Debates of Sept. 17th, 1996

Point Of Order

[The Speaker]

If there had been a point of privilege, which I ruled there was not, then of course I would have gone to the hon. member.

I listened to what the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie had to say. I have ruled there is no point of privilege. I would like to let the matter rest right there, if I might.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prisons And Reformatories Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

First of all, you may recall that this bill evolved in connection with a task force formed in 1993. The bill is the result of recommendations made by a federal-provincial, and of course also territorial, task force appointed by Correctional Services to recommend amendments to the legislation regulating temporary absences for offenders in provincial or territorial custody.

Amendments were made by the ministers of Justice last May in 1996. These amendments were proposed in response to requests from the provinces and territories. Their purpose is to remedy deficiencies in the legislation and to give the provinces and territories increased flexibility in administering their temporary absence programs.

Provincial and territorial authorities had for some time expressed the need for updating the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

This bill was read the first time on June 18, 1996. Since then, the Bloc Quebecois has thoroughly examined all the ramifications of this bill. The Bloc will now propose improvements in committee, since we assume the bill will pass second reading as is more or less customary, because on the whole, the bill seems quite acceptable. However, the Bloc would have-in any case I will make that suggestion to the Bloc and of course we have talked about it a little-three points which I think should be given closer consider-

ation and perhaps amended if possible, but in any case considered more closely. There are some important elements that in my opinion were more or less overlooked.

The principle of protecting society, which predominates in the Federal Parole Act, is absent from the general principles of this bill. It is included as one element among many others in section 7.1 of the bill.

In my opinion, it is ethically incorrect to claim all of a sudden that protecting society has now become of secondary importance in the formal legislative process. I think we should ask ourselves what should come first, if not protecting society, in this kind of legislation.

Everything that we do here, all the legislation that we vote on, has as its purpose to improve the lot of society or to better protect it, which in the end comes down to improving the lot of society. When, as here, the term "protection of society" is relegated to a subclause in the bill, I think this is a bit dangerous.

As you know, all good pieces of writing are the product of thought, but when there is an error in thought, we must question the material it gives rise to. It therefore seems important at this time to be sure, when using the term "protection of society", to include it in the basic general principles of Bill C-53. This is something that, in my opinion, the proposers should not have much trouble approving.

I will now move on to a second aspect, which I will call Liberal subtlety. I would propose changing "lieutenant governor" to "lieutenant governor in council", and therefore more specifically the provincial cabinet. This choice of term represents the reality and leaves provincial governments with complete discretion in this area. The present wording of the bill is confusing.

Using the term lieutenant governor means that one person appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, if memory serves, will be making the decision about, or at least will have a large say in, what happens to paroled inmates. At a time when there is talk of decentralization, when the Liberals are talking about decentralization, mark my words, the Bloc Quebecois will give the Liberals a golden opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and give the cabinet of each province, rather than the lieutenant governor as provided in the bill, the right to determine certain questions.

This is, therefore, an excellent opportunity to stop merely talking about delegation and redistribution to the provinces, and to actually do it, by just adding the words "in council" after "lieutenant governor". It ought not to be difficult, either. We in the Bloc Quebecois do not consider it a difficult thing to delegate to the provinces, naturally, but we shall see. Let us just let things take their course.

The third element is a little more complicated and takes a bit more explaining. In clause 7.4(1), the duration of a temporary absence is lengthened from 15 to 60 days. I must admit that I have a little trouble living with that, and the Bloc will have to work on this in order to propose proper modifications for, as it stands, with my own personal experience in this area, and judging from what my contacts have had to say, I can see that this does nothing to improve the quality-we are back to where we were just a while ago-of protection for society.

The principle is that an individual is given parole, and has to report every two weeks so things may be assured of working out properly and developments monitored. The individual must change, must learn to live in society as well.

So, a follow-up is done every two weeks; that is the case now. The new act calls for this to be done every 60 days, a period four times longer, when already the individual can get round things now. I will provide you with some interesting statistics. I have figures for a number of years, but I will limit myself to those for April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996, because of the time.

It will be seen that 73 per cent of paroles are successful. In other words, 73 of every 100 people released are successful. That is all very nice, but what about the other 27 percent?

However, we must not forget that the remaining 27 per cent must be divided in two. There are people who breach parole for technical reasons. For instance, someone who was prohibited from being in a bar, in a drinking establishment, is seen there and returned to custody because he breached his parole. He did not commit a crime, let us be clear on that. It is not a crime to be in a drinking establishment although it may be prohibited as one of the terms of parole. It is merely a breach of parole, so it is a technical misdemeanour. There is no danger to society.

Seventeen per cent of offenders fail in this respect. We have the remaining 10 per cent whose parole was withdrawn because they had committed a crime. Imagine. This is where I make the connection between 15 and 60 days. These people were seen every 15 days, and the authorities were unable to find out when they were about to commit a crime. Ten per cent, and we are talking about 2,500 people, that is a lot.

So I do not think the results will be better if we take this fifteen-day period and multiply it by four. I find it very hard to believe that society will be better off, that the individual himself will be better off and that consequently, citizens will be better protected.

Unless we find a miracle solution, and a number of solutions have been tried within prison walls, I can guarantee you that, the problem will not be solved by leaving people who need supervision to their own devices. Of course they should not be oversupervised, since they need some time for themselves in order to become part

of society again, to become part of the normal processes in a society. But they must be supervised just the same.

At the present time, it is estimated that every two weeks requires a certain amount of staff, but there are results. Multiplying this period by four will only save on the number of people working for the solicitor general. There will be fewer parole officers to follow up each case. I feel the loser in this case is society. And also the individual who needs a leg up to get back into society and needs some supervision in the process. He is not being helped either. He is not being helped at all, but is being left even more to his own devices, and society as a whole is paying the price.

One favourable improvement is noted, however, a rather obvious one. I am referring to clause 7.6, which I will take the time to read, as it is very short:

7.6 (1) A designated authority who suspends, cancels or revokes a prisoner's temporary absence, or a person designated by that authority, may have a warrant or notice of suspension, cancellation or revocation issued for his or her apprehension and recommittal.

In order to review briefly what used to happen, let us take the case of an individual, one of whose conditions of parole was not to enter a drinking establishment but who was seen in such an establishment. When the individual reported to his officer, every 15 days, if he was assessed by the officer, he would have had to go before the parole board to determine whether or not he had breached the conditions of his parole; the group in question decided that there had, in fact, been a breach. At that time, if the individual was not present, for example, he was deemed to have been in breach, but all that came out of it was a document, a report from the board. This report stated that the individual in question was in breach, and was no longer eligible to be on parole, but he was no longer there.

They tried to give this to the police, who told them that it was just a report from the board and not a warrant, and that they could not execute it. It is worthless to law enforcement officers, it is of no use to them.

With this new change, the document from the board in question has the force of a warrant, the force of law. It can be given to a police authority and the officers will be able to move quickly to arrest the individual who has breached his conditions of parole.

Briefly, in my opinion and in the opinion of some members of the Bloc, this is the essential point. We have looked into this, and will have to do so again, in order to put the final touches on a presentation to the committee that will be looking at Bill C-53 in second reading. The Bloc will, as a minimum, be looking at the three elements I have just spoken to you about, in order to verify whether it would be possible to improve the bill a bit.

As you will have concluded, the Bloc Quebecois gives its support, in principle, to Bill C-53, but this does not mean we are dropping the three elements I have referred to, particularly the last, which strikes me as the place where it will get hung up, if anywhere. This is where the two parties may not see eye to eye, because the jump from 15 to 65 days is a bit too much.

As for the first element, all that is required is to insert the term "protection of society" in the general principles of the bill, instead of later on, where it gets lost in the shuffle. I imagine it ought to be rather easy for the proposers to support such a proposal. The other change is to add "in council" after "lieutenant governor", which would enable the provinces to decide fully, rather than the lieutenant governor.

These are the key points the Bloc considers to be real improvements to Bill C-53. If we are passing it, let us take advantage of the opportunity. The books are already open, so let us take advantage of the opportunity to add the right words in the right places. The Bloc supports Bill C-53 in second reading, and gives its agreement in principle.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-53. I cannot say that I and my party are in agreement with the bill. We are not. However, it does give me an opportunity again to address some of the major concerns which the people of the country have been expressing to me over the summer months and before. It is not just in my riding that people are very upset with criminal justice matters. This concern is found in every riding across the country.

