Debates of Oct. 4th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech on this important piece of legislation.

I wonder if it would be possible for the member to perhaps clear up a misunderstanding that arose in this House yesterday when we were also debating Bill C-55. The member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was talking about an unfortunate incident in a riding in Canada where there was a dangerous offender released in that community. It was not until the general public got involved in drawing the attention of the authorities to the fact that they did not want this individual loose in their community that something was done and pressure was brought to bear. Eventually Mr. Oatway voluntarily went back to jail in British Columbia.

It is my understanding that Bill C-55 cannot retroactively apply to dangerous offenders, no matter how bad these people are, no matter whether they do not voluntarily undertake treatment while they are incarcerated. It is my understanding that it simply will not apply.

The hon. member from across the way led the House to believe yesterday that it would apply to individuals who are currently incarcerated.

That is a great concern for Canadians at large who understand that we have a lot of inherently evil people presently incarcerated who are coming up for either parole or the end of their terms in jail. They will be released into society.

Can the member shed any light as to whether Bill C-55 is really going to help society in that regard? It is my understanding, once again, that under the present system the crown prosecutor has to apply for the dangerous offender designation at the time of trial, that Bill C-55 will expand that window to be six months after conviction but that it will not apply to anyone who is in the system and has been there for longer since their conviction. I want to know if he agrees with that.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this matter to my attention. There is no question in my mind that this bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will not allow any prosecutor to deal with those who have already been convicted with regard to the dangerous offender provision.

That provision is provided for the cases that will be brought forward after this bill has been passed. It has expanded the window, the time that the crown can apply for the dangerous offender status, to six months.

Of course, what we would like to do is amend the bill in this area to have dangerous offender status apply at any time during that period of incarceration, particularly at the end of the warrant of a violent offender.

The reasoning and rationale behind this is simply that if a dangerous offender application has not been successful or has not even been applied, and an individual who has committed a violent offence has served his time and at the end of his warrant period has not been rehabilitated, if there is clear evidence that this person represents a high risk to reoffend, why are we releasing him?

If we would expand the provision that my hon. friend referred to so that the prosecutor could apply to the courts for an indeterminant sentence application, the dangerous offender application, at the end of the sentence we would have a workable tool to determine whether the Augers, a prime suspect in the murder of Melanie Carpenter, ought to be released.

In that case Auger was released on statutory release. The officials were concerned that he was a high risk to members of society. There was not a thing they could do about it because there were no tools within the law for them to do anything about it.

We will be making this amendment to this bill at the appropriate time to expand that window of time from six months to the full warrant period in order to provide the tool that I have just described within the justice system.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55.

The efforts of the justice minister, the champion of the social engineers on that side of the House, are probably a little better than they have been in any bill that I have seen in the last three years.

However, as usual there are some things in there that have to be fixed, there are flaws and there are some changes that need to be made. Hopefully we will be able to see that accomplished at the committee meetings.

The sad part about it and the fear that I have is that behind closed doors in the justice department there are decisions already being made as to what can be or what will be allowed with regard to this bill. We have seen it happen before to bills coming from the committees.

If this justice minister says there will be no amendments to this bill, and he says it to the members of his caucus who serve on that committee, that is the way it will be regardless of the debate,

regardless of the discussion and regardless of the witnesses. I have seen that happen and unfortunately it is going to happen again in my view.

This bill is need of amendments but the dictatorship of this government has already indicated it will not be changed. Decisions are made behind closed doors and then all the members of the party, the justice minister, the social engineer, will be required to rise in their seats and vote according to what he says. That seems to be the democratic process, and I use that term loosely. This government does not seem to understand the democratic process.

What a great thing it would be for Canadian people if democracy truly existed when it comes to making decisions on behalf of Canadian people. We could back up a few years, during the time of Trudeau, when people expressed loud and clear things they wanted and things they did not. The voices were being heard. They tried to participate.

I remember when they brought in the metric system there was quite a outcry. People did not want it but it did not matter. The people in this place do better. So we got the metric system anyway whether you wanted it or not as a Canadian.

I remember the language laws coming in and the great debates that took place across the country. The debates had no play. It is what this government wanted to do.

I remember the GST. There could not have been more resounding voices in the land by the people saying no to the GST, but they got it anyway because the little dictators who sit in this place made the decision and that is the way it is going to be.

That is just the way it was through the Trudeau years, that is the way it was through the Mulroney years and that is the way it has been during this session. Decisions are made behind closed doors and the government will do that whether you like it or not.

I talked to a number of backbenchers who have said that they would like to vote against a bill but they do not dare. Or they would like to vote against this bill but they do not dare because in the Liberal Party you are punished if you do not do as you are told.

[An hon. member]

That did not stop Silye.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I understand there are some people sitting over here, there are a lot of good committee members who used to serve-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. The Chair will not accept members being named either by the person who has the floor or people who are waiting to get the floor possibility. I would ask you to keep those matters in mind.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that you have to do as you are told if you belong to a certain party in this place. That is too bad because there are a lot of people on that side of the House as well as this side who would truly like to represent their people even when it comes to Bill C-55. They would like to hear their voices with regard to issues and would like to be able to express that through a vote in the House, but it does not work that way.

