Debates of April 29th, 1998

Committees Of The House

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

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That one member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations be authorized to travel to Calgary, Alberta, from May 3 to May 6, 1998, in order to attend a conference on climate change.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent for the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, I think that you will find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion. I move:

That six Members, or Associate Members acting as their designated substitute, of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations be authorized to travel to Prince George, B.C. from May 7 to May 10, 1998 to attend the Forest Expo Conference.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed to?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising this afternoon to speak to the famous Bill C-27 which, I will remind those who have just joined us, is the act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

I must begin by admitting that I am somewhat disappointed to have to speak to this bill today, With all the problems there are with the fisheries, I do not think I would have started with this one, if I were the minister.

I will give one example of what is going on in Newfoundland today. The people of Newfoundland are out in the streets protesting to let the government know they have a problem and need financial support under TAGS. In response, the government pulls Bill C-27 out of a hat, to amend the Fisheries Protection Act. However, does that really solve their problem?

I will try to review the situation in the time I have at my disposal today. I will try to trace the history of this bill. I have said that this bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. However, I should also describe its intent. It is intended to implement the agreement to apply the provisions of the UN convention, which came into effect on December 10, 1982.

The subject chosen for discussion today is the conservation and management of groundfish stocks. So there were provisions in the United Nations fisheries agreement, or UNFA.

This bill started with the December 10, 1982 convention on the law of the sea. Between the two, there was the famous Bill C-29, which we voted on in this House and which was the legislation on the protection of the straddling stocks, in which the Bloc Quebecois participated with pride, because protection of the stocks was important.

We were aware we were writing international law with the former Bill C-29, because the other provisions did not exist. There were no treaties or arrangements between countries. In other words, all the member countries fishing in the Atlantic agreed on the principle, but few of them agreed on how to honour it.

Third, after the famous Bill C-29, there was the UN fisheries agreement, UNFA, which has just arrived and which contains provisions drawn from the convention on the law of the sea.

I would first like to say that no one opposes the principle. In general terms, the Bloc will support Bill C-27. We naturally have some reservations about the bill and we will have the opportunity to speak at report stage in the House and in committee before third reading and passing of the bill.

I would mention two reservations today, and some of my colleagues will have an opportunity to speak. The first reservation concerns measures for monitoring and boarding vessels at sea.

If they say they want the means to ensure respect for these principles, what will those means be? What I want to point out, first of all, is the lack of transparency of these so-called measures.

We had the same problem during debate on Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The government decided to establish these measures by order-in-council. In other words, cabinet decided behind closed doors.

It must not be forgotten that the public in Canada and throughout the world will have to live with these measures. If the government wants its legislation to be complied with by the whole world or by all Canadians, it is only fitting that it be debated by the 301 members of the House.

The second aspect of Bill C-27 about which the Bloc Quebecois has reservations is the UNFA management philosophy that the government is trying to introduce in Bill C-27. I know that this is not easy for those listening at home, so I will try to explain.

Not only does the bill contain measures to board and inspect vessels suspected of contravening our Canadian legislation, or NAFO's legislation, but it contains a management philosophy.

I do not wish to contest the management philosophy set out in general terms in this policy, but I have some questions. What is Canada's management policy? What does it have as a management policy?

I was elected in 1993. We already had moratoriums on fishing back then. In the spring of 1994, Mr. Tobin, then fisheries minister, introduced the program known as TAGS, or the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. A strategy implies having an active tool, but is it the case?

At least, Mr. Tobin had the political courage to give a figure. He expected he would have to reduce by 50% the size of the industry, of the catch. Again, at least he gave a figure and, in doing so, he got the debate going.

What has happened to that debate? What has happened since 1994? The Prime Minister was obsessed with reducing the deficit. Because of a lack of funds, the government opposite was penny wise and pound foolish. Indeed, four years and $1.9 billion later—although that money was needed to provide financial support to fishers and plant workers—the government still has no idea, no vision about the future of fisheries. Worse still, I do not think it has even started working on the issue. This is very serious.

The Bloc Quebecois does make criticism, but it is constructive criticism. I want to talk about the most recent report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My colleague from the Reform Party alluded to it earlier.