Members opposite know full well that the criminal justice system is hurting and needs a lot of reformation.

Bill C-53 is an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. It would add a statement and a purpose to temporary absence programs and authorize the provinces to create additional types of temporary absence programs.

The purpose and principles set out in the bill are almost identical to those set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There is, however, one significant exception. The principle that the protection of society is to be the paramount determination of any case is not repeated in this bill. If this is to be the paramount consideration when dealing with conditional release under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it is not clear why this would also not be the paramount consideration regarding temporary absence at a provincial level.

The Reform Party opposes the bill because it places the rehabilitation and integration of criminals ahead of any consideration for the protection of society.

Canada is long overdue for significant readjustments to our liberal justice process. Protection of society must once again become our paramount consideration when dealing with and deciding to reintroduce offenders into our communities.

Even at the present stage, prior to anything this bill may offer, there are serious considerations and violations for those offenders who have walked into our society, who have reoffended and who have done terrible damage to those communities in which they were placed often without the knowledge of the people in those communities.

Let me state what has become painfully obvious for a great majority of Canadians. The criminal justice system, including corrections, parole, court administration and the Young Offenders Act, has failed to meet the expectations of the majority of our citizens.

People today question the entire process and they have lost confidence in the government's ability to ensure personal safety and to protect private property.

I have had the opportunity to go door to door throughout my constituency. The number two item of concern to most of my constituents has been criminal justice and their safety.

It did not matter if it had been them personally who had been victimized but certainly a neighbour or a friend close by they were referring to. That was their concern.

They feel the justice system is not dealing with those concerns adequately. As a result, most Canadians no longer believe the promise of welfare state criminology, that crime will fall proportionate to increased social spending and wealth redistribution by government.

That seems to be what is driving our criminal justice system. Critics of the current system argue that one of the more immediate threats facing Canadian society is a criminal justice system that is no longer effective at deterring crime because it has lost its will to punish and correct criminal behaviour.

They point out that three decades of correctional experiments in which many violent, serious and repeat criminals have been forced against their will to participate in rehabilitation programs have proven costly and largely ineffective.

That is what is happening inside. Suffice it to say there exists a great deal of concern with respect to the early release of violent and repeat offenders.

Canadians are dismayed because the principles of truth or honesty in sentencing no longer seem to apply in our justice system. How often have we heard the judge say eight years and yet the parole board turns around and says released in one-third, two years or three years?

That is not truth in sentencing. The Canadian people would like to see a sentence given and that time served. The chasm between appearance and reality in sentencing criminals due to plea bargaining and parole has fueled demands for significant changes to the system, specifically truth in sentencing and violent strike legislation.

I had an opportunity to travel into the state of Ohio during the summer. In the area where I was, there was a prison that housed 5,000 state prisoners. What was significant was that on questioning the deputy warden in that institution, they were preparing themselves for truth in sentencing legislation that had just been enacted in their legislature. Truth in sentencing. They were preparing to take those prisoners and hold them in jail.

They found it to be cheaper holding them in jail than to release them and have them reoffend time and time again, where the costs were filtered down to the municipalities with investigations, courts and everything else, and that is the concern in Canada.

Critics also point out the problems within our correctional system such as the unfettered flow of illegal drugs within the system. I was at a press conference this morning where that topic came forward. Bleach kits and condoms were the order of the day and are the order of the day in our federal penitentiaries. If that is the way Correctional Service Canada responds to a problem within its walls, then we have a major problem on our hands when offenders walk out the door.

They will still have their drug problems and will commit crime as a result. The health risks to both the prison population and the staff that look after them will increase tremendously as it is right now and has been pointed out by the last series of stats that reflects a 46 per cent known increase in HIV-AIDS within the prison walls.

The source of the drug problem in our prisons is a result of the visitors program. In other words, they take advantage of the restriction under the charter with regard to search and seizure. A guard cannot single out an individual and say we are searching you. They have to take them at face value and have just cause to do so.

Critics also point out to the lack of meaningful work programs within the present system. Skill based training programs are being phased out and replaced by cognitive skills training, moral reasoning and anger management courses. Mandatory work activities are not required.

To enlarge on cognitive skills training certificates and anger management course certificates, many prisoners I have talked to who have been released and were serious about job hunting and the like would present these certificates to their perspective employers

and time and time again the reply was: "Well, what can you do?" Correctional Service Canada's system does not prepare an offender for his release to go into the job market. I think that is a shame.

The Liberal government has time and time again talked about its compassion and yet a prisoner in a federal institution does not receive basic training because of these pie in the sky courses being offered in their place.

Mandatory work activities are not required. Another problematic issue is the taxpayer funded amenities for prisoners. Inmates are granted luxuries which many law abiding citizens are not, including but not limited to access to golf courses, GST rebates, cable TV, legal aid, lavish work facilities, free counselling, full medical and dental with no line ups, free university education and the ability to refuse to work.

A general feeling exists that because we have made prison conditions too easy it has undercut the deterrent effect of imprisonment. There is whole group of people involved in the area of prisoners' rights. There are advocates, lawyers, prisoners' rights groups inside and out and they scream at anyone who opposes the present or the status quo.

Anyone who does is condemned and the finger is pointed; the archaic thinking that goes on with those who oppose the present system. It is inhumane to think of anything otherwise.

The general public does not buy these noisy nabobs. It is even critical of the system and the advocates who keep liberalizing it. As far as I am concerned these criticisms are justified. Canadian recidivism rates are between 50 and 85 per cent depending on who we talk to. Contrary to the claim that crime is decreasing, the incident of criminal activity today is at a level three times greater than it was 30 years ago.

Prison facilities are at or near capacity and sometimes the accusation or the comment is that they are overflowing. New correction facilities must be planned or in the absence of such preparation more offenders will be released on the streets or released on temporary absence.

Temporary absence is the substance of Bill C-53, the legislation currently before the House. With respect to this legislation Reformers are guided by our party policy as found in the blue book, the justice section, sections A, which reads:

Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives.

I would like to talk a bit about what we are committed to do. The number one priority of our criminal justice system ought to be the protection of law-abiding Canadians and their property. I know we can read in some documents that are presented by the members across away that this is the paramount consideration or this is the mandate of whatever bill they may pass. In this one they do not mention it at all.

What has been happening in our system? It is becoming more and more liberal and the concerns of people in the constituencies across this country reflect it. This year in my city alone of Calgary somewhere in the neighbourhood of five pedophiles were operating all within a two or three week period and several of them had been on release. One had been released even after he refused treatment in the penitentiary. Within three months after being driven from High River, a small town south of Calgary, he went into Calgary and it just so happened to be in my riding that he attacked another young girl.

These considerations must be taken into account when offenders such as pedophiles are released into the community. This bill does nothing to address these concerns. This bill operates in the opposite fashion. It will release earlier and for longer periods of time people who are incarcerated.

Reformers are wholly committed to placing the rights of victims ahead of the so-called rights and considerations of criminals. Our party reflects adequately the statement and the presentation of the victims' bill of rights by the member for Fraser Valley West, a Reformer, which was presented in this House and adopted by the governing party, the Liberal government. That consideration is there, but let us act on it.

Since Bill C-53 would consider prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration as equal to the consideration for the protection of society, Reformers oppose the bill, as it places the rights of criminals ahead of those of the victims.

Bill C-53, an extension of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, would expand the scope and the number of temporary release programs in Canada. Do we need more?

A study by the National Institute of Justice in the United States reflected that the cost of incarceration was one-half that of release, and that the recidivism rate, the following investigations and court action resulted in double the costs. That is what is happening.

From the appearance of this bill, the government intends to pass other laws to release more people. It has never adequately studied the issue of the cost of crime in our country. Before we get more laws on the books some research should be done to find out exactly what the problem is and what costs are involved. However, that does not seem to be the way or intent of this Liberal government.

Past experience has demonstrated that the temporary absence program, especially for violent, serious and repeat offenders, can jeopardize public safety. All one has to do is look at the Daniel

Gingras case. I am not saying that Daniel Gingras will be released again or that kind of scenario will be repeated, but it could very well happen. It happened then because he was given a birthday pass, which was up to Corrections Canada. He escaped when he was in the West Edmonton Mall and subsequently raped and killed two people, unsuspecting victims.

