did not say hard core, blue pornography, I said Penthouse magazines-in his possession. He got two years probation.

It seems to me that we have something on our hands right at this moment in terms of the penal system where we could start to get serious, where we could take people who are giving lifetime sentences to these children. These pedophiles are fouling up the lives of their victims for their lifetimes.

Surely our court can do better than giving the pedophile all of two years, or suspended, or probation or whatever the case may be. It is already in our hands. We can go ahead and do something. That is a second issue.

The first issue is the registry. The second issue is the sentencing grid. As the revenue critic, I support the efforts of Canada Customs in its interdiction of pornographic material. In the research I did there is a very clear connection between pornography and particularly the way pornography is used.

I mentioned Penthouse magazine that you will find in your friendly neighbourhood Mac's Milk or 7-Eleven store. There is a very clear connection between these things. I suggest to civil libertarians who are always talking about freedom of speech and expression that there must be a first priority and that is the protection of children in this society.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to intervene on this. I feel very strongly about this. We can look at pornography, keep it under control, look at the registry and finally the sentencing grid to show that we can be serious with the tool that we have in hand right now.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speeches that have been made here today concerning this very important question. I think that they have been very good. I commend the member for Brampton for bringing this subject matter forward today.

The intention behind the motion of the hon. member is very helpful. In proposing action by the government to exert greater control over sex offenders, particularly pedophiles, she is reflecting a concern shared by most Canadians.

A few days before introducing this motion the hon. member held a press conference in Brampton jointly with one of her constituents and announced that a public petition in support of her motion was being circulated. I also commend the member for Brampton for attempting to go beyond generalities by imposing a mechanism that might increase our power to incarcerate dangerous pedophiles.

In this case she proposes giving the National Parole Board the authority to enforce the long term incarceration of offenders whom it feels may reoffend. In my view that is where the practical problem lies. I do not believe that the National Parole Board is the proper body to determine what should be done with an offender after he or she completes their sentence. Nor do I believe that it is a simple matter, legally, to prolong the detention of an individual when he or she has served the entire sentence imposed by the court. The problem is with our Constitution.

Many say that the charter is a problem in a lot of areas. Maybe in some things it is very binding. However in this case there is a very good reason for this charter protection, and necessary if we are to maintain a proper judicial system in this country.

When someone goes to court they are innocent until proven guilty. They are heard. Both sides of the case are presented. Then the person is determined innocent or guilty and, if guilty, a sentence is imposed. Once that sentence is imposed that is the punishment for that individual for that crime. That sentence has been imposed by a court that has heard all aspects of the case.

If we are to say before the person is released at the end of that sentence imposed by the court that this sentence should be extended then we are extending the sentence arbitrarily without due process of law in violation of overturning what the courts have set down.

That is very important. That is not to minimize what is attempted in this motion. There are better ways of doing it.

The parole board is not to be the vehicle for determining law and order in Canada. It has a specific function. That function is well defined. The parole board knows it and is perfectly competent to do it.

We can do two very important things. This is what is being examined by the Department of Justice at the present time. The first is instead of extending the sentence and imposing a further legal period of incarceration that we should instead have the person toward the end of their sentence examined by medical experts, particularly psychiatrists, to determine whether this person is medically fit to go out into society.

If this person is not fit to go out into society, then refer this person at the end of his or her sentence to a provincial medical facility, thereby giving the person much better treatment than they would receive in incarceration. This is then a medical problem.

Second, there are in the Criminal Code right now provisions for dealing with dangerous offenders. Sometimes however we do not know and do not designate people as dangerous offenders until they have committed a horrendous crime after a series of lesser horrendous crimes. They are not targeted early enough.

What can be done? We are attempting in the Department of Justice, with the minister, with the people in the department and with the co-operation of the ministers of justice and attorneys general provincially, to designate these people earlier, to flag them so to speak.

When they are released and show the potential for causing further crimes in this ever escalating spiral that some of these dangerous offenders follow, and when they reoffend, we will take them to court and when they are found guilty to then make a motion through the crown prosecutor to have them designated as dangerous offenders under part IV of the Criminal Code. They can then be kept for an extended and indefinite period of time.

The law is there. There are ways of doing it. This has to be done. I cannot disagree that in a lot of ways the time that has been taken seems long and extensive to a lot of people.