Debates of Oct. 6th, 1995

Employment Equity Act

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in support of this important piece of legislation, which many disadvantaged Canadians have long dreamed of.

Yes, I use the word "dream". I am proud to be a member of a team that dares to dream, one that has such faith in our capacity as individuals and our capacity as a nation.

In the Liberal Party the vision was set out in what we called "Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada ". In that document the government reinforced and spoke about the social fabric of the country. We promised to strengthen our employment equity legislation to ensure that we meet a very simple but profound commitment. That commitment springs from the belief that everyone in Canada is entitled to equality.

I remind members that the red book speaks of a future where all Canadians, regardless of gender, race, or physical and intellectual attributes, enjoy a standard of living and quality of life equal to those of other Canadians. With this legislation we are moving forward and ensuring that that future will become a reality.

I want to talk about Bill C-64 in terms of the strength we hope this will build in our society, in our communities, and among us. It is capitalizing on the diversity. It is about creating jobs and growth. It is about removing barriers to full employment. The modifications of the act are designed to streamline and strengthen its existing provisions to ensure that the philosophy behind employment equity becomes the everyday practice in the federally regulated workplace.

This constructive piece of legislation builds on the significant progress we have achieved since the Employment Equity Act was introduced in 1986. I remind the House that Canadian banks, airlines, broadcasters, some of the largest and most visible companies in the country, have been implementing employment equity programs for a decade. They have recognized that without such plans their businesses would become less and less representative of the clients they serve, a point which must not be lost on us as government.

As a result of the federal policy and the dedication of business to implement it, the numbers of designated groups have risen, without backlash but with plenty of benefits to our society. Bill C-64 is a continuation of our efforts to create real equality of opportunity in the federally regulated workplace. It goes further than our existing legislation by expanding the act's coverage and clarifying what employment equity will and will not do.

This legislation will help explode the many myths we hear coming from across the way in this House. These folks have circulated many of those myths: employment equity challenges workplace norms that reinforce existing patterns of power. This can be threatening to people who are satisfied with the status quo. They do not understand the need to accommodate differences because they are satisfied with the way things are.

The so-called playing field is already tipped in favour of those for whom it was constructed, so it is not surprising that there are attempts to find reasons to justify resistance to more inclusive employment policies and practices.

We have heard the myths coming from the other side of the House. We want to affirm that employment equity, with its emphasis on fairness toward all Canadians, shatters all those unfounded assumptions.

The legislation requires only that employers consider all qualified candidates, I underline qualified, when seeking new employees or choosing among workers for promotions. The act does not allow quotas, and it certainly has no mandatory preferences when employers choose new workers or consider their existing employees for promotions. Somehow those two concepts, the qualified candidates and no mandatory preferences, seem to be lost on the opposition.

This bill is not about preferential treatment; it is about equal treatment. If it is given a chance to work, everybody will benefit. The legislation is meant as an unobtrusive human resource management tool that would educate and assist employers as they create more equitable workforces. Would that we could do this in the House.

The whole point of this bill is to enhance this country's economic performance through the removal of barriers that prevent members of the designated groups from contributing to the workplace. It is as much about economics as it is about justice. Clearly it is about both. We want to achieve a better balance, one that assures fairness and dignity for disadvantaged Canadians and works to our country's social and economic advantage.

We are not interested in compiling statistics. The act is not about counting numbers or instituting reams of new regulations. We are talking about Canadian people, work ready individuals anxious to demonstrate their abilities in a fair and welcoming environment, who must be given that choice.

We need to rethink how we relate to one another as groups of people. That is exactly what our improved employment equity legislation asks us to do.

Bill C-64 asks Canadians to open their hearts and open their minds to the many advantages of workplace diversity. It asks that we put into practice the democratic principles we profess to believe in: fairness, access and equity for all, regardless of gender, race, disability, orientation. It insists that we live up to our moral and legal obligations by upholding the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly employment equity is not an impediment to business or an infringement on anyone's right. It is a catalyst for improvement to the workplace and progress in our country. It is the foundation of Canada's future. More than just the stuff dreams are made of, this legislation can dramatically impact the standard of living and quality of life of disadvantaged Canadians, the millions of women,

visible minorities, persons living with disabilities, aboriginal people, et cetera, who are an important part of our great nation.

I remind my hon. colleagues that these people are counting on us to do the right thing. They are counting on us to endorse this crucial legislation. There can be no debate. Bill C-64 is the right thing for Canada. It is the right thing for us to do. It is the right thing for us to do right now.