The concept of temporary absence illustrates that there is little truth or honesty in sentencing. Many Canadians feel this approach is wrong, specifically that criminals owe a debt to society and this debt should be paid through the full uninterrupted service of sentence. Is that too much to ask? Are the Canadian people asking too much when they say: "If a man is sentenced to 15 years, he should do 15 years?" I do not think so. It is high time the government started to listen to statements from right across the country about the concern over early release.

Programs of temporary absence are an extension of status quo correctional philosophy which argues, first, that most criminals commit crimes because they themselves are victims and, second, that crime is mostly a product or a result of social conditions and that the most effective remedy is for the state to intervene through programs such as stepped up welfare payments and other social experiments.

Nowhere is punishment mentioned in this scenario. It is becoming evident by the treatment of prisoners in jails that punishment is not part of the scenario.

Temporary absence is another in a long list of language which is preferred and used by welfare state criminologists, which includes conditional release, mandatory supervision, statutory release, community sentencing, alternative measures and other newer labels which are essentially built on the same theme. They build on the notion that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation and that the best measure of an inmate's rehabilitative progress is his conduct in prison. The conduct of an individual in prison will certainly be different than it is out in the street. He will be restricted to some degree.

The murderer who shot the policeman has been a good boy for eight years. He has not done anything seriously wrong. Maybe he smoked a few joints in prison because there is a good flow of drugs in there, but he has really done nothing wrong. That thinking and that philosophy are not acceptable to the majority of people in the country.

The problem is that very little consideration is given to the crime and its impact on the victims which made it necessary for society to imprison the offender in the first place.

Reform is sympathetic to opponents of the status quo correction and parole system who argue that substantial crime savings can be made through deterrence rather than through programs of temporary release and legislation such as Bill C-53. I do not see deterrence in Bill C-53. Nor do I see accountability mentioned in Bill C-53.

The key instruments of deterrence are the certainty and severity of punishment. Deterrence prevents crimes from occurring when the potential offenders, considering the risks and severity of punishment, decide to commit fewer crimes.

When I joined the police department over 25 years ago we were instructed as new recruits that having a man in uniform in a marked police car travelling about a community, going to the parks and playgrounds, had a deterrent effect. The law was clear. If a pedophile was out there among children he would be arrested. That was a deterrent effect. The pedophile would be taken off the street, charged and held in prison until he went to court and, once convicted, that was where he stayed. That was a deterrent. The certainty of punishment and the enforcement agency's clear concern for community standards and safety were deterrents.

That does not exist today. The pedophiles that happened to be in my city over the summer had no fear. Finally, through the efforts of the community, one was removed because he was getting aggressive when walking among children in a wading pool.

Logically the number of people willing to commit crimes decreases as the danger of punishment increases.

I reflect on another situation which occurred when I was investigating major crimes in Calgary. It was a situation where a store owner, a pharmacist, who had been robbed five times finally told the offender in court one day: "Do not ever come back into my store. I will get you. I will be ready for you".

It just so happened that the criminal was brazen enough to take him up on the dare. He went into the store to rob him for the sixth time. What the criminal did not realize was that the pharmacist had a shotgun behind the counter. When the offender walked through the door he was chased out of the store, shot and killed.

That was a deterrent. The store owner was charged and went to court. A jury found him not guilty. There was not a drug store robbery in Calgary for two years. That is a deterrent.

Business owners and homeowners are tired of having to put up with a non-committal criminal justice system which has no deterrent in it and no punishment.

As an alternative to the status quo correctional philosophy to which Bill C-53 is simply an extension, we propose a dramatic and immediate overhaul of corrections, parole and sentencing. Specifically we propose truth in sentencing for violent and repeat serious

criminals. Those offenders would serve a minimum of 90 per cent of their court prescribed sentence.

Truth in sentencing would apply to any individual who is convicted of an indictable offence or of any other crime deemed violent or serious under the provisions set out in the Criminal Code.

Truth in sentencing is needed instead of temporary absence programs because convicted violent criminals and serious offenders are serving a fraction of their time in prison compared to the sentence received at trial. Truth in sentencing will increase the length of time convicted, serious offenders are incarcerated.

In Canada, an offender who has served one-third or seven years, whichever is less of his or her sentence of incarceration becomes eligible for full parole. I think that is going to change. Inmates who have not been released on parole after having served two-thirds of their sentence are released by law to serve the final third of their sentence in the community.

If required to serve at least 90 per cent of their sentence, violent criminals and serious offenders would serve longer sentences, resulting in the prevention of crime which would otherwise be committed by criminals out on early release. In short, Bill C-53 wants to expand early release through the expansion of temporary absence.

National Parole Board data confirms that even the most violent and serious offenders serve on average only about one-half of their prison sentence. One of its studies showed that individuals convicted of attempted murder, for example, served an average of 48 months where the court ordered sentence was 94 months. In the case of manslaughter the actual time served by the offender averaged 44 months, where the original court sentence was 84 months. In the case of rape or aggravated assault, the average offender was released after serving 49 months of a 79 month sentence. That is not truth in sentencing.

Instead of expanding temporary absence programs and putting the rights of criminals ahead of the consideration for victims and law-abiding Canadians, the government should consider longer sentences for violent offenders because longer sentences will result in the reduction in the crime rate by preventing these offenders from recidivating. Requiring them to serve 90 per cent of their sentences will almost double the time they spend in prison and of course prevent crimes these offenders would likely commit in the community. The recidivism rate, as I pointed out, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent, most wardens tell us.

Two violent strikes and you are out. Reformers are proposing two violent strikes laws to which violent criminals and sex offenders would be subject. We say that for every criminal who is convicted of a violent crime for a second time, he or she should be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for early release or parole.

We believe that two violent strikes laws signify a tough, realistic approach to crime and would get multiple offenders off the street and into prison where they belong.

Critics of two strike proposals raise the cost of incarceration as an issue. Indeed, many of these same critics use cost as an argument to further the case for temporary absence programs. These people say that it is less costly for society to release criminals on a temporary basis than it is to supervise them on extended temporary leave in the community. To this objection I say two things.

First, it stands to reason that contrary to the claims by those who advance welfare state criminology, two strikes legislation will actually save societal cost by eliminating trial after trial of the same repeat offenders.

As a police officer I saw the revolving door. I think of my time, for instance, in the robbery unit of the Calgary city police department and how offenders would come through. They would be picked up, convicted, into prison they would go and within two to three years we were picking up and putting into prison the same offenders. That is the revolving door and that is reality. Often they were on parole. Seventy per cent to seventy-five per cent were drug abusers. Even though they had spent their time in prison they were still plagued with a drug habit because they could not shake it inside the prison system due to the flow and availability of drugs. That is our system and people want it changed.

This issue goes beyond statistics and projections of costs. The need to control violent crime is about who we are and what we hope to become as a society. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes at night and secure in the morning when they send their children off to school. Canadians will not live in the state of fear, our daily lives held hostage by a lawless few.

Notwithstanding everything that has been said, we are aware that there have been problems with the American application of three strikes legislation. Critics of two strikes legislation often cite the discrepancy in the severity of crimes covered by the law. An often repeated story involves a California man who was sentenced to life without parole for stealing a slice of pizza.

Let there be no mistake about that issue to which I speak today. Reform planned an alternative to legislation like Bill C-53. I point out that many of the proposals that I speak of here today will be brought before our caucus for final ratification at one point. The Reform plan clearly defines what is a violent offence. Hence, there

will be little or no chance for a pizza thief to face a mandatory life sentence upon conviction, which is what happened in California.

We also propose hard time prison sentences. We have a proposal to return prison time to hard time. We believe that the time spent in prison should not be a place any criminal would ever want to return to. A prisoner should not want to go back. Amenities currently afforded to inmates such as colour and cable TV, taxpayer funded university education, lavish workout facilities, special meals and holiday pay should be eliminated. That is quite a list.

[An hon. member]

Canada pension?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Yes, Canada pension is probably thrown in there too. That is quite a list for people who have offended in this country and tossed into prison. Those rights should be removed and removed now.

Corrections Canada spends more than it ever has on costly and largely ineffective rehabilitation programs for prisoners. The drug rehabilitation program is one. Five million dollars was spent in 1994 on drug rehabilitation. To what avail? Drugs still flow into the prison. Prisoners still leave with the drug habits they entered with because of the availability of drugs inside. Those are facts.

Why is the Liberal government not addressing those concerns?