The report includes unanimous recommendations. One way to define an approach is to first identify the problem. Then, together we can look at the solutions that each one of us puts forward.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—and I have not yet blamed any party in this House—identified one problem, among others. It blamed the federal government—regardless of the party in office—for the poor management of fisheries in Canada and in Canadian waters.

Many members opposite refuse to believe or to hear this.

Why? We did not blame any one party in particular. But what can we do now to try to correct the situation, again thinking in terms of constructive criticism?

After indicating that the problem was poor management by the federal government, the committee recommended, among other measures, that the department review its management procedures and its ways of setting quotas and determining the total allowable catch.

So far, regardless of which party we represent in the House, this issue does not present any real problem. Why do we not discuss it? It is serious because they are preparing to pass a bill that imply the existence of management measures and approaches, whereas Canada has none.

All representatives of the Canadian fishing industry have said, some more crudely than others, “We do not trust the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans any more.” That is the main point.

In the meantime, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are lobbing the ball back and forth in an effort to come up with a way to provide financial support to workers and fishers. Neither has specified any criteria, set up a committee or consulted the public. There are lots of avenues to explore.

I have a lot to say, but I am afraid of running out of time. Time is rushing past.

What are we going to do to get around this? We explain the basis and they come back with the potential result of the work begun—Bill C-27—which is supposed to contain management measures and approaches.

The other point I would like to raise, still in connection with the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries—

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to call for quorum. There seems to be a lack of respect on the other side of the House for people speaking.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have quorum. Resuming debate.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that Bill C-27 showed a lack of vision and management philosophy. I indicated my sources with respect to the public.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has pointed out that the main problem is that the federal government is to blame for poor management. In its report, the committee also indicated a way of restoring this credibility, which consists in reviewing management methods and ways of establishing total allowable catches.

I would like to cite article 5 of the United Nations Fishing Agreement or UNFA. This document was written in general terms.

I also want to look at the purpose of Bill C-27. What is its real purpose? We do not have to pass a bill to allow a participating country, such as Canada, to ratify the agreement. It is therefore false to say that the bill is being introduced in order to implement the international agreement.

We will look at the specific purpose of the bill. Does it help us provide better protection for our straddling stocks? Bill C-29 already does that. Does it sort out British Columbia's problem, as the Reform member said. No.

The first conclusion I come to today is that Bill C-27 serves primarily to introduce a red herring. All the while the government is urging the House, when there is a quorum, to debate the fishery, it is trying to give the illusion that it is doing something about the fishery problem. The real problem sits across the way and the real impact can be seen in the streets of Newfoundland and it will soon be seen in the streets of New Brunswick and the Gaspé.

There are a number of problems facing the few remaining small fishing operations—it is too bad I did not think to bring the list with me—the plan for managing the crab fishery in zone 12 for example, which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has yet to resolve. This concerns Quebec, particularly the Gaspé Peninsula, and New Brunswick.

Instead of having us believe that Bill C-27 is incredibly important, why does the minister not try to resolve the crab management problem? That is something he could do. It would have a direct, immediate impact. This would put bread and butter on the table for many families.

Life in the regions follows the seasons. When the ice starts to melt, it is time to go fishing. Wait too long and the water gets too warm; there will be strawberries in the fields but crab shells will be soft and their flesh white. So, what is the minister waiting for?

It is fair to say that there is no crab fishery plan. I think there are temporary ones for the shrimp fishery. We are hearing complaints from crab fishers in the Sept-Îles area as well. What is the minister waiting for to look into it? These are issues that need to be resolved and which would have an impact in the short term.

Let us get back to Bill C-27 now that I have let off some steam. As far as I could see in perusing it, Bill C-27 sets out some general management principles. Canada has not yet developed its own policy, as I said earlier.

I would like to quote a section—section 5 and its five paragraphs—stating general principles for managing fisheries.

In article 5(a) one of the wishes contained in the United Nations Fisheries Agreement is to promote optimum utilization. What is the department's or the minister's opinion on this? Most of all, what is the industry's opinion? Nobody has asked, and I believe they are entitled to have the first say.

In article 5(f), still in that international agreement which Canada would like us to sign with Bill C-27, reference is made to fishing gear. I will spare you all the details, but it ends with mention of “environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques”.