Let us get on with the job. Maybe the myth carriers and those who would stand in this House and continue to have those myths circulate will begin to understand that Canadians are counting on us to ensure that fairness and equity exist in this country.

Let us get on with the job. Let us support this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I see members seeking the floor on questions and comments. I remind colleagues it is 1.30 p.m. I can only proceed by unanimous consent.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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.

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved that Bill C-242, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (improvement to public safety), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this private member's bill reach the floor of the House of Commons. As members know it is not an item of Private Members' Business which will be voted on. We all know and believe, because we have to, that our Private Members' Business arrangements sometimes shine a light, point the way and give direction in the field of statutory and policy reform. If it does not happen here it is not going to happen anywhere.

My bill-perhaps I should not call it my bill because a lot of people, events and persons contributed to the bill-reflects six or seven years of experience in this House as a member of Parliament, regionally and nationally and more particularly the seven years I spent on the House of Commons justice committee. Some of the things in the bill actually evolve directly from that experience on the justice committee.

To be sure there continues to be flaws in Canada's criminal justice system. We all recognize that. The challenge is to find solutions and make corrections.

I am not one of those who would say that the whole system is in disrepute. I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian criminal justice system, notwithstanding some of the flaws that it has. Let us be honest, there is not a criminal justice system in the world which will not over time develop flaws and show need for change.

In the past year and half the government that I sit with proudly has made a number of changes in the criminal justice area. I will mention the Young Offenders Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the new sentencing act, amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with DNA testing and other areas and last but not least the institution of a new national crime prevention council.

The council recognizes that we have a long way to go, maybe forever. The business of reducing the potential for crime will go on forever. The business of addressing society's needs in a way that will reduce the propensity of our citizens to resort to crime will always be there and will go on.

Last night, by coincidence I guess, I had the opportunity of watching on one of our Canadian networks an interview with the French and Mahaffy families following the conviction of the accused Paul Bernardo for the murder and other crimes in relation to their daughters. Thanks to television and to those families, we were able to enter into the homes of these two Canadian families. I could not help but sense that the families were hoping for a reconciliation with Canadians to meet the challenges in their personal lives. I cannot imagine that had anything to do with why they agreed to do the interview.

I want to thank them for doing the interview and I hope that Canadians have been made aware of several things. It shows how vulnerable we all are in terms of public safety. We share our vulnerability to a psychopath or any criminal intimately with every one of our fellow citizens.

Last night's interview permitted Canadians to understand how important this area of law and policy is to all of us. I hope those families will forgive me for even attempting to suggest what they wanted to convey. I believe one area where we still have some reform ahead of us is the criminal justice area. I hope they would agree.

There are still reforms that we must address. The bill before us today is a short list. It is not comprehensive. It contains six areas of reform. I am going to walk through it now. I believe it is fair to say that not every element of the six areas will have universal support. That is rarely the case when one tries to make a change in the criminal justice system. However, I would like to think that there

is a sizeable consensus that this list is just part of the reforms still out there for us to accomplish.

The first item is the denial of statutory release for serious, repeat offenders. A serious repeat offender in this case is a person who while on any form of early release, has been convicted of an offence for which that person has been sentenced to five years or more. The subsequent second offence which would result in the denial of early release is certainly a serious offence. It would have drawn a sentence of five years or more.

I am not being particularly aggressive in this. In April 1993 the standing committee on justice reported through its 14th report and recommended that the sentence for the subsequent offence be set at two years. It is the same recommendation of denial of parole and early release but the threshold was two years. In my bill I have selected five years.

I hope I will not be accused by anyone of wimping out. The Liberal Party of Canada in May and August of the same year adopted the report of the justice committee as part of its criminal justice policy package. The House of Commons justice committee unanimously endorsed the provision and referred it to the House. The Liberal Party of Canada adopted the entire justice committee report. At the moment that recommended reform has not yet been adopted.

One of the most glaring examples of why reform is necessary is the case of the conviction of Albert Foulston in Edmonton for the murder of a police officer in 1990. This person has had 48 separate convictions so it is fair to call him a convict. This convict was in prison serving a sentence of approximately 10 years. I do not know whether anybody really knew exactly how the 10 years was composed because the sentencing mathematics contained in the Criminal Code and in the CCRA are very complex. In any event, he was released.

On several occasions while he was on early release he committed other offences. I will not go through the list. It is part of the public record elsewhere. While on early release for the umpteenth time he participated in the killing of an Edmonton police officer for which he was fairly promptly sentenced to 20 years.