It is also true for sex offenders. In the 1993-94 budget of corrections Canada there was a total of $98 million for inmate programs described as education and personal development, occupational development programs and employment, spiritual, social, cultural and special needs programs.

We affirm as Reformers the government's responsibility to guarantee a minimal level of care to all convicted inmates: basic food and shelter, basic medical treatment, clothing and a rehabilitative framework based on the inmate's initiative. We also recognize that the rehabilitation of inmates shall be based upon incentives and merit. You earn your way.

A guaranteed system of initiatives shall determine the level of discipline. We propose that the framework for this system shall be set up in a way that clearly presents the relationship between the severity of the crime for which they are imprisoned and their demonstrated willingness to seek rehabilitation.

In other words, it is a self-rehabilitative program. Under our model, temporary absences would be a rare occurrence, especially for the violent offender. Maximum security institutions would house violent and serious offenders who are considered dangerous or who are serving true life sentences.

The program would be guided by the following principles: labour intensive work details without pay or skills training, no conjugal visits, only a core duty of care, restricted access on a very limited basis to entertainment and communications.

That was the maximum prison. We suggest that medium security prisons should house non-violent offenders and only those who have a proven willingness to participate in rehabilitative programs out of the maximum security institutions.

These positions would not be permanent. Any misbehaviour or loss of inmate initiative would result in the inmate's being returned to the maximum security.

Right now the process is the exact opposite. The pressure is on the maximum-medium to keep pushing down the inmates lower and lower, to re-evaluate their risk assessment. That is what is happening inside right now. Change the risk assessment to get them out of those maximum institutions into the medium, change the risk assessment to get them out of the medium into the minimum. That is what is happening.

The program should consist of the following. Inmates will work in print shops, carpentry, machine shops and garment production. Some of those things exist right now. Machine shops are being phased out in many institutions. What is replacing them? Educational programs. Prisoners will be given the opportunity to upgrade their formal education based on compliance with the prison rules.

Authority must be turned back too to the staff that run these prisons. We suggest that minimal compensation commence at this level. We would also allow a pay and trust up to $5,000 for the inmate to ensure that he has adequate resources upon release from prison.

What does it stand at right now? It is $80 after an inmate has served a substantial length of time. He has $80 in his pocket when he walks out the door. Is that adequate? What will he do if he cannot get a job right away? He will go back to crime.

That direction must be taken away. That thought must be taken away from them and they should be given something productive inside. They are obliged to work in the system. At this point prisoners would earn increased access to entertainment and communications after they have earned it.

With respect to minimum security facilities, we would propose they be run on the following principles. Minimum security prisons shall house non-violent offenders and those who have earned the privilege at this level, again the non-violent.

Work crews and apprenticeship programs will be trade oriented. They will be required to participate in some fashion in a work program. There will be a day pass system to encourage employment in private industry.

Sixty per cent of inmate pay would be applied to the inmate's room and board. Twenty per cent would be directed to the victim of the crime for which the individual is serving time and the remaining 20 per cent would be placed in trust for the inmate's

family or for the inmate upon release. There would be increased privileges, in particular conjugal visits, and they would be only on the minimum security level.

In addition, Reform believes the following reforms must be considered: non-voting privileges, no children in prisons. I have seen it said time and time again: "I went to see daddy in prison". How far do we carry that or the conjugal visit home? Is that a place to bring children? No pornography, personal TVs or stereos. All of these are on the commissioner's directives. Yet there is no enforcement in this area.

Reform believes these are the concerns Bill C-53 should focus on and not a program of temporary absence whereby prisoners' rights are given higher consideration than the protection of society. One has to ask why this bill is coming into being? It would appear it is as a result of a financial concern. In other words, it is too costly to keep them inside.

Reform believes a graduated system of accountability must be revisited in order to place the principle of individual accountability back into the prison system. Inmates no more than any other Canadian should not be able to take their position for granted.

The Reform Party's vision for the future of Canadian corrections is that responsible and co-operative behaviour will lead to privileges and perhaps transfer of deserving inmates to a less restrictive facility. Misbehaviour and infraction will mean the loss of privileges and even the return to a higher level of incarceration.

Canadians want to see some substantial reform in this whole area of incarceration. It is too bad these principles are not reflected in Bill C-53.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We will now proceed to the next stage of Bill C-53, in which speeches are limited to 20 minutes and subject to a 10-minute question and comment period.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53 at second reading.

This bill proposes amendments to the current Prisons and Reformatories Act that would strengthen and modernize the statutory framework that governs temporary absence programs for offenders in provincial and territorial custody.

I think the hon. member for Calgary Northeast did not understand this. I hope Reform members will follow the example of their Bloc colleagues and support this bill.

The bill would benefit the provinces and territories by providing them with a more flexible legislative framework to meet the diverse circumstances of their individual jurisdictions. It is a balanced response to growing concerns by provinces and territories that the existing temporary absence legal framework for offenders in provincial and territorial custody is too limited and outdated.

It should be noted that many of the same issues such as the expansion of the types of temporary absences and their duration were addressed for penitentiary inmates in 1992 when the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act was enacted.

Now we have once again the member of Parliament from Calgary Northeast saying we should remodernize the whole correctional system. It was done in 1992. The provinces and the territories have recognized that similar changes are required for provincial and territorial inmates. That is what Bill C-53 addresses. It does not address the panoply of concerns the member raised. I think he is confusing the issue.

These amendments were developed in full consultation with provincial and territorial governments. They were approved by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice in May of this year. I might add that they are an excellent illustration of federal, provincial and territorial co-operation.

As hon. members will know, the Prisons and Reformatories Act is a federal statute which governs how sentences under the Criminal Code and other statutes will be administered.

This stems from the federal responsibility for criminal law. However, it is our provincial and territorial partners who must implement this legislation. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that there is adequate flexibility for them to meet their own unique circumstances as they see fit, without undue limitation.

Consequently, a joint federal-provincial-territorial task force was convened to develop the amendments we see before us today.

As I said, the bill would make amendments to key areas governed by the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

First, there is the addition of a statement of purpose and principle for temporary absence programs. This is something new for provincial temporary absences. It is modelled on the statement of purpose and principle which was created in 1992 in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which applies to parole and penitentiary temporary absences.

From our federal experience, this statement of purpose and principles has been extremely useful in terms of adding both real and perceived consistency and integrity to conditional release programs. In this day of increased scrutiny and accountability of

release decision-makers, such statements provide valuable guidance to both the system and the public.

Second, the amendments would increase the maximum duration of temporary absences from 15 days to 60 days. This change is intended to reflect modern realities and give correctional authorities the necessary flexibility to manage their inmate populations. There is an express provision in the bill allowing for the renewal of temporary absences. But there is also an important safeguard, and it is this: where a temporary absence is being renewed, there must be a reassessment of the case prior to so doing.

Third, the bill would set out explicit authority for individual jurisdictions to create additional types of temporary absences beyond those for the basic medical, humanitarian and rehabilitative reasons, so long as they are consistent with the overall purpose and principle of temporary absence programs as stated in the bill. This will give individual jurisdictions the flexibility required to fully administer their particular programs according to their unique circumstances.

Fourth, the reforms would give individual jurisdictions authority to restrict concurrent eligibility for some types of temporary absences and parole. This authority is intended to prevent "conditional release shopping", that is to say, to reduce opportunities for offenders to play parole off against temporary absence programs and vice-versa.

Lastly, the bill would add other important safeguards that would enhance public safety. The amendments would set out explicit grounds for cancelling, terminating, or revoking a temporary absence and authority to apprehend and return the offender to custody. The bill would also allow for the electronic transmission of a warrant of apprehension anywhere in Canada.

Another key feature of the reforms is that a peace officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a warrant of apprehension has been issued against an offender on a temporary absence would be able to arrest that offender without a warrant and hold him or her for up to 48 hours until the warrant is forwarded and executed. These measures will ensure that there is no question about the authority to return offenders to custody when required.

It is important to emphasize that the legislative enhancement of the temporary absence program which this bill would introduce should not be viewed as minimizing the importance of parole. The provinces and the territories rely on both parole and temporary absences as important tools for assisting in the reintegration of offenders. The changes that we are proposing would allow each jurisdiction to decide where the balance should be between these two forms of conditional release. It gives them the flexibility which they have been demanding.

It is also important to point out that parole can sometimes be a time consuming process which is appropriate for qualified offenders serving sentences for six months or more. Temporary absences, on the other hand, are appropriate for the management of shorter sentences, that is to say, less than six months.