Three things bother me about Bill C-55. First is electronic monitoring. A provision in the bill states that a person only has to be a suspect in order to be monitored. This person does not need to have a conviction or a record or even been charged. The provision states that if we think you are he kind of a person who might commit this or that crime, you would qualify for electronic monitoring.

Many people would think that is a fairly strange process for a country like Canada to engage in. Some people would even go so far as to say we are moving toward a police state when we start electronically monitoring people who have neither been charged or convicted of anything. I find that rather strange.

I wonder if that kind of system would even come close to passing a charter challenge. Many things I thought should pass a charter challenge in this land never did, however, this one is very questionable. I imagine there would have to be some changes there. How can they go around this country and say that it is okay to put an electronic monitoring device on someone because they think they might do this or that? That is a serious flaw which needs to be addressed.

Second, I have a problem with the aboriginal clauses. They will go into a community where an aboriginal is released and do special things in order to make that release successful. I cannot say that is wrong in itself. I see nothing wrong with that. But if it is good for that community, then why would it not be good for another community?

Why is the government always so quick to identify a group in a piece of legislation, set them aside and say: "We're going to do something special because they are this or they are that"? If I were to suggest something like that in the House I am sure there would be screams of racism, prejudice and everything under the sun. That would happen if I would dare take a group of people and suggest we ought to do something special for them but not for the rest of Canadians. I find that rather strange. But if it is a good idea, which I think it is, and if it is found to be a good idea, then why stop there? Why not do it for community a , community b and community c ? Why not go through the whole list and do it? I believe that has to be addressed and I hope it will be.

The third point, which is probably the worst of all, bothers me. It is the provision that a criminal can be declared a dangerous offender six months after the time of sentencing. There will be six months after application to declare a convicted criminal a dangerous offender. At the end of the six months, if he is not declared a dangerous offender, then it is my understanding that it can never be done again. I find that really silly. I do not know any other word I could use.

When I was the principal of a school, the students would have loved to have a rule that would say: "In a 10-month year, we'll evaluate you in the sixth month, and if you've been good up until then, we'll pass you into the next grade". They would not have to worry about the next four months. I am sure that a lot of people in prison are thinking the same thing.

If government members do not believe for a moment that these convicts do not know how to play the game, how to avoid certain things, how to get certain favours, then I would suggest they go to the prisons and talk to the guards, talk to the caseworkers, talk to the frontline workers and find out just how wrong they are.

What is wrong with leaving the door open and being able to call them a dangerous offender at any time? Application can be made to do that.

I will go back two or three years to the family and friends of Melanie Carpenter and how they could have probably today been enjoying that young woman if there would have had something in place that would have said to her killer: "Auger, you are not getting out because you are a dangerous offender".

All the psychological reports, case reports, the frontline workers, the guards, the warden and everybody said: "This fellow should not be let out because he is not ready to go into society. He will hurt somebody". However, our hands were tied. Nobody could do anything about it because he had served his time. The result? Melanie Carpenter no longer exists.

What is wrong with leaving the door open? If they were able to discover after seven or eight years that this fellow Auger, who killed Melanie Carpenter, was a dangerous offender and would hurt people again, then why did they not make it possible to say that he was a dangerous offender? Why did they not do it in this bill?

The number one priority that I keep hearing from the social engineers on that side of the House is the protection of people by preventing crime. What better prevention is there than to keep a dangerous, violent person behind bars? However, we cannot do it if we are going to say we have to declare that within six months.

After a six-month period goes by and it has been decided the person being evaluated will not be declared a dangerous offender, what happens if all of a sudden he tells us where to put our rehabilitation programs and that he will not take treatment, which we cannot force him to do? We should be able to re-open the case since this guy is not going to take any treatment and never wanted to do anything about his problems. He is going to be released some day, he thinks. Let us declare him a dangerous offender.

I would rather see something at the end after a long period of time that might lift that classification, if it was deserving, rather than after a long period of time we could not put that classification on him because of Bill C-55.

If the government is so keen and so interested in prevention and protection then why does it not do that? I am sure the Canadian people would applaud that decision. As my colleague from Calgary Northeast knows after visiting a lot of prisons, the guards, the frontline officers, the caseworkers and the psychologists would all appreciate being able to have an influence on the decision makers who release these individuals. That is why we believe that the parole system should be placed in the hands of these people on the front line, those who know best.

I will go back to the school idea when I was a principal. It would been nice for my staff and I to have gone into the community, and because they were nice to us or because they did us favours, we could have appointed a pass and fail board from the community. At the end of the year we could just bring them in and bring the kids before them one at a time and they could decide what to do with the person. I know what the people would say. They would ask: "How can I know? You have worked with him or her all year. You should make that decision".