The sentence calculation resulted in his total sentence looking like 30 years because it was consecutive. However, because of the way we calculate sentences, he was eligible for parole one year and five months after he was convicted of the murder. With his life sentence he was eligible for parole one year and five months after he was convicted of murder. That is absurd. The absurdity has been recorded in public journals.

One is moved to say that the system is obviously in some disarray. I will leave that as an example of why the existing provision must be changed.

My bill says that if a person is on early release and is convicted of a crime and sentenced to two years or more that person loses the right to early release.

I accept that there must be at the end of the consecutive sentences a period when the offender will be integrated. That has to be in the statutory release portion because I do not want that guy being released at the end of 30 years and sitting on the Bay Street bus the next day beside my kids. I want a period of integration.

The bill would close a loophole which allows offenders to avoid serving time for new offences if those new offences occur while they are on early release or even while they are in prison. If a person is sentenced to seven years for a particularly bad crime and during the fifth year that person gets out, beats somebody up and steals his money, that would normally draw a sentence of a couple of years. The way the law is currently written it requires that person to start the two years back at the beginning of the seven year sentence.

I am not going to take time to read that section of the Criminal Code. It is a public statute and anybody can read it. They can read the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the appropriate section of the Criminal Code.

Basically the second offence is what I had call a freebie. There is no sanction. You can steal a car, steal a purse, commit an assault, and provided of course that the sentence for the second offence does not exceed the length of the sentence you were first on, you do not have to serve any additional time. This needs to be corrected.

We tried in the House in the last Parliament, I know we tried in this one, and we are getting closer. We have made amendments, but officials seem to be reluctant to alter the system too much, because every time you change a sentence calculation it costs money, and they do not have the money in their budgets. They are very cautious about making changes to the way we sentence people and keep people in our correctional institutions. I accept that.

In any event, I am still on the case and many of our colleagues in this House are still on the case and we are slowly getting to those reforms.

The third area is the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility from age 12, where it is now, to age 10. That has been misinterpreted in a lot of quarters. People ask how you can throw the Criminal Code at a little 11-year-old. That is not the objective, any more than it is the objective to throw the book at the 13-year-old or the 14-year old. What we have done in this country is arrange for intervention into the life of a young offender when they are under 18 years of age. What this does is allow the appropriate intervention for a 10-year-old or 11-year-old. At present there is no intervention.

I remember in the last Parliament, the day before I introduced a similar provision in private members' business was the day of that unfortunate killing in Great Britain where the two 11-year-old boys were involved. If that had happened here in Canada there would have been no intervention. In some provinces there would have been a social worker, but no Young Offenders Act. The social worker procedures vary from province to province. This would allow intervention at an early age, the same way we intervene for all young offenders.

The fourth area is a provision that deals with the community scourge of crack houses. Municipalities are crying out for some way to deal with this. I suggest the solution is to redefine what we call a disorderly house or a bawdy house in the Criminal Code and allow the same procedures that communities use to deal with bawdy houses and disorderly houses, where there are procedures to deal with what we call found-ins and procedures to deal with landlords. There is nothing else out there. It is a simple amendment, and many communities I know would want to take advantage of it to deal with crack houses.

Fifth is stiffer bail provisions for two categories of cases, where you have people out on bail or on peace bonds committing other offences. This proposal deals with being on bail or on a peace bond and committing an offence on the peace bond or committing another driving offence while on bail for a driving offence. There are very serious implications for the public to have a drunk out driving again when he or she is on bail on a driving offence. To reverse the onus in the bail does not mean they do not get bail; it means that it is up to them to show the judge why they should be released. The onus or the burden of proof changes in terms of entitlement to bail.

Last is a matter that has been discussed publicly. It would allow victims of sexual assault to have the blood of the accused tested only under a judge's order and in such a way that the evidence of the blood test would not be used against them in the trial. This provides something for the victim to make sure that he or she has not been infected with many of the sexually transmitted diseases that are out now. There are half a dozen of them. Some of them are lethal. We have to have some compassion for victims where you make a prima facie case in front of a judge and the judge says there will be a blood test. In this way the victim can be assured, as best we can using the medical testing we have, that he or she has not been infected with one of these STDs.