Temporary absences are particularly appropriate in those jurisdictions without their own parole boards. Many provinces do not have access to parole boards. In those situations it is vital that jurisdictions establish a strong and credible temporary absence program. That is exactly what the bill does. It will enable the provinces and territories to do that.

Some critics may say that the reforms will make the system more lenient, as members of the Reform Party have alluded, at a time when public sentiment is pushing for greater restrictions. I would like to respond by saying that the reforms provide stricter parameters and tighter controls for the temporary absence program.

At the risk of repeating myself, the amendments set out clear criteria for ending a release and returning the offender to custody. They also impose the reassessment of the case as a precondition to any renewal of a temporary absence.

I cannot emphasize enough that these changes are being introduced with the protection of the public in mind.

The reforms are an effort to modernize the legislation as was done for federal inmates in 1992, and bring it into line with current practices in most provinces.

The amendments will provide a more coherent system, in that certain important elements-such as the statement of purpose and principles of temporary absence programs-will for the first time be specified in statute.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my earlier comments on the need to effectively address the gaps and rigidities in the existing legislation. The proposed reforms are an effective response to the concerns of all jurisdictions. This initiative is a thoughtful reflection of federal-provincial-territorial co-operation on a matter of mutual interest.

It is a sound and balanced set of reforms which will allow flexibility to individual jurisdictions to tailor temporary absence programs to their needs while still maintaining national consensus around key elements, particularly public safety.

All members of Parliament have an interest in ensuring that the concerns of Canadians are addressed in the most efficient and effective manner. This is so for matters concerning public safety. And this is what this bill does.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Bloc members for supporting this bill and I would also like to take the time, if I may, to respond to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, who, in his speech, asked the following question:

"Why is this bill being brought forward at this time?" He led the public to believe that it was for budgetary reasons. If the member has been following the work of the provincial-territorial task force he would know that this group was established by the heads of corrections and is recommending changes to legislation governing temporary absences under provincial jurisdiction, which has been traditionally those convicted criminals serving a sentence of less than two years. The changes were approved by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice last May. Similar changes were been made in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in November 1992.

It is at the request of the first ministers who are responsible for justice in their provinces that we are today introducing the required changes. They will help to add safeguards to the system to improve public safety.

For example, the new legislation would establish clear criteria to be used by provincial authorities for cancelling, terminating or revoking temporary absences and returning the offender to custody. The provincial prisons hold offenders, as I have said, for less than two years.

The member for Calgary Northwest was helter skelter, all over the map in his presentation. It shows that Reformers are not focused then it comes to criminal justice issues. I would ask them to reconsider and support Bill C-53 today.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take my turn to speak to Bill C-53 before the House today. Since the position of the official opposition was clearly established by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Manicouagan, I will merely elaborate on some of the elements he touched on just now, and I also intend to add to this some figures which the hon. member for Windsor-St. Claire was so kind as to pass on to me earlier, after quoting them in her own speech.

Clause 7 of the bill refers to the conditions for conducting temporary absence programs, as they are commonly referred to.

We should not forget that, when a court of law imposes a prison sentence, the primary purpose of the prison sentence is to protect society, while the second is to mete out punishment. We must not forget that. The rehabilitation aspect comes third, when we are certain that society is protected and that an individual is punished for an offence of which he has been found guilty or to which he has confessed. Subsequently comes the time for clemency and rehabilitation. The first two elements should not be overlooked: the protection of society and the punitive aspect. I think that clause 7 should put more emphasis on one of the principles of sentencing, according to which society has both the right and even the duty to protect itself.

That being said, I think that legislating rules for the guidance of authorities in charge of temporary absences is an improvement. At least there will be guidelines far more specific than what exists at the present time with respect to temporary absences.

Second, the bill specifies the grounds for revocation of the temporary absence. Here again, this is certainly an improvement which we will have an opportunity to examine in committee, but clause 7 of the bill enumerates the conditions under which the temporary absence may be revoked.

Of course, when we give people the power to grant temporary absences or revoke them, we cannot expect them to be faultless in their judgment of who should or should not be given a temporary absence. A temporary absence should be granted, of course, everyone or almost everyone will agree, when these people, for their own rehabilitation, when they are no longer a risk to society, when they can make a contribution to society to rectify mistakes that happened during their lives, can benefit from it.

It is to be hoped the boards that will have to decide whether or not to grant parole or a temporary absence will use their judgement. Let us not kid ourselves. Ours is not an ideal world and there will always be errors. Errors that are often infrequent and not the general rule should not blind us to the primary purpose of this bill, which deals specifically with rehabilitation and also relieving pressure on the prison system.

My colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair, spoke earlier about a rate of incarceration in Canada of 130 persons for 100,000 population, while the rate in western countries, excluding the United States, can vary, for example, from 51 per 100,000 in the Netherlands to 81 per 100,000 in Germany, much higher rates.

It seems that, despite a decrease in crime in Canada, there is a rather strong trend for the courts to hand down firm prison sentences that are much more exemplary and to do so more often, particularly in cases of domestic violence.

We know that there is social pressure, and a good thing too, for zero tolerance of domestic violence. Therefore, our judges, who are sensitive to public opinion, are generally much more severe. And this reflects an evolution in society that I commend. Here, as with alcohol and drug use, it is zero tolerance that we should be aiming for.

In committee, of course we will try to pin down the scope of clause 7.2, which states that it is the lieutenant governor of the province who designates who is competent to authorize temporary absences in each of the provinces.

My colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, has just mentioned that we have a new lieutenant governor in Quebec. Although appointed by the federal government, and theoretically by the Governor General, the lieutenant governor is in fact named on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. And although the lieutenant governor acts, also theoretically, on the recommendation of the provincial cabinet, he is not legally obliged to do so.

An old case from 1938, in a referral to the Supreme Court, on "-power of disallowance and reservation", clearly established that constitutional conventions which may deprive the Crown of the exercise of some rights do not hold when these rights, reserved for the Crown, are effectively exercised despite those constitutional conventions.

We just had such a debate in Quebec on whether, in a example A or B, the representative of the Crown could not prevent the people or the National Assembly, which represents the people, from exercising its democratic right. I hope that it will not happen.

If we added the words "in council" after lieutenant governor in clause 7.2 and therefore used the expression "lieutenant governor in council", we would simply mean that a Cabinet decision signed by the lieutenant governor would be necessary in order to designate the persons responsible for authorizing temporary absences. This would be compatible with the provincial jurisdiction.

This is what the member for Vaudreuil was referring to when he talked about the overlap which existed in criminal law in Canada-an overlap which is not so clear cut as one would think. In sections 91, 29 and 92(14) of the Canadian Constitution, the British North America Act of 1867, renamed the Constitution Act, 1867, as if it had never been called anything else, the BNA Act of 1867 gives the federal Parliament the power to determine sentencing and to establish a criminal code, and of course related laws, and gives the provincial authority the responsibility of administering justice.

But what administration of justice? Civil matters clearly are the responsibility of the province. This has not been disputed to date although according to some, an area of civil law falls under federal jurisdiction at this stage of the evolution of the law. However, things have not yet gone very far at this level.

As to areas of criminal law, is the provincial administration constitutionalized pursuant to subsection 92(14) or is it delegated to the provincial attorneys-general under the Criminal Code, and something that the federal Parliament may revoke at any time?

I was simply trying to point out to the fact that, after 126 or 127 years, after so much change, interpretation and discussion, we are still in a grey area, in a no man's land. We are still wondering about the distribution of jurisdictions among the different levels of government.

Bill C-53 is a step forward or perhaps sideways, but certainly not backwards in improving the balance that, as long as we belong to this system, we must constantly be trying to reach in the sharing of powers between federal and provincial jurisdictions. The enacting of Bill C-53 will mean better coordination.

With the flexibility afforded by this bill, we should be able to keep in custody those who really deserve to remain in prison, who are a danger to society and themselves and who have not earned a temporary absence or permission to go out. They must be earned, they are not automatic.

There is one last thing, with which my colleague from Manicouagan dealt very eloquently, I will probably be less eloquent. My colleague is quite familiar with the system, not for having served time, but for having worked in the penal system. When he talked about the change in the reporting period from 15 to 60 days, he touched upon a critical point we will have to look into. My mind is not made up at this time, but I have reservations.