I believe that if someone is going to work for a number of years with a prisoner then he or she should be the one to have the biggest influence and say on whether that person qualifies to go back into society. It sounds like common sense to me. But no. The good old boys and the good old girls have to be appointed to serve on a board which I think at this time is doing a better job than in the past. In the past it was a dismal failure simply because the people in those positions were making decisions and they were not knowledgeable enough to know exactly what should be accomplished. Does that not make sense?

Just think, June 30 every year, I could have gone home, all my teaching staff could have gone home. We could have brought in half a dozen people from the community and they could decide whether the kids would pass or fail. We could dump a few papers in their laps and let them decide.

We have to stop shirking responsibility for our decisions. We need some accountability. Who is accountable for Melanie Carpenter's death? The killer? Yes. But he should never have been out of prison.

The government knows of many examples. It knows about Oatway, Auger and many more. Why will it not stop them? Why not fix the bill so that anyone can be declared a dangerous offender at any time?

Canadians are continually telling pollsters that 70 per cent of them want capital punishment. What is wrong with members in this place listening to the people and giving them the opportunity to express their feelings in a referendum? Give us a chance to find out. Let the people speak. But not the Liberals. They say they know best.

Let the Darlene Boyds, let the Debbie Mahaffys, let the victims and survivors of victims across the land know that we support what they as taxpayers want from us, that section 745 be abolished.

When Bill C-55 was introduced the minister had the police chiefs all around him. He was smiling, he had their support and that is good. I am glad he had their support. But where were they on Bill C-45? We did not see them then. I saw most of those people and Scott Newark, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association sitting up here waiting for us to vote to put section 745 out of business. When they saw the vote on the private member's bill which would have done that, they were very pleased and they felt that the voice of the people had been heard.

All of a sudden the miracle worker, the champion of the social engineers came out from behind closed doors and says: "This is better". The worst part about it is that he convinced all of his colleagues who initially wanted to abolish section 745. All of a sudden they came out as supporters of Bill C-45. I wonder if they really supported it or if they just continue to do what they are told? I am sure it is the latter.

When this bill goes to committee and the witnesses come before the group, I really hope there will be a genuine effort on the part of the government to allow those witnesses, most of whom are ordinary Canadians, to have their voices heard and be incorporated into the decisions that are made. That would be a nice change. I just hope that will be done.

There are flaws in the bill. It needs to be fixed. Give the Canadian people a voice and fix it.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the hon. member for Wild Rose. I would call to his attention that paragraph 753(4) on page 5 of the bill as printed states in part: "If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period". I underscore the word "indeterminate". It is a serious sentence.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Oh, oh.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member should be civil and respect debate. He should be quiet and maintain decorum in the House.

I would like to assure the member that the government is definitely committed to community safety. This remains a government priority. There is no debate about it. Hence, this bill to amend the Criminal Code and other acts.

The member alluded to electronic monitoring, that it could be subject to charter challenges, et cetera. I remind him that in the charter itself section 1 indicates that limits to freedom may be imposed when a higher goal, to protect society at large, becomes paramount. This limitation to freedom is not taken lightly by the courts.

The member may want to learn a few of the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Canada. The goal being attained must be laudable. We all agree that we have to protect Canadian citizens from dangerous offenders. Also, the electronic monitoring approach has a reasonable basis of success and it must be made less restrictive.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

How is it going to work?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If the member does not know how it will work, then how can he say that it will not work? The member should be courteous and listen. The member belongs to a party which purports to be concerned about high risk offenders, yet the member is objecting to a judicial restraint, electronic monitoring, which will not likely be visible in its restriction of freedom. The Reform Party cannot have it both ways.

I would suggest that the Reform Party is concerned mainly after the fact, after the commission of an offence, after serious injury to a Canadian citizen, and is not prepared to support a provision in the amendment which may in fact prevent such an offence. Even in the field of medicine, prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

I would like the member to kindly reconsider his views for the greater safety of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad the member was not looking at me when he talked about being heckled and not listened to. I was listening intently.

It is too bad the hon. member was not here for my entire speech. He came storming out here in the last couple of minutes and by golly, he has all the bases covered. If he had heard the speech properly, he would have heard me say nothing against electronic monitoring.

I was only wondering if this kind of law, which would make it possible to electronically monitor those who have not even been convicted or charged but who are only suspects, would pass a charter test. I am sure the hon. member believes it might. I am not so sure that it will. There should have been a little more care taken

in putting the bill together. If it has to be challenged, then it will be challenged.

Many people I have talked to have said that when we start electronically monitoring those who are only suspects, we are moving very close to a police state. We do not want that in Canada. If indeed that is true, we need to talk about it and get rid of that idea if that is what it is leading to.

There is a six-month limitation. There is a six-month period where a person can be declared dangerous. Why only six months? That is all I am asking. Why does the bill say six months? Why not leave it open ended? Ten months from now they may wish they had, but that will be too late. Why do we want to limit ourselves? Leave it up to the people who work in the prisons. Leave it up to the guards and those who have the expertise to let us know when it is time for the person to leave and whether they consider him to be dangerous. If they do, then for heavens' sake, do not let him out.