Those are the six parts. I have had a lot of help preparing this, first from my constituents, who have given me a lot of latitude here in Parliament to deal with a lot of issues. I hope the bill reflects their concerns. I received a lot of help from Canadians. I will mention some of the people with whom I have had contact over the last few years: Margot Blackburn, who has gone public, Priscilla de Villiers, who has gone public, Mrs. Mahaffy, the Rosenfeldts, and others. These people have all been direct or indirect victims who want to see change. I have also spoken to public interest groups, Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, the Canadian Centre for Victims of Crime, financed by the Canadian Police Association.

I am grateful to my colleagues in this House for their continuing support. Sooner or later, I hope these initiatives will bear fruit.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on private member's Bill C-242 tabled by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I shall be addressing in particular clauses 3 and 8 on lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Before I begin, I would like to stress that I find it a bit strange that we are today debating a private member's bill from a member of the government party. He himself began his speech by stating that he was on the House of Commons justice committee for six years, nearly two of those while his own party formed the government. I find it somewhat strange that he is proposing this again today. I wonder, is it because he has not managed to influence his own minister of justice? Yet, as a member of the justice committee he has studied these specific aspects.

I am a bit surprised therefore to see a former member of the justice committee proposing such a bill. Perhaps this means-and I think some of the hon. members opposite might have something to say on this-that the matter was looked at somewhere and the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River was no doubt told that his bill was not in line with the government's intentions.

I am therefore prepared to debate it, but it is my impression-not that I want to say we are wasting our time-but that the energy expended by the hon. member, his good intentions notwithstanding, could have been better expended if he had worked on the office of the Minister of Justice, particularly the minister himself. But, there you are.

The members of the opposition, who have no real power, can see that the backbenchers of the government party do not have much power or influence over their cabinet colleagues either.

As I have stated, my speech will be on clauses 3 and 8, because they are aimed at dropping the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 12 to 10 years.

I recall being present here in the House when the Young Offenders Act was being discussed. That debate succeeded in lowering the age by two years. At that rate, and considering the number of debates there have been over time-you may think I am laying it on a bit thick-but if we keep dropping the age down every two years, in ten years they will be saying that the Criminal Code applies to babies. This is not logical, but there you have it. In Canada, government members, with the backing of the third party, are going along with a trend that is really reinforcing the ideas of

the right, ideas that our young people really need measures to control them better.

I cannot get over this. Before coming out with such things, did anyone think about the message we are giving to our young people at the present time? Ten to twelve year olds are still just children, or adolescents at most.

The hon. member is suggesting a change in the definition of a child and an adolescent by lowering the age. At 10 they would be recognized as adolescents.

True, our children are bigger than they used to be because they are healthier and better fed. It was recently reported that their IQs might be 10 per cent higher as well, for a variety of reasons, than what they were 20 years ago. I am willing to agree that these conditions are improving, but I still feel ten years is too young.

I am sure that this has not succeeded in influencing the Minister of Justice and therefore is not likely to be implemented. I trust that this debate will not influence others. One never knows if, after Quebec becomes sovereign, another party, the Reform Party for instance, were to come to power in Canada, well then it would be-

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

It would be dreadful.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Although I did not put words in the mouth of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for once I agree with him. It would be dreadful to see such measures made more stringent.

We in Quebec have a tradition. Although we apply the Canadian Criminal Code to those under the age of 18 years. there is a provision for rehabilitation. When a crime has been committed by a young person, it must be interpreted as a sign to the parents and to society that something must be done for this young person.

I recall the words of a member of this House, whom I shall not name as he is not present. You would have cautioned me,Mr. Speaker, that we must not speak of the absent, but once warned, twice shy.

Who among us can boast that we did nothing bad as children. It is true that there are some extremely isolated cases, for instance the two young boys aged between 10 and 12 who committed a murder in England. This is unacceptable, but these are isolated cases. Let us have a look at the statistics.

What is the real state of affairs? According to statistics issued by the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse du Québec, in 1992-1993, 35 per cent of violent crimes in Canada were committed by individuals aged 25 to 34. On the other hand, the 12 to 17 year old group was responsible for less than 15 per cent of these crimes. I repeat, less that 15 per cent.

Excluding the elderly, the very old-I am sorry to say the very old, but I will soon be joining them, since in 12 years I will be 60-statistics issued by Statistics Canada show that young people are less violent than any other age group in terms of serious violent crimes. Let us keep this in mind.

I do not want to impute motives to the member, but he is jumping on the bandwagon in favour of harsher measures to better control our young people. Was increased funding for prevention and better education ever considered? Were increased resources in these areas ever considered?