What is the meaning of this? Did anyone ask the industry what this represents? What are they thinking about, when we see Canada preparing to commit to such a thing? This can be interesting.

It is true that, if the government wants MPs to pass a bill to help it sign an international agreement, it needs to go first to the grass roots. It could sign it directly, I tell you. If it can, let it not bother us with it.

Still under “general principles”, I have another little question. It will be a good exercise at the same time. We will see whether the Minister of Fisheries himself has read the famous agreement he wants so badly for us to adopt.

Article 5(i) states “take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers”. Here is another good question. Does this mean that Canada is prepared to allow artisanal fishing when the fishery starts up again? So, we no longer have offshore or midshore fishers. What is Canada's position on this issue? What is the industry's attitude? What will fishers think? What will the processors who will receive the resource think? There is an impact, but we do not talk about it.

We are told “Pass this bill and all our problems will be solved. That is how we managed to stop that Spanish boat, the Estai ”. This has already been done with Bill C-29. The minister does not know what he wants.

These questions will have to be answered. And I only read three paragraphs of clause 5. Already, if the minister was willing to have a debate, we could get some idea as to whether Canada hopes to have an industry that will more or less operate in this or that fashion. But we do not know that and the government is introducing legislation to protect our stocks. It is tabling a bill that will confirm a management philosophy, but we still do not know what it thinks. We still do not know what this implies.

The main problem is that we need to answer these questions to deal with the fate of those who are concerned about TAGS.

The Minister of Human Resources Development seems like a nice guy. I am taking this opportunity, since he is sitting across from me. While he may try to show a great deal of compassion in the House when we put questions to him during oral question period, his job as human resources minister is to help people retrain, after they have been declared surplus.

But who will declare them surplus in the fishing industry, if not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? I hope the latter will assume his responsibilities and not leave them to the parliamentary janitor, even though I have a lot of respect for him. Someone must be in charge. Someone must get the debate going on this issue, but it is not being done right now.

I am very concerned by what the government opposite is doing. I do not know who will sit on the committee to be set up by the Minister of Human Resources Development. First, the members of this committee must have some idea of what our industry will look like, before determining what must be declared surplus.

Something else is not included. The government is trying to regulate the fate of the industry and protect our stocks, but under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government is responsible for the catch. Processing, once the fish is landed, is a provincial matter. Everything is related.

The image is distressing: a live fish is federal and a dead fish is provincial. It is not because I come from Quebec that I underscore this point and say there are problems. If I am the first to say so, it does not matter because others will say the same thing.

There is an impact on the provinces. The Minister of Human Resources Development knows full well the number of workers involved on land. He knows a lot of people are involved. In the Gaspé we have always said that one fisher provides work for five people on land. Everything is connected.

I want to say, in relation to article 5, that Canada has not had discussions with the fishing community—those who catch and process—on the general principles of management in the UN fisheries agreement. I wonder what provincial ministers are waiting for before initiating discussions with them?

Before Christmas, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, during an opposition day debate on a Progressive Conservative motion dealing with an eventual fishing policy, recognized that one reason the Atlantic groundfish strategy did not work was that the provinces may not have been sufficiently involved. To my way of thinking, that does not mean they were not involved enough financially, but that they were not involved enough in resolving the problem.

This is the sort of debate we need. There is a little time yet before the House adjourns and before the ministers take their holidays, which are perhaps justified. But I do not want them to leave on holiday without providing some security for the public, which will be faced with the end of the Atlantic groundfish strategy in August 1998. The people of Newfoundland and the Gaspé have got the message and that is why they are in the streets today. It is their only recourse. They say they have no choice.

I see time is passing, please tell me at the end of the day how much time I will have tomorrow morning, because I have a lot more to say.

That is the start and that is what needs to be done. Tomorrow morning I will be back and will carry on. I will suggest other approaches, but the message the public is waiting to hear is that we at least agree on what the problem is and that, once it admits there is a problem, the government agrees on a timetable for trying to do something about it.

The public also expects the government to be transparent in its approach and share its criteria, to be sure that it has not forgotten anything. Nobody will be hurt because there are not yet any names attached, but we can agree on wording and objectives. That will give us enough to go ahead with. Later on, after we have looked at it together, figures can be added and responsibilities assigned, if that is what we are asked to do.