If a parolee, who now has to report every two weeks, finds himself in a situation where he only has to report every 60 days instead of 15, an added 45 days, a reporting period four time as long, is there not a danger of losing control over this individual, or at least the correctional officials' ability to follow up? I believe this is a real danger.

If it is found that the individual is in breach of the terms of his parole, will it not be too late after 60 days to bring him back on track? Should his parole not be simply revoked? I think that a follow-up period of two weeks, even though it seems at first to be a rather cumbersome administrative measure, might be preferable to extending the reporting period to 60 days without any prior study. I presume that the committee will look into this issue with an open mind.

I have one last question. I am not stating my position on the breach of parole, on the non respect of the parole terms, I am just

wondering. Right now, under Bill C-53, a law enforcement officer cannot arrest an individual who is clearly in breach of his parole.

Therefore, if a policeman sees me in a bar in the middle of the night, while I am out on parole under the condition that I stay in my house from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., the only thing he can do is write a report saying that I violated the conditions set for my parole but he cannot arrest me.

Would it not be appropriate to change the policemen's powers in some instances? A private member's bill has been submitted to that effect. I do not know where it stands on the Order Paper, but we should also think about acting quickly in that case because the sooner we act, the less deviations from the rules there will be. This is one aspect of the 60-day rule I do not like; it will be very difficult to follow the individuals during those two months when they are at large. We are all aware of the problems created by budget cuts at all levels.

If we reduce personnel, we also reduce the supervision. The person in need of help will receive less and less and he or she will probably want to test the limits of those conditions set for the temporary absence or the day pass.

I submit that these points should be considered in committee. We will insist that they be. Since the parliamentary secretary was courteous enough to stay in the House to hear the official opposition's statements, I am sure he took note of our comments and he will transmit those comments so that everyone will know what issues are of concern to us.

At the second reading, we will of course support Bill C-53.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53.

Contrary to some of the comments made by my Liberal colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I may surprise him and say I just may vote in favour of this. I remain to be convinced but I do want some assurances and it is only reasonable to ask in the House which is passing legislation that basically affects provincial jurisdiction. People like me are looking for some assurances that we are not being too liberal on allowing these people out for longer extended periods.

That gives my community a great concern. The communities of Abbotsford, Langley and Aldergrove, which have really seen very little crime over the years, have just witnessed five people murdered last week at once, a young girl killed months ago and on and on it goes. The people in my area are not used to this but it is coming at them in waves.

To stand here in the House of Commons and say yes, I might be for expanding temporary absences at the provincial, I have to be absolutely certain in my own mind that I am doing this in the sole interest and protection of the people in my area. During my discussion today I will be talking about the assurances I am looking for.

I recognize that the federal-provincial task force looking at these issues has come to the federal government asking why not put up a national standard on this kind of issue of temporary absences. I agree with national standards. I am looking for a national standard of victims' rights. The government said we are going to work on that this fall. I am looking forward to doing that.

Just as much as victims' rights need a national standard, perhaps so do temporary absences with all provinces in the nation.

If we are looking for national standards we are talking about increasing temporary absences from 15 to 60 days. I really have some questions to ask about that. I have some cases in my community of people who have been out on temporary absence who have done worse than what we could imagine. I really do want to know why the extension from 15 to 60 days. That is 45 additional days. I know it does reduce the bureaucracy and that sort of thing. I have to be convinced that an additional 45 days is in fact a safeguard for potential victims out there.

We are looking at a designated authority with the power to suspend, cancel or revoke a temporary absence. I do not disagree with that. I want to go through the EMP, the electric monitoring program the provincial government has, which I originally did not like. Since I have looked at it four times at length now I am beginning to like it more and more.

We are also looking at a designated authority to provide for the apprehension and recommitment of an individual. I do not have a problem with that either.

What is the difference between provincial and federal inmates, provincial and federal penitentiaries? If a person gets a sentence in excess of two years, two years plus a day, they go to a federal penitentiary. If they get less than two years, are they not that bad a convict? Are they the kind of guy who is going up to the big house some day and is just working at it or are they really a guy who has been at this for some time?

It happens in my area. I have met several inmates who are at one of the community corrections centres. The fence is four feet high. They are out in the daytime. They are not monitored. They have to be in at night. These are federal convicts on their way out to the street again. One guy I talked to said: "I am not really that bad a fellow. I was in for sexual assault". I said: "Is that all, just two years plus a day is what you got for this?" "Well no, it was three years". "Have you had any prior convictions?" "Oh yes, I have had 35".

Just because someone is in a provincial prison does not mean he is going to win the Mr. Congeniality of the year award. The fact is that people in provincial prisons in many cases are not very nice people.

It is not the first time. It is not just selling drugs. We have to be careful when we expand temporary absences from 15 to 60 days that we are dealing with the right people. There are good and there are really bad, if someone can call any criminal good. There is a scale in there.

The provincial system itself has some benefits that the federal system could use. Extended probation for instance. The federal system could use that rather than the statutory release and warrant expiry and they are out regardless of what crime they committed. There has to be a period where there is an extended probation.

I often tell this story. I will not prolong it. A fellow in my area coerced a woman in Aldergrove, British Columbia to go and get a lawn mower in the garden shed. He beat her over the head with a hammer, he raped her and left her for dead. He injected her with cocaine. He got six years and was out in two. Statutory release was coming up anyway. They said: "Gee whiz, he is getting out anyway". Before statutory release came, this guy stabbed Angela Richards 26 times and killed her in my riding.

Let us not make mistakes here even if we are starting to accommodate provincial governments. We have a duty and a priority to look after the safety and security of the victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.

The provinces employ an electronic monitoring program. It is used in the temporary absences within the provincial system. I kind of like the program actually. It has application for some federal inmates. The person is monitored by a central computer somewhere. There is a monitoring machine on the end of their telephone which constantly keeps in touch with the inmate or the person living in the House by an ankle bracelet. When they walk out of range of the monitoring machine, the communication is broken. It reports to the central computer. The person is picked up and is sent back into the cell. When someone is using that process with a temporary absence program, it may be very worthwhile.

Another little story. I was out the other night on patrol with Corrections Canada folks. We were monitoring some individuals who are on the electronic monitoring system. One of the fellows had been caught selling cocaine for the first time. There was something wrong because the message from the telephone to his ankle bracelet was not getting through. We went to his house to find out what was going on. Had he disappeared or was he still in his house?

The value of his house I might say would be about $3.5 million to $4 million. It was the first time he got caught selling cocaine. He was put in a provincial prison. His house was worth about $4 million. It had a big pool which was half the size of this place and great tropical flowers. It was a nice place. It had a four-car garage which was big enough for trucks to load up with cocaine and heroin.

We found out what the problem was. The house was too big. He was walking around in a house which was so big it was breaking the signal. They had to put a more powerful receiver on him. This guy was on the same sort of a temporary absence which we are talking about.

There was a whole bunch of cars in the yard. Nice looking cars, too. They were new. There were lots of young fellows around. Who were they and what were they doing? They could not be selling drugs. It was the first time this guy had been caught, so that could not be the issue.

Before I left he said: "This electronic thing works great. The provincial government had a good idea. If you ever want to have one of these and you get stuck in your house, this is the kind of house you should be stuck in".

The trouble with the concept is that the house was likely built on the broken dreams of many parents. That house was built on the sale of drugs, in my opinion. There are young girls who are prostitutes in Vancouver who probably are the recipients of that drug trade.

I wonder if we are sending the right message with temporary absences. Are we doing the right thing? We want to think about that when we extend temporary absences from 15 to 60 days without too much checking.

What we really should be doing in addition to the temporary absence is taking his house. He should not be back in that house. I would seize the house and his assets and turn the house into a place for young people who are on drugs. It could be a transition house. We have to do more than just say there is rehabilitation and put him out on temporary absence from 15 to 60 days so he can be acclimatized to society. This guy is already acclimatized to society. The problem is he is selling drugs to society. That is what we have to look at.

What do we know about rehabilitation? A member come over to me a while ago and mentioned the golf courses in the prisons. They are learning to be good golfers. That is rehabilitative, I suppose. The member said that the golf course is rehab. I suppose we could think of a golf course in a prison as rehab. I do not play golf. It is too expensive. And I never did need golf as rehab in the first place.