If that had been done in the Melanie Carpenter case which the member knows well, Melanie Carpenter would be alive. The member knows very well that the killer of that girl was declared to be a real threat the day he was let out. The member knows that and he is willing to allow this bill to go through without addressing the Melanie Carpenters of this land. Who are these guys for, the criminal? Time after time after time they do what they have to to protect the rights of the criminal. What about the rights of the victim?

When are we going to stop having laws written by the lawyers for the lawyers? More court cases, more appeals. Declare him a dangerous offender, appeal it. That will be another court case. We have to keep these guys working. Keep the legal industry booming. Use a little common sense is what we are talking about. That six-month thing the member mentioned is ridiculous.

The bill is the start of a good thing. This is the best effort yet by the justice minister. That is what I believe, but it needs to be fixed.

If the member and other members of his party are allowed to do their job, which I strongly doubt they are, then maybe we could end up with a bill that is worth having. This one, as it stands, is not.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk a little about Bill C-55 today.

When I was on my feet about two days ago speaking on Bill C-45, I was talking about the member for Kingston and the Islands who was very worried about how he gets hoodwinked by the bills in this place. I think he will be hoodwinked again by this one. He has said publicly that he does not read all the bills but he really should read this one.

I think he is about to be hoodwinked not in the way the Canadian people are going to be hoodwinked by this, thinking that it is actually a good bill. He is going to be hoodwinked because he thinks we are getting too tough on criminals. He actually voted against Bill C-45 because he was worried we were getting too tough. It absolutely amazes me. It may be very disappointing for him that the Reform Party is having such an effect on the government side of the House that we are beginning to make some progress in the area of justice reforms.

Getting tough on criminals works. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands feels he gets hoodwinked by these things but getting tough on criminals really does work.

I used some statistics the other day which are worth repeating in connection with this bill. It reinforces the idea that if we get tough on these people they stop using the system. That is a very good argument also why we should not have this six-month window which is built into this bill for determining whether or not someone is a dangerous offender.

They are going to use that. They are going to use the system. They study the law books while they are locked up in the clink. They are going to look at the law books and say that they only have to be good for the six-month period and then all hell breaks loose but it is okay, because they got past that dangerous offender window.

I would like to present some statistics that support the view that getting tough on crime works very well. In 1989 the bureau for justice statistics issued some estimates of how many crimes were prevented in the United States while criminals were locked up rather than walking on the streets. This was studied between 1973 and 1989, a 16-year period which is an extensive study.

Analyst Patrick Langan of the bureau for justice statistics said that between 1973 and 1989 locking criminals up instead of allowing them to go free cut the number of rapes by 66,000, robberies by 323,000, assaults by 380,000, and burglaries by 3.3 million. The conclusion of the report was that imprisonment clearly contributes to major cuts in the number and cost of violent crimes. That does not take into account the physical cost in injury and the monetary cost that comes from having had these people out destroying people's property.

In 1995 another study was done at Princeton. Criminologists John DiIulio and Anne Morrison Piehl wrote a report. They estimated the actual cost savings to society when felons were locked in prison as opposed to walking the streets. They studied 100 convicted felons who offended at the median rate, that is, some of them reoffended when they were let out and some of them did not. They found that the average cost to society for a felon who was released was $4.6 million but the average cost of keeping them locked up was $2.5 million. It was half the cost to society in

monetary terms to keep these people locked up. As I mentioned earlier, that does not even take into account all the physical damage that is done which really destroys people's lives.

There is an additional study which was published on August 29, 1995 in the Investors' Business Daily . There was a full page of justice information headed: ``Does crime pay? Not if criminals do hard time''. Mr. Barnes wrote that in 1994, University of Arizona economist Michael Block and researcher Steven Twist compared crime victimization rates with imprisonment rates from 1960 to 1992. That is a 32-year study. They found that the 10 states which had the highest imprisonment rates experienced an 8 per cent drop in violent crime over the period, while the 10 states with the lowest imprisonment rates saw their violent crime rates jump by 51 per cent over the same period.

How much proof do we need to see that keeping these bad guys locked up actually saves damage, saves costs and it really helps society? Surely those on the other side of the House who are always arguing for women's rights, for rights for the less fortunate in society, should be interested in those statistics which indicated that 66,000 rapes and 323,000 assaults were prevented by having people locked up.

I do not have any statistics for Canada but it stands to reason that we could transpose them at least at a 10 per cent level. We would see the enormous amount of money, the enormous amount of physical damage, the enormous amount of suffering we would be saving if we had a get tough approach to crime.

As my colleagues have said, there are provisions in this bill that are a good step forward. We are very proud in the Reform Party that we have been able to push the justice minister this far. I really do wish that the bill also dealt with habitual repeat offenders who are only using our justice system for their own ends. I will give a couple of examples of the sorts of things I mean.

The headline of an article in yesterday's Vancouver Sun reads: Drug trafficker allowed to remain in Canada''. The piece reads:The federal court has stayed a deportation order for an Iranian convicted of cocaine trafficking and assault. The order for Abdul Nasser Taher Azar was put on hold Tuesday pending the outcome of further legal proceedings in his case. Taher Azar is fighting deportation claiming he could face a death sentence if sent back to Iran''.