I did not see anything to that effect coming from this government. Unfortunately, some provincial governments want to cut this sort of services. A case in point is what is going on in Ontario. I have not closely checked it out but I understand that Alberta has made drastic cuts in these areas. This is a dangerous trend.

We all have kids and we know how firm we have to be with them. We cannot be naive. We have to be firm with them, and, as adults, give them good advice. We must not always think in terms of punishment. We must give ourselves better means to help those who tell us that society leaves to be desired, that they have problems and need our help. I think we should debate those things.

One last point. Time flies and I have only one minute left.

I have kids living at home and friends who do also and I am always amazed to see how easy it is for them to view violent movies. Why can we not take adequate measures in that area?

I cannot give you specific statistics today, but I am sure that the many murders and attempts at violent acts that a young person can see depicted on film in one evening have a negative influence on our youth.

Why are we not conducting serious studies to limit the influence of such programs on our youth? I would be an interesting approach. We could at least try.

After all, we did bring these kids into the world. There is a song which says: "We gave them birth, maybe we could listen to them". So maybe we could listen to what they have to say and try to find out why these violent individuals acting the way they do, even though they are only a minority.

We must, as a community, be it Quebec or Canada, take the necessary steps to help these young people. If I am still here later on- which is doubtful, although I may do so somewhere else--

someday I will suggest ways to help young people avoid the negative influence of such television programming.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-242. It is a very rare occasion to see anything concrete coming from the government side of the House that makes any sense and actually deals with the real issues. I guess it is because it is coming from the back benches and not from the government that I can appreciate we are dealing with the real issues here.

Having had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs with the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, I can appreciate his approach to legislative changes. During his tenure on the committee the member for Scarborough-Rouge River has been able to identify problems with the current laws, propose legislative changes before the committee and try to promote them. Unfortunately he has had very little support from members of his own caucus.

He is attempting with Bill C-242 to deal with the real issues, the real concerns, and to suggest legislative changes. There is nothing earth shattering about the changes he is recommending. Serious repeat offenders should be denied statutory release. Loopholes should be removed from the calculation of parole eligibility which allow repeat offenders not to serve their full new sentences. Victims of sexual assaults should be allowed to request that their assailants provide blood samples to check for infectious diseases. Bail procedures should be toughened up. Crack houses should be outlawed and the age of criminal responsibility for young offenders should be reduced from 12 to 10 years old.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has identified a number of flaws in the justice system and has offered workable solutions to these flaws. Either that, or I would suggest he has been reading the Reform Party's policy book again. Bill C-242 reads like it came directly out of the criminal justice reform section of our policy book. In either event the Reform Party certainly supports each and every one of the amendments in Bill C-242.

It is a shame that these issues will only receive one hour of debate this afternoon and then will die. All these amendments have the support of the Reform Party. I am certain they also have the support of an overwhelming majority of Canadians. Canadians are demanding justice reform. There are just too many cases where the law is not protecting the average citizen.

Canada's justice system needs to adopt one underlying principle: when the rights of a convicted offender are in conflict with the rights of the victim or the rights of society as a whole, the rights of the victim or of society shall take precedence every time. A prime example of the need for this principle is contained in clause 7 of Bill C-242.

The need for legislation sprung out of a case in Quebec a few years ago when a mother was sexually assaulted by an inmate on parole. The inmate had previously been incarcerated in an institution with a very high number of AIDS cases. Since her assailant had been an intravenous drug user the victim was naturally concerned that her assailant may also have carried HIV. When her assailant refused to voluntarily give a blood sample the victim went to court to have one given. Her request was rejected because conducting a blood test against the offender's will was deemed to be a violation of his rights under the charter.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This offender who committed a serious crime of sexual assault should have lost some of his rights. One of the rights he should have lost was the right to refuse to take a blood test.

On the day of the sexual assault the victim's life was irrevocably changed. Sexual assault leaves emotional scars that never leave the victim. One additional burden should not have been her daily concern about whether or not she had been infected by HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease.

Clause 7 would have addressed that issue. Unfortunately Clause 7 like the rest of Bill C-242 will never be enacted.

In the last days of June we finally got the government to move on the question of taking DNA samples. Why could blood samples not be given the same consideration where there is justifiable cause?

Another aspect of Bill C-242 I should like to address is the amendments the member for Scarborough-Rouge River wishes to make to the Young Offenders Act. He felt it was necessary to lower the minimum age from 12 years to 10 years. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River cites the example of the murder case in Great Britain where two 10-year old boys murdered a 3-year-old. The member correctly pointed out that had the offence occurred in Canada the police would have had little recourse but to simply accompany the boys back to their parents, and that would have been the end of it.