I asked the prison warden to justify the golf course. This guy, who is the manager of corrections programs for the Pacific region, said: "For one thing, the golf course at Ferndale was built by the inmates and that taught them about the landscaping business. It was a useful education". Give me a break. That is not a useful

education. It is not really teaching them anything. It is building a golf course to keep them from being far too idle, which they are in prison.

When we are talking about temporary absences, as we are in Bill C-53, and rehabilitation as a result of letting people out longer, we have to define what rehabilitation is. If the Liberal concept of rehabilitation is golf courses, then the Liberals are on the wrong track.

What do prisoners think of rehabilitation? I found on a prison bulletin board the following notice about cognitive skills courses and rehabilitation of the prisoner. This I believe was on the bulletin board at Kent maximum security prison where the bad of the bad go. Let us find out what the prisoners who used their computers to put this up had to say about it.

What is the boosting cognitive skills program, they asked? "This 10 session program is another in a series of useless programs which were formulated by a group of heavily medicated and bored criminology students, who after having sponged up all the funding available to them from the ministry of education, decided they would try a shot at feeding at CSC's billion dollar trough for a while". This is the opening comment from the inmates in Kent.

When we talk about rehabilitation and temporary absences from provincial or federal institutions, we have to understand that if this is meant for rehabilitation, what is rehabilitation? It is important for the Liberal government to address that issue.

Let us just go on. It cannot be all bad for these guys. They say: "These sessions are for those who have already completed the cognitive life skills programs but who for various reasons are registered as low on the cogni-meter". That is good, I suppose. "If you like coffee and a different place to sleep in the morning, this program is for you", the inmates say. "For more information send a request to the programs department care of Bozo the Clown".

That is what inmates in this country think of rehabilitation. Not all of them do, but some do. The guards and staff in the prisons are telling me that is what the inmates think. We have to understand and keep in mind the need to mesh the right rehabilitation of an individual with temporary absences.

I want assurances that when people leave on temporary absences that we are protected. The bill does go some way in doing that and I will acknowledge that. That is why I may just vote for this yet, unless I can find a real problem.

Why the need to extend from 15 to 60 days? What are we actually doing? Are we trying to integrate for a longer period? Is it working? I wish it were working. If it were working Carol Goldy in my riding would not have been stabbed six times by her husband who is already out and is on a restraining order.

There was a fellow, a foster parent who sexually assaulted his children and he was out on a temporary absence as well. There is another lady in my riding who fled her house, ran away from her estranged husband who was out on temporary absence. He tried to burn the house down. Another lady's five-year old son was killed by her husband for revenge. He was out. On and on it goes. A sexual offender pleaded guilty to 13 counts of sexual assault. The police found a calendar detailing over 1,000 sexual contacts with children.

We cannot at any time during any temporary absence in this country whether it is for 15 or 60 days afford to have any further damage done to law-abiding Canadian citizens or victims who have already been victimized at one time or another. Keep that in mind. Convince me that the best interest of the law-abiding Canadian citizen is held in this legislation and I just may vote for it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before pursuing questions or comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, the environment; the hon. member for Bourassa, immigration; the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Montreal airports.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the concerns of the member for Fraser Valley West about the extension from 15 to 60 days since he directed his comments at me two or three times.

I think the member is aware that a temporary absence is usually used by provincial authorities to manage the inmate population. It is usually used for medical reasons such as when an inmate has to seek medical treatment outside the institution. It is also used for humanitarian related purposes. In going from 15 to 60 days we have consulted the people who are front line.

Quite often as politicians we are criticized because we legislate and do not take into consideration those aspects of the legislation that affect the front line people. They have asked us to increase it from 15 to 60 days for several reasons. First, when somebody is sentenced to a longer period of time there is a mechanism in place called the National Parole Board which most provinces have. They usually use that as the mechanism with which to administer the release of the inmate population. However, when we have a smaller period of time, a six month sentence for example, that process is too cumbersome. As a result they have asked for modifications in the law.

The 60 days would be required, for example, for an inmate to seek treatment outside or follow programs that might have a finite period of time exceeding the 15 days which seems to be very restrictive.

I want to reassure the hon. member for Fraser Valley West that there is an added safeguard in the legislation. There is a new provision that will require a reassessment of the offender's case prior to any renewal of any temporary absence. I hope that is the reassurance the member is seeking. Hopefully we can convince him later on to vote in favour of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my decision on this until I listen to the rest of the debate.

However, again what I heard was that they are out for medical purposes but they are also out for rehabilitative purposes. I reiterate that rehabilitation in the minds of this government may mean something a lot different than rehabilitation in my mind. When a member comes across this room today and tells me that the golf course in a prison is rehabilitative I do not think we are on the same level. Hello, is anyone home over there? There is a problem with that kind of thought.

I will reserve my judgment and critique it more when I hear more.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I was elected, I worked in a prison for five years, and I say this with humour, because it is rather strange. Five years during which we would take an inmate to court every day and hear all the incredible stories about what may have happened: from shoplifting to feed one's family to the foulest crimes, through extortions, drug dealing, major cases where tons of drugs had been shipped to the North Shore. This was no small operation; we do not do things by halves, where I come from. So, I heard these stories for five years.

When I was elected, on October 25, I said to my wife, among other things, that there would be a change, that I would not hear about major murders any more. It could not happen. We were going to the House of Commons; we were not going there to tell stories, but to work, to improve the fate of a society we believe in.

Well, I was wrong again. Every time a Reform member stands up to talk about a criminal case, he always tells a story about some foul crime that happened in his area. I have great respect for the Reform members, but other things happen as well. They always talk about the 10 percent failure rate, but there is a 90 percent success rate in social rehabilitation services. This means that 90 per cent of the people who go through a social rehabilitation process turn out well.

Of course, I sympathize with victims of crime. Everyone sympathizes with them. It would not make sense to do otherwise. But if one believes in a functional system, at one point, one stops talking about a minority of cases and says: "Let us do something to correct that".

From that moment on, one must have a positive attitude, and work at amending bills for the better. One cannot be content with voicing opposition, and make one's point by telling a story that happened in one's riding, by talking about the length of the knife or the pools of blood. Even Alfred Hitchcock did not go that far. We must draw the line somewhere.

I would like to ask the member for Fraser Valley West to tell me, in no more than two or three sentences, what the Reform Party recipe for the ideal system of reintegration is. What is their recipe?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that my hon. colleague had better understand clearly. In my community we have serious concerns about people being out on the street. If he does not like the fact that I come in here and talk about the five murders in my community last week that is just too darn bad because that is what I am going to talk about.

I spent some time explaining about what one would consider today as a relatively minor offence, the sale of drugs. I do not consider it all that minor but I did refer to that. It is just a little careless to stand up in this House and say every time a Reformer gets up he talks about murderers only. But if I do he had better keep in mind that I am damn well going to do it and there is nothing he is going to say about that.

As far as the rehabilitation of individuals, what is required in this country, unlike that of the Liberal system, are prisons for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. There are none. There are none solely dedicated in this country. There are no prisons in this country for sex offenders solely dedicated to analyse and understand the problem. None.

If you want some more time about the rehabilitation of prisoners you had better start looking at better programs because even the auditor general said they are no good.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. This bill sets out the principles of the temporary absence program. It should be noted that these principles are similar to those set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The bill also authorizes the provinces to develop additional types of temporary absences. Bill C-53 sets out the grounds for suspending, cancelling or revoking temporary absence.

Finally, the bill confers the power to apprehend and return those in breach into custody. This sounds like a worthwhile initiative because of what it provides for and of the leeway it affords the provinces.

I must admit however that I am one of those who place more reliance on the social rehabilitation of offenders than on their imprisonment, except in very specific cases, such as for dangerous offenders, spousal abuse and a few other cases.

I am concerned about the current overcrowding in our prisons. The imprisonment rate in Canada is second only to that of the U.S. Need I remind the House that, south of our border, the imprisonment rate is growing without causing a drop in the crime rate.

The Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec is right to be concerned, seeing just how extensive the problem is. Alternatives to imprisonment can be found in our society. It would be to everyone's advantage to stop and think about alternate courses of action in this area.

Nonetheless, I support this bill, which promotes the rehabilitation and social rehabilitation of offenders, while at the same time stating principles aimed at maintaining a fairer, safer and more peaceful society. As other colleagues have pointed out, these two principles are not always easy to administer when one is trying, on the one hand, to protect society and, on the other hand, to promote the rehabilitation of inmates.