I probably have the largest Iranian community in the whole of Canada in my riding. The first words that come out of the mouths of refugee claimants, usually bogus, who call my office for assistance are: "I'll be killed if I get sent back to Iran". It is the very first sentence.

So this guy claimed he would be killed if he were sent back to Iran. Immigration authorities consider him a risk to Canadian society. What happened? The federal court let him stay here.

He has a wife and three children who live in Victoria. He said that he has changed his habits and will become a productive member of Canadian society. I cannot say how many times I have heard that nonsense. It is absolute nonsense.

I could stand here the whole afternoon and give case after case in my riding of these people who use the system because they know how it works. They come in as bogus refugees, get married all of a sudden and have children. We know what that does. Then they can separate and spend years in court tying it up over custody battles while we pay them welfare to stay here and they keep saying that they are going to be killed if they get shipped out.

Then what happens at the end of it? Two people in my riding went back to Iran of their own accord after arguing for four years that they would be killed. It is the most ridiculous nonsense and it goes on and on in cases like this.

These are habitual repeat offenders, not dangerous offenders as dealt with in this bill. But I wish we had something in the bill to deal with the type of person who is really just using our system.

I have a case in my riding right now that is typical of this, which I have been trying to get the immigration minister to act on. This person first came to Canada in the late 1970s, in the days when we actually had teeth in some of our laws, when we treated criminals like criminals. Very quickly it was discovered that he was a criminal. So he was deported.

They actually deported people back then, but not today. We have 1,300 people in Vancouver alone awaiting deportation, 906 of whom are from mainland China.

So what did he do? The first chance he got after he was deported to Iran he raced over to Paris. Tell me how he could afford that when he claimed he had no money. A couple of years later he went to the Canadian embassy and applied again. Did he tell the officials that he had been previously deported from Canada? Not a chance. The next minute he was back here.

About four years went by and the police were tailing him because he was forging passports so that other criminal friends of his could come in from Iran. I got a call in my office from a lady in the community who said: "Everybody in Iran knew he was criminal. Why did you let him in?"

I contacted the police and discovered they were investigating him for passport fraud. They picked him up for passport forgery on the day he was sworn in as a Canadian citizen. The interesting part of this story is that he had sent someone else to stand in for him at

the swearing in ceremony. So it was not actually him who was sworn in. He only went to watch. It is amazing what these people do.

His case for the passport forgery was dragged out and went on for a year and a half before the judge finally sentenced him to three months at home on probation. I would think that passport forgery goes to the very heart of our being as Canadians. He helps criminals come here and what does he get? Three months at home. That is where he did his business. It was a home based business. He did not pay any taxes or GST and here he was working at home.

Then finally he was under another deportation order, so he appealed, if members can believe it, under the charter of rights. In the 1970s when he was first deported he did not have an interpreter present and therefore his human rights were infringed on.

Now that case is tied up in the courts. The first hearing is next March. I am willing to bet he will be here for another eight years before we finally get rid of him. And the time we are paying him welfare and he is driving brand new cars. Now how does he buy those on welfare? I would like a little investigation into the source of his income.

These are typical of the sorts of things that happen under our weak kneed, bleeding heart government. It will not see the problems. It continues on and on about the terrible childhood these people have had and that there is really no bad in the world at all. The only bad in the world is that we actually lock some people up occasionally. We really should not lock them up at all. We should just let them walk around, take them to counselling occasionally and they will completely mend their ways. And put a bracelet on them, as my colleague says.

I have been digressing a little from Bill C-55, but I think members get the point. This expands out to being more than just Bill C-55. It is an entire rot that goes right through the system.

One thing I did today in the House was to introduce during routine proceedings a new private member's bill which I hope eventually will be drawn from the barrel. We know it is a bit of lottery. There is a bit of a move afoot now to actually get some of these private members' bills votable. It would be wonderful if they all were. My submission to the commission, incidentally, is that all of these bills should be votable. I would like my bill to be votable because it deals with this very problem. If passed by the House it would actually allow provincial judges to deport criminals in lieu of sentence so that we could get rid of them right away. As soon as these bogus refugees commit a crime, let us get them right out of the country.

I know the minister of immigration has argued they really should serve their time here so it will be in Canada. However, that is just a crock. What happens is that they get out on parole and parole is considered to be part of the sentence. They are wandering around free in society and the immigration people cannot deport them.

The first thing they do when they are coming near the end of their parole and the immigration people are standing behind them with the bracelets ready to go is just grab a brick and toss it through the nearest jeweller's window or hit somebody in the mouth and that starts the case all over again. They can go back to jail for another little while and another probation.

I could give literally dozens of examples from my riding alone. When we think that there are 1,300 just in the Vancouver area, we do not have to work too hard to see how many there are in each riding. When we also work out that certain groups tend to use the system a little more, it does not take long to work out how bad the problem really is.