It is interesting this example was used because I have used it myself on many occasions. I have been criticized because such a horrendous event has not occurred in Canada and therefore it is inappropriate to use it.

Then I switched to my Mikey Smith story. Mikey Smith is an 11-year old boy from Surrey who has for the past couple of years been one of the most active car thieves in the lower mainland area. While I am not sure what his current total is, it is probably well over 100 cars. Mikey Smith publicly admitted that he would

continue to steal cars until he was 12 years old because there was nothing anybody could do about it.

Mikey's mother asked that he be charged before he either killed himself or somebody else, before he reached a point where he could not turn his life around. The Surrey RCMP would have been more than happy to have accommodated the mother but the law did not allow it. The Surrey crown counsel would have loved to have been able to have accommodated Mikey's mother, but as the Young Offenders Act currently stands there was nothing they could do.

I questioned the Minister of Justice about it in the House and in committee. He expressed concern about the issue. He basically said that while they can do something about it they are not prepared to do so.

In the meantime one of my constituents was going home one afternoon, going through an intersection on a green light, and was sideswiped by a car stolen and driven by Mikey Smith. Fortunately no one was seriously injured, but it is incomprehensible that this kind of situation can continue to be allowed and that Mikey Smith should be allowed to continue the mayhem.

One response I received from the federal government was that it was a case in which the provincial social services should have intervened. Just for the government's information, they did. They sent Mikey on a wilderness program so that he could develop a better attitude. The program helped so much that on the day Mikey returned to Surrey he stole a car to celebrate his return.

Unfortunately Mikey is not the only youngster under 12 to be engaged in crime. Youth gangs are recruiting 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds to carry out some of their crimes because they know that they cannot be charged. Still there is no hint from the government that it will support this kind of change. In fact when the Reform Party put forward a votable motion last year not one Liberal voted in favour of it.

In conclusion, Bill C-242 is a good example of how some Liberal backbenchers have proposed good legislation but how the government is not prepared to let the legislation be enacted. It is apparent to me that the only way these criminal justice reforms will ever be enacted is if there is a more Reform minded government in place. I assure the member for Scarborough-Rouge River that such a government would be much more sympathetic to supporting these initiatives.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate.

I have looked at some aspects of the bill and think it would make good law. However when I hear the position of the Reform Party then I think I must be wrong.

I have studied the proposals that have been put forward. Some I agree with and some I do not. When trying to come up with criminal law we must always look for a balance. The protection of society is always a primary concern. That has to be balanced with the rights of the accused. In recent years the interests of the victim have also come to the fore.

I believe that the bill put forward by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River tries to strike that balance, particularly in the area of someone who continues with the commission of crimes while he or she is out on early release. The proposal for change so that the person will no longer be eligible for statutory release is a good one.

The threshold for statutory release is also good because it is not at the two-year level but at the five-year level, which indicates that a rather severe crime has been committed. Therefore, more sanctions for the protection of society require that we have this type of an amendment. The example used by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River of a person who commits a murder and would only have to serve roughly a year and half before being eligible for parole is something that needs to be amended. I support those two aspects of the proposed changes in Bill C-242.

I share the concerns of members from the Bloc about changing the age for people who have committed a crime. It seems to me that lowering the age is really not the proper direction to proceed. Perhaps what we have to do is what has been done in some jurisdictions, which is introduce more flexibility. Rather than trying to come up with age limits, we should allow the court in specific circumstances to determine whether the child has the capability of understanding the crime he or she has committed and whether the process would be better served either inside or outside the criminal justice system, rather than come up with some magic line drawn in the sand.

In that sense I cannot support the part of the bill calling for change to a 10-year age limit. Although it is very convenient when we hear the stories put forward by the Reform Party for Mikey Smith or the stories that come forward from the situation in Great Britain.

Most often we hear of the extremes but we have to come up with laws that deal with the norms. Therefore, I see no real benefit in that aspect of the proposed bill. There is some benefit in looking at stiffer bail procedures, crack houses and those types of things to see whether we can grapple with those issues and come up with a system that works.

On the face of it these seem to be good. It is too bad the bill will not get the opportunity for committee study and input. Maybe there are other approaches, other ways to fine tune the bill. However, to me it looks very positive.