I also support Bill C-53 because, while establishing a national regulatory framework for conditional release, it also gives the provinces a degree of flexibility. Indeed, this bill on prisons and reformatories allows the provinces to develop their own policy regarding temporary absence for reasons other than medical or humanitarian reasons, or to facilitate the prisoner's rehabilitation.

I believe that extending the period of temporary absence from 15 to 60 days complies with what the provinces want. This change will, among other things, help alleviate the problem of overcrowded prisons in our country.

From a financial point of view, it will help reduce government expenditures relating to the inmate population. In spite of the reservations expressed by some colleagues this afternoon, I feel that extending the period of temporary absence from 15 to 60 days is a positive change.

However, it is a fact that this change generates some concerns, particularly among prison authorities in Canada. For example, they fear that inmates who take advantage of the temporary absence program might present a danger to society. Therefore, it is important for the committee that will review this bill to hear these people, those who work in close co-operation with them, as well as the victims.

Another issue which deserves particular attention is the place of residence of those who are conditionally released. Obviously, if these people are released for medical reasons, it can be assumed that they will go to a hospital.

But where will the inmate released for compassionate reasons or rehabilitation go? It is important to point out that inmates serving a sentence of more than two years come under the federal system. Under this legislation, the inmates released on parole are housed in reformatories.

It has to be pointed out also that Bill C-53 does not talk much about the principle of protection of society. It should be more explicitly developed.

It would also be interesting to wonder whether it would be appropriate to include in this bill a specific clause about the right of victims. What these people, who often have been through dramatic situations, have to say about changing or cancelling parole should be taken into consideration by the authorities.

I take this opportunity to point out the excellent work the Maisons de transition de Montréal Inc. have been doing for 30 years, and especially their director general, François Bédard. The Saint-Laurent half-way house, located in my riding of Bourassa in Montreal North, is part of this organization. It provides support services, including room and board, for offenders and helps them reintegrate society. It can accommodate some thirty people. I wish it could have more money, more funding to be able to accommodate a larger number, because the results I have seen are very positive.

Under the terms of federal-provincial service agreements, paroled inmates are referred to halfway houses and more particularly to the Maison Saint-Laurent. I have visited this institution and met residents, volunteer workers, and highly qualified professionals. I can attest to the efforts they make to help inmates, and I congratulate them.

Let me remind members that in 1994-95, the federal and provincial governments spent $1.9 billion on prisons, that is $44,000 a year for each inmate in federal institutions and $39,000 for each inmate in provincial prisons. Why does it cost $5,000 more to house and feed an inmate in a federal institution? Could it be that the federal government is not as good a manager of prisons as the provinces?

I do not agree with my colleague that the federal government manages detention centres better. I would also like to take this opportunity to mention the existence of detention centres for immigrants. As you know, I am the critic for citizenship and

immigration. I had the chance to visit detention centres for immigrants in Montreal, Mississauga, and Vancouver.

In some cases, these centres are really prisons, with security guards from private agencies. But there are no clear rules in these centres. Arrests are made without warrant. Nobody knows when an immigrant is eligible for release or temporary leave. In some instances, men, women and children live all together in the same institution.

There is no judicial control over these arrests, usually made by immigration officers, and no control by the IRB, which is also a parajudicial court. Sometimes, the living conditions in these institutions are unacceptable. I was able to witness how awful the conditions are in Montreal, on Saint-Jacques Street, as well as in Mississauga, near the airport, and in Vancouver, also near the airport. Some of the inmates did not know why they had been arrested, how long they would be detained and when they would be entitled to be released or deported.

I even met a young Kurdish woman, in Mississauga, who had been arrested at Toronto airport, because she was believed to be dangerous. When I visited her, she started crying and then she told me: "I do not even know why I am being detained here. I never took part in any subversive activities, even though I am a Kurdish woman from-" -I think she was from Turkey.

I then asked why she was being detained. I was told: "She is here because no one is showing any concern about her", etc. But these are not valid reasons. No one knew when she would appear before an arbitrator who could order her release.

In these detention centres, the human rights enshrined in the Canadian charter and any provincial charter are not respected. Why are minors arrested? They have to live together, men, women and children alike. Unfortunately, we do not read about these people in the papers. I already asked the Minister of Immigration to hold a public inquiry into these detention centres for immigrants. Unfortunately, since the residents of these centres are all foreigners, they are not aware of Canadian laws. Often they do not have access to a lawyer or to an appropriate defence. And we get no complaints from them because they end up leaving the country.

I think we need to shed some light on this particular area. In a democratic society such as ours, we should not see people living in such unacceptable conditions.

Like my colleagues from Manicouagan and Bellechasse, I would like to conclude by telling you that I am in favour of this bill, which will reduce the costs associated with the incarceration of offenders and which will give the provinces more power and more flexibility to implement their own temporary absence programs.

Therefore, I will vote in favour of the principle of this bill at second reading.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather taken aback by the comment of the speaker's colleague to the Reform member who just spoke when he said that every time a Reform member gets up, he or she talks about a murder.

I would like to ask the member from the Bloc Quebecois whether he believes that talking about the ordeal, the concerns and the crimes that have been committed against innocent law-abiding Canadians is something that we ought not to bring into this debate, or whether he feels that it is a legitimate point to consider when we talk about the kinds of programs, early release and liberties allowed to convicted criminals.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite right for the hon. member of the Reform Party to mention murder cases but not quite right for the Reform Party to mention nothing but murder cases.

For example, in the case of immigrants, something I am familiar with, they very often exaggerate things. The immigrant crime rate is lower than the rate for people who were born in this country, but they only speak of these extreme cases.

As the hon. member for Manicouagan pointed out earlier, social rehabilitation has produced good results in most cases. Not all inmates are dangerous criminals or dangerous people. The problem with the members of the Reform Party is that they see only the extremes. That is how those on the right think, not only in Canada but in other countries as well.

They leave no room for rehabilitation. They do not want inmates to have any rights whatsoever. They are citizens and, as such, they are covered by the charter and have rights that must also be defended. Some members only stick to the extremes and do not show any moderation in their remarks.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about an extreme case but about one that was in my local newspaper on Saturday night. I would like to hear the member's comments on it.

An auction mart was broken into and vandalized. A lot of damage was done inside. The RCMP arrived and arrested the individual. The individual was a 20-year old who was just having some fun. The police comments were that he would probably get a suspended sentence because after all it was a pretty minor offence.

The dollar value was not that much. The owner of the auction mart, on the other hand, felt that rather than going through the cost of the court system and potentially putting the individual in jail for

two days or fining him $100 that maybe a much better way to handle this sort of situation would be public service.

The public service he suggested was this. He has a lot of cattle liners coming into his auction mart. A cattle liner after a 1,000-mile trip with 100 cattle inside is not necessarily a pleasant thing to clean out.

His suggestion was that a much better punishment might be three months of helping out at the auction mart cleaning out the cattle liners and that probably he would think twice about vandalizing an auction mart again.

I wonder what the member might think about that sort of fair punishment for the crime, and does he think the individual would learn from that experience?

[Translation]

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are cases that are very serious, and it is not up to us to judge their seriousness. There is a judicial system, there are judges, and it is up to them to impose the appropriate sentence in such cases.

But I feel it is dangerous to generalize about such situations. I believe there are very few extreme cases. I am happy because, according to recent statistics, the crime rate has gone down in Canada during the last few years, fortunately.

I believe that this is very positive and that the people should know about it. I also believe that in such situations, reporters have a big responsibility. When they write about horrible stories, I think they are doing society a disservice. At times, they are not cautious enough, do not show enough moderation.

I would like to point out to my colleagues of the Reform Party some extraordinary cases of rehabilitation that occurred at the Maison de transition de Saint-Laurent in my riding of Bourassa.

I met the offenders. I do not know their criminal record, but they seemed to be willing to change, to rehabilitate themselves, to be full of energy in order to start a new life. That encouraged me to pursue my efforts and to continue to help these people, the prisoners at the Maison de transition Saint-Laurent, in Montréal-Nord.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could advise me how much speaking time I have before Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Given the time on our clocks you would have approximately one minute. Being there is a speaker wanting to continue the debate on this piece legislation, if the House gives its consent I am quite prepared to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act

[Bob Wood, Liberal, Nipissing, ON]

moved that Bill S-7, an act to dissolve the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-7, an act to dissolve the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company, be now called for second reading and that the House do proceed to dispose of the bill at all stages including committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.