They are probably all asking for a free flag. It would not surprise me a bit if the thousand free flags in the Fraser Valley East riding were all ordered by these people so they can walk around waving them as if they were Canadians.

The only thing that bothered me during question period today was when the Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said that the member for Fraser Valley East had used taxpayer money to fax for some free flags. It is a shame he did not take a $10 bill out of his pocket and say: "Mr. Speaker, I will pay for the faxes if she will pay for the flags". That would have been justice.

I digress again, but it really is related to this whole problem of the justice issues in Canada. I think I will wind up here because I would like my colleagues to have an opportunity to also speak to this. However, I do want to mention a few kind words to members on the other side because I know they do not like to be spoken to harshly.

There are indeed some good provisions in this bill. They do not go quite far enough. I do not think we are going to stall the passage of the bill. We will work with the government, hopefully to try to improve it a little. I hope the people on the other side of the House, who cannot deny the phone calls and letters they have been getting from their constituents on a get tougher approach to crime, will get behind a few amendments to this bill to tighten it up a little.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member that just because he took the liberty of exaggerating, moving information around, picking all over the place and slandering communities does not make it the truth.

For the hon. member to have taken the liberty to slander whole immigrant and refugee communities to say they are all into this and they all do this is totally irresponsible.

[An hon. member]

He never said that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

He alluded to that and that is not acceptable to me. I you have-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, I simply ask that in the brief period of time we have left under questions or comment we might be able to get the question in and hopefully the response.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

While he was talking about a particular case, several members alluded to communities at large. Does the hon. member truly believe that refugees and immigrants in this country are all, or in the majority, criminals?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member has not noticed I do talk funny and that is because I come from New Zealand. I am an immigrant myself and so I think I am in a very good position to comment about immigration.

I know what it is like to work to come to Canada. It took my wife and me two years to get permission to come here. We had to apply three times. We had good backgrounds, no criminal records, we had money to bring here to purchase a house and we had jobs to come to as well. So I do not think there is anything wrong with setting a high standard.

I am also not going to apologize for saying it like it is. I have never said in this House, though, that all immigrants or all refugees are criminals. They are not, but if we do not recognize there is a problem we will reap what we sow.

I remind the hon. member that three years ago when Reformers in the Vancouver area were saying that there was a problem with astronaut families who were not paying taxes and were leaving their families here, we were called racists. Today the member for Richmond admits there is a problem with astronaut families.

If the hon. member would like to get the Vancouver papers for the last week she will see it is a major problem that affects real estate agents, accountants and the entire community because we did not talk about it and deal with it when it was a problem at the beginning.

There is a lesson to be learned from all that. We had better start talking in this House about the things that they do not want to talk about over there or things will get worse and worse. They are afraid to talk about them. They hold themselves up behind the flag and claim all sorts of compassion and tolerance, but they should stand aside a little from that ideology for a moment and just look at what is really happening out there.

Nobody is opposed to a good immigration policy for Canada but let us set some decent standards for God's sake. Let us make it so that a person entering this country feels like they want to be Canadian instead of feeling like they want to rip off Canadians, because that is what some of these people do.

The member should go to Pearson airport, as my colleague from Wild Rose has done, to see the plane loads arriving everyday where bogus refugee claimants come through, 100 a day. The immigration people are forced to let them free on their own recognisance if someone is there to meet them. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of a refugee who had someone to meet them at the airport?

The trouble is they will not look at the facts. They stand there accusing us of all sorts of things, but if they would just look at the facts they would see there are major problems to deal with. I actually think the move on Bill C-55 is an indication that they are finally starting to get the message. They know the Canadian people want to get tough on crime.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before going to the1.30 p.m. proceedings I want to give advance notice to the House. When this bill is before the House next, the five hours of debate which allow for 20 minutes of interventions and 10 minutes of comments or questions have expired. The remaining portion of the debate will allow members 10 minute interventions.

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.

Competition Act

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

moved that Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the bill comes at this particular juncture when the House of Commons seems divided on many issues, the issue of gasoline pricing and the concern of our constituents is one that unites us all. It unites us all in the common recognition that there is something patently wrong with gas pricing.

The bill seeks to try to provide some very simple answers for Canadian consumers and those who have a concern about the high price of gasoline. That can be done by way of information.

We are fast approaching the 21st century when the information age will become even more important. Very few consumers or any of us here can say that there is an alternative choice to gasoline.

We need to know why the increases take place, why they take place on weekends and why the only answer by the oil industry is: "We do not have to provide any answers".

Let me say first that the Bill C-267 amends the Competition Act by requiring that the oil company in question, before the price of oil is raised more than 1 per cent, must give 30 days' notice. From the wellhead to the gas pumps where the consumers fuel their vehicles, it takes six months for price increases to work through the system. As members of Parliament we cannot provide answers why these sudden gyrations take place. Consumers are asking above all for some predictability.

The bill does not regulate any industry. I am very emphatic about that point because I think there are some misgivings. Some may want to take the point of view of the industry which says that somehow it is causing the industry to feel it is being burdened. Perhaps this may be an argument that is given by the department.