I talked earlier about balancing one aspect against another. I cannot not think of anything worse than a person who has been the victim of a sexual assault being doubly victimized by not knowing what possible diseases may have been transmitted as a result of that sexual assault. When I try to balance the rights of the individual who committed the crime and the rights of the victim, from my own point of view I come down on the side of the person who has been victimized. If a blood test would give any comfort to that person after enduring that situation, then I think society would require that we do something.

In that sense this bill proposes a methodology which would allow the court to review the circumstances to decide whether or not an order should be granted. Therefore the rights of the individuals in that balancing act we have to go through are protected to a degree, but the rights of the victim are also protected.

In conclusion and as a general comment, the main thrust of the bill deals with the issues of the people who commit a crime once they are out on statutory release, the eligibility for bail and the calculation of sentences. Those issues are well aimed. We need some changes in the law in that area.

I do not support the member in his position with respect to the change of age. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River and I have discussed this issue over some period of time.

I do support the general direction. I would be interested in hearing from experts but I think the bill requires the right balance between the accused and the victim in dealing with blood tests. It is unfortunate this bill is not going before committee where we would have the input of others as to how we can make our criminal justice system better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, and the Young Offenders Act. I know that the hon. member from Scarborough-Rouge River has invested a great deal of time and energy in bringing this piece of legislation before the House.

The thrust of the hon. member's proposals is to deal more stringently with repeat offenders, particularly those who commit crimes while on day parole, full parole or statutory release.

In particular, these proposals address anomalies in the current legislation which have been of concern to various interest groups, particularly the police and justice system officials.

Under that legislation, many offenders who commit multiple crimes or who re-offend during their sentence may remain eligible for release and may even avoid custody altogether.

On June 21, 1994, the Solicitor General introduced Bill C-45, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes.

The bill received third reading and is now before the Senate.

The amendments contained in Bill C-45 will ensure that offenders who get new sentences will feel the effect of those sentences. This will help restore confidence in the sentence calculation process in the following way.

Under the government's proposals, any offender who receives a new custodial sentence while on conditional release would be automatically returned to custody.

In the case of a consecutive sentence, the offender would have to serve the parole ineligibility portion of the new sentence before becoming eligible again for parole.

This means a third of the new sentence, or one-half of the sentence in cases where the court has made an order that this would have to be served. The net effect is proportionate to the new sentence and respects the decision of the court to serve an additional period of time in custody.

These proposals were developed on the basis of extensive consultations with a broad range of groups and individuals including judges, lawyers, police, provincial corrections and justice officials, as well as representatives of various voluntary service organizations.

Last March the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs conducted a review of Bill C-45. During that process, the committee heard from over 60 witnesses who represented 32 different organizations, including victims groups, police organizations, professional groups, women's groups, aboriginal organizations, as well as a range of organizations from the voluntary sector.

During its clause by clause review, the committee debated a number of motions to amend the sentence calculation provisions of Bill C-45 and endorsed them in their entirety. These provisions were also recently passed by the House of Commons.

While I believe that the hon. member's bill is well-intentioned, I am also concerned that it falls short of the impact intended by Bill C-45 for the following reasons. First, the changes proposed in Bill C-242 do not take into account the inter-relation of the various

sentence calculation provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

By changing two aspects of the law, we will create an imbalance with other aspects of the legislation. This would necessitate significant re-drafting of the law as it now stands. Bill C-242 also deals with the complex issue of sentence calculation in a limited manner. Implicit in these proposals is the assumption that an offender under sentence will receive only one new sentence.

In such cases, sentence calculation is simple and straightforward. The offender would lose any eligibilities for conditional release on the original sentence, and would have to wait out the parole ineligibility period of the new sentence before becoming eligible again for conditional release.

But how would a sentence be calculated if the offender receives four or five new sentences of varying durations, some consecutive and some concurrent, at different points in the original sentence? The bill fails to address this complex and very realistic matter.

The law must be equipped to deal with multiple sentences and all possible combinations of sentences in an equitable manner consistent with the court's intent. And while this government supports the principle that repeat criminal behaviour should be dealt with more stringently, particularly when it occurs during conditional release, I also believe that the courts can take this into consideration when imposing a new sentence.

Bill C-45 will address the shortcomings of the current sentence calculation provisions I mentioned earlier. In doing so, the bill does not lose sight of the purpose of statutory release which is to provide offenders released from prison with a gradual controlled transition period back to the community to assist them with their reintegration and minimize public safety risk.