I think a good corporate citizen which wants to make sure it keeps customers on line would above all want to make sure that at the end of the day the consumers are well informed. This is very good PR and it also allows us to have some accountability to our constituents.

Let me give some points. A year and a half ago when the Minister of Finance presented his budget, he included a 1.5 cent increase in the excise tax. Politicians from all sides of the House may be able to use that as a pro or con, but the money ultimately goes into the general revenue fund to pay for things like hospitals, pay down the debt and do a number of good things for the economy and the general interest and welfare of all Canadians.

At the same time that 1.5 cent increase took place the oil industry took liberties and tacked on another 4.5 cents. From February to March, April, May and June 1995, Canadians were paying an extra 6 cents a litre. Is that justified? That is not for me to question. If I were to ask the question, I suppose some would say that it is matter that would border on regulation. I believe that consumers would like an explanation from the oil industry once and for all.

I have taken it on myself to remove the shroud of mystery that surrounds oil pricing in Canada. When we peel back the various layers of the oil onion, if I can call it that, we find that there is something sinister in the way that gas pricing is headed in this country. For the first time in many years people living in the Toronto and Montreal regions and some parts of western Canada have found that the price of gas rises uniformly and declines uniformly. There is no longer the kind of competition from station to station that was once available. Why is it that way?

It may come as a surprise to members of the House to learn that over the past 15 years we have lost a number of potential refiners in this country. The takeover by Petrofina of BP, the demise of Texaco and the takeover of Gulf Canada has all meant that the question of supply is really relegated to a very few companies.

At the same time, the supply of gasoline would not be a matter of great controversy if there was not the appearance of a new phenomenon known as vertical integration in the market. Crude oil refiners are not only the distributors but are now, in many respects, the retailers. It is the connection from end to end that has given the impression that what we have is an oil monopoly.

If a company controls the supply, its distribution and retailing, it stands to reason that, at some point, the price will be controlled. Therefore, it is not by accident that we are seeing sustained, uniform and high prices in this country.

The people of Canada begged Parliament for an answer. In the absence of any other remedy, it is this Parliament that is the eyes, the ears and the conscience of consumers.

So I have trouble acknowledging that some of us think we have no way of guaranteeing competition in the oil industry.

We have an opportunity with this bill to provide consumers, not only with answers but allow them to formulate, in the absence of any choice, not being able to use any other mode of transportation. They cannot suddenly put lemon juice in their gas tanks. Every Canadian has an interest in finding out why the gas prices are what they are.

In talking about why prices are uniformly high and why we are seeing unprecedented levels of high prices, the argument has been put forward to look at what happened in the maritimes over the past few months. In Quebec, the price has actually gone down.

That example should alarm every member of this House of Commons because it demonstrates very clearly the real possibility of predatory pricing. The wholesalers that had an interest in retailing since they wanted to control the supply over this past summer, engaged in a process of driving the price down at the retail level precisely so that they would knock out the independent gasoline owners who have, for the longest time, provided the equilibrium for competition in the industry.

With all the knowledge that I have received from speaking to many of these independent gas owners from Sudbury to Windsor to Cape Breton to Quebec de la region du Saguenay, we have a very serious situation on our hands which requires at least some consideration by members of Parliament here and now.

If we do not believe that a free market ought to apply in the oil industry, then where do we stop? Do we now say it is okay to have this in the pharmaceutical industry? Do we say that it is all right to have no competition and have only a handful of people or a cartel drive the price to whatever it deems fit?

It is important that we understand the plight of the independent gas station owner, the person who gets up in the morning and knows that if they do not put in 18 hours a day of sweat equity, they are not going to get a paycheque at the end of the week. The problem is that that paycheque has been severely and calculatedly reduced. How is it possible for a person who buys his products from an oil company to be able to make ends meet when the person he is competing with happens to be a gas station that is owned by the wholesaler.

If this does not raise concerns about the abuse of dominant position of the oil industry today, I do not know what will. Canadians may take some slight comfort in the fact that they may, from time to time, get lower priced fuel as they saw in the maritimes.

I take the example of what happened in Grand Falls where there were 11 gas stations. Of those 11 gas stations, 10 were owned by the majors. Only one was an independent. The price was approximately 48 cents a litre about a year and a half ago. When that independent was smothered the price shot up to 68.9 cents. If consumers are concerned about competitively priced oil and gas, they had better understand that it is because of the existence of the independent gas owner, who is prepared to pass on the savings to consumers, and who is one of the major reasons why we have had decently competitively priced gas in the past.

I was a little surprised to learn that there are some members who may still harbour the belief that free competition or open markets actually exist in the oil industry. I should point out that from a national point of view there are really only three major players: Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil and Shell. Regionally there are smaller players but who are nevertheless significant: Irving in the maritimes, Ultramar in Quebec, Sunoco in Ontario and out west Mohawk Oil.

There are agreements between the refinery companies to provide supply for each other. This idea that there is not any agreement or understanding, better known in the industry as product supply arrangements, between refiners would be misleading. Yet the competition bureau seems incapable of trying to address the reality that many of these refiners are actually in a position where they can not only agree among themselves what the price will be, but they can also above all agree among themselves to how much to supply.

When we hear the tired arguments that the industry puts forward, and unfortunately some members may fall victim to the argument that the cost of heating oil, for instance, increased because we had a long cold winter, the members ought to ask themselves if we have a warm winter does that not mean by implication, logically speaking, the price should go down.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about how much a person ought to be paying in Canada for crude oil, for that which they need to use almost every day. Because it affects every member in this House and it affects every one of their constituents there is no mystery here.

Today the spot oil price for crude is, at the highest level, about $24 a barrel. Of that $24 there are approximately 200 litres of gasoline in a barrel of oil. We understand not all of that goes to less costly gasoline for cars. Some of it goes into polystyrenes and to more expensive products.

Let us go with the worst case scenario. It costs the oil industry 12 cents maximum a litre to bring that product on line. According to the Canadian Petroleum Foundation it costs 5.2 cents to refine, to market and to distribute. That is all their costs covered. That is up to 17.2 cents a litre. Add the federal and provincial sales taxes, and we know where they go-even though there is a lot of debate about where they ought to go in this House-that is an extra 29 cents a litre on top of 17 cents. That is about 45 to 46 cents a litre.

Give the independent or the gas owner 2.2 cents and we have 47 to 48 cents a litre maximum. Today in Ottawa when it is 57 to 58 cents a litre, or when it is 61 cents in the maritimes or for that matter 58 cents in Toronto, who is making the money? Where is the accountability?

I have no difficulty with people making money. I think it is laudable that they do. However they have a responsibility and an obligation not to use their position of privilege or their oligopoly or their cartel to bamboozle constituents, to take advantage of consumers and to perpetuate this rip-off.

It is very clear to me that no matter how difficult it may be for some people to accept or to swallow, the oil industry is on the verge of what it has always tried for-I guess what many companies hoped to accomplish in other countries, in particular the United States-and that is to give consumers absolutely no choice when it comes to the cost of gasoline.

I have received thousands of letters since I brought this bill to the House of Commons. It was first introduced as Bill C-361 in the previous session and has been reintroduced as Bill C-267. Notwithstanding the fact that it was not deemed votable, I would nevertheless call upon the House to consider this an important step forward.

We should resolve today to at least attempt to get some answers from the oil industry. Given that many of us in the House assume that the big issue is price fixing, we are missing the point. We are missing the boat. For members of Parliament to assume that the issue today which should concern consumers is price fixing by the oil companies, they are simply missing the boat because the cartel

at the supply end already exists. There is no need to price fix when there are very few players in the game.

I would appeal to members of Parliament to revise their thinking, to modernize their thinking and to get in step with the reality that exists as it relates to the oil industry in Canada today and now.

I also must say to my colleagues, and more particularly to my fellow members from the province of Quebec, that I am very concerned and even disappointed in the behaviour of the oil companies and the way they treated independents.

We see young people who try to get a job and offer competitive pricing to the consumer. This is something we see, not just in the small villages I visited this summer but also in other regions across the country, as I explained earlier.

In the maritime provinces we have heard people saying: "Great, look at the prices. They are coming down to 29 cents a litre". I was just reading in Maclean's magazine an article by its business editor, D'Arcy Jenish. He writes that he met several station owners in the maritimes and one in Nova Scotia told him that in 28 of the first 38 weeks of 1996 the retail price was below the wholesale buying price. That is predatory pricing. That is a recipe for disaster.

It is very clear to me that we need some kind of safeguard over and above the rhetoric that we hear under the guise of the competition bureau to actually protect the people who are protecting the interests of Canadians and who are protecting the interests of our consumers.

If we do not believe today that 68 cents per litre is going to be a reality in years to come, I would suggest that we look at what has happened in Gander, Newfoundland. I would suggest that we look at what happened in Toronto last year. From Burlington to Clarington which covers a population of about 4.5 million people, there are so few independents left that they are not able to make any impact on the price.

Those independents who are out there right now are trying to survive. They are in no position to provide competitive pricing for consumers. They are unfairly prejudiced by the oil companies which are using very blunt instruments such as the removal of credit terms. They have taken away the 45-day credit which was previously extended to the independents. They have taken away temperature compensation. I could go on about the methods by which the oil industry has been able to uproot the independent oil companies. They have done it through vapour recovery. They have demanded higher thresholds.

Imagine if an independent sold 5,000 litres in a day and an oil company said that was not enough because the retail outlets which it owns sells 10,000. It says to the independent that it had better double its sales next week, even though the price has not come down, or the supply will be cut off. That is wrong.

I appeal to Parliament to review the decision not to make this bill votable by seeking the unanimous consent of the House in the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing), be deemed to have been chosen as a votable item.

I do so in the interests of every Canadian consumer.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion from the hon. member for Ontario. His motion was to make this particular bill a votable item.

Is there unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.