I would like to assure the members of this House that where any offender is at high risk of committing a violent or serious drug offence before sentence expiry, the National Parole Board has the authority to detain the offender until warrant expiry. All the measures I have mentioned aim to ensure that offenders are not arbitrarily held in prison longer than necessary, and that due consideration is given to their individual cases and level of risk to the community.

We must take heed that discretion is fundamental for ensuring that all cases are dealt with fairly. I believe that an individualized approach based on risk assessment is preferable to blanket removal of statutory release for a category of offenders.

During witness hearings on Bills C-45 and C-41 regarding sentencing reforms, it was frequently heard that imprisonment should be used as a last resort for the most serious offences. Many witnesses who appeared before the justice and legal affairs committee also stressed the merit of providing offenders with gradual, structured release programs combined with ongoing treatment and support to ensure long term community protection. It is well known that simply locking them up for longer periods of time will not achieve the goal shared by all Canadians for improved public safety.

The proposals set out in Bill C-45 are a thoughtful reflection of the collaboration with many groups and individuals, including members of the opposition.

I look forward to seeing effective and balanced reform-such as that presented by the government in Bill C-45-move forward, and anticipate that Parliament will deal fairly in addressing the anomalies which the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has brought to our attention.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-242, the public safety improvement act, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River. Before I address the specifics of the bill I believe it is important for members to understand the history of our colleague's complex initiative.

As many members know, since his election to Parliament in 1988, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has been a strong advocate for criminal justice reform. He first introduced this bill in the late stages of the last Parliament. At that time the bill received a great deal of attention for three main reasons.

First it was and still is a thoughtful, well drafted and complex piece of legislation which attempts to fill numerous cracks in the criminal justice system. Second, national police and victims groups rallied around the bill because it addressed many of their concerns. Third and perhaps most significant of all, the bill was co-sponsored by the former member for Red Deer who at the time was a government member who shared his opposition colleague's concerns for the issues which the bill aimed to address. Today, more than two years later, we are still debating those same issues in the House.

As previous speakers have noted, this is an omnibus bill which deals with six key areas of the criminal justice system. They include statutory release, sentencing, young offenders, crack and bawdy houses, bail provisions and the rights of victims. To a degree some of us are asking why the government has not already addressed these issues. To a degree it has.

We have had the DNA legislation, amendments to the Young Offenders Act, a new child registry for sex offenders, tougher immigration and deportation provisions, and the list goes on and on. The government has done a good job. We have done a lot more

to improve public safety than any government before us and that is not just Liberal rhetoric.

The deputy bureau chief for the Sun news recently reported: ``This Liberal government has actually done more to toughen up the system in two years than the previous Tory government did in nine''. Although we have accomplished a great deal, there is still more to be done and this bill addresses some of those problems.

The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has proposed that an offender who commits a crime while on early release and who is sentenced for five or more years for that crime would no longer be eligible for statutory release. That proposal makes a lot of sense. The purpose of statutory release and for that matter all forms of early release is to prepare the offender for his or her ultimate reintegration into society. If an offender commits a crime during the trial freedom period, they obviously do not appreciate their freedom and therefore should not be trusted again.

In 1988 had Joseph Fredericks, a convicted pedophile with a long criminal record, not been entitled to statutory release, or mandatory supervision as it was known then, Christopher Stevenson, an innocent 11-year old Brampton boy, might not have been brutally murdered. It is for this reason that serious consideration should be given to this proposal by my colleague from Scarborough.

The issue of an offender committing a crime while on early release for a previous crime brings us to another section of the bill which deals with an area referred to as corrections math. Currently, if an offender commits a new crime while still serving a sentence for a previous crime, the new sentence begins on the start date of the original sentence. I am certain that anyone listening to this is confused, as I was when I first learned about sentence calculation many years ago when I was in Millbrook on the other side of the table doing parole hearings.

It still makes me angry. An offender serving a sentence of seven years for armed robbery commits another crime while on early release in year five of his or her sentence. Although the offender is sentenced to an additional three years in prison for the crime that was committed while on early release, they will not serve additional time in jail because the new sentence will be merged with the original one. Basically they are allowed to commit a free crime.

It is Friday afternoon, 2.30, and everyone wants to leave. It is the end of the time. I am sorry I was not able to finish my speech, but I want to tell members that I support Bill C-242 and the amendments to it. I hope the justice minister is listening.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton for his co-operation.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Before adjourning, I wish all of you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving.

I would like to wish you all a wonderful Thanksgiving Day.

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 16 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.

(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)