I am all for decentralization to the provinces. I would like those who are not to adopt the approach I have just outlined, which is to define the problem and seek a solution, and not to rule out any solution a priori, but to consider them all.

Bill C-27 does not address the problem, and that is what I would like to continue to do. It is also a way of improving Bill C-27, because management philosophy comes up in this agreement. If the members opposite have not seen it, it is time they went back and read the United Nations Fishing Agreement and did their homework. Then we can talk.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok will have 13 minutes in which to conclude his speech.

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.

Criminal Code

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

moved that Bill C-262, an act to amend the Criminal Code (probation order), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, there are times in this Chamber when one realizes the responsibility that we have as members of parliament, indeed the privilege, of being able to come to this place where laws are made in Canada and have direct input such as I have at this point.

The bill I have brought to the attention of the House has arisen from a situation that is not unique in my constituency but which was drawn to my attention in 1996. It is not unique in my constituency that when we have crimes committed the presiding judge has the opportunity, at the time of sentencing when the sentence is two years less a day, to include in the file, indeed in the sentence, terms of probation. In the case of giving a sentence in excess of two years less a day unfortunately that provision does not exist in criminal law.

From time to time governments come forward with omnibus legislation in particular in the area of justice. Omnibus legislation is simply a gathering together of all the bits and pieces of improvements that can be made to Canada's Criminal Code and moving this forward through the House of Commons to clean up a number of details.

There is no way this bill is inspired by any partisan interest whatsoever. This is a bill that I am sure would receive the support of all members of this Chamber. It is a simple piece of fine tuning on existing legislation that would improve Canada's justice system.

I confess I am not a lawyer. In some circles that would be seen as a bonus. However, we will leave that one where it sits. I am a simple layman who went to a lawyer and said what is the improvement that should be made, and it is from that that this legislation flows.

What was the situation? Unfortunately back in 1996 a 34 year old man was convicted of beating his own 28 day old son, a very despicable crime. The judge at the time of sentencing noted this individual had a prior record of doing this kind of thing. It was the judge's contention that if there had been some sort of provision in the sentencing in either the first or second instance the wife of this man, the woman who bore this child, would have been aware that she would have to be more protective of her own child. There would have been the possibility that such a union would not have taken place in the first place

This is a very difficult case. I am not trying to tack on to this sentencing by this judge. I am not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I am simply saying that the judge was right. This is as good an indicator as any. Judges should have exactly the same opportunity as they have in sentencing two years less a day to affect the outcome and the considerations at the time of probation.

I read from a news report at the time:

At the time of the sentencing the judge criticized the federal laws from preventing him from attaching a probation period to the sentence.

I now hope that [my] proposed legislation will take into account the conditions at the time of sentencing to allow judges to attach probation periods to federal sentences.

It is this kind of fine tuning that allows all hon. members of the House to come to this place and say here is a problem, what can we do to fix it. However, as private members we are thwarted by the system within the House. As I said at the beginning of my address I am very pleased and privileged to have the opportunity to come to the House to make a plea for this change on behalf not only of my own constituents but all Canadians and to improve the justice system. At the same time as a private member I am really constrained as to how far I can take this.

I brought the bill to the House following that instance in 1996. We are already in 1998. This is a two year process. In the intervening period of time there has been an election where the people of Kootenay—Columbia chose me to come back to the House so again I presented the same bill to the House.

The bill then goes into a lottery. I have three bills in this hopper at this time. My name was drawn and I had to choose one of the bills. I considered this bill to be the most important of the three I have presently in the system.

We then go before a committee that makes a judgment as to whether these bills are going to become votable. If it is votable it will be able to move from this Chamber after second reading to committee.

I am fully aware that the justice committee is exceptionally busy at this time. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on the committee. There is no intent with this minuscule change that we are talking about to add to this already onerous workload. It is a simple matter of saying here is an improvement, could we get this small improvement included in a future omnibus bill that will be brought forward containing many other bits and pieces of improvements to the legal system. That is my direction.

I went before the committee and said could we make this votable so that the House could move the proposed bill to the committee. That committee in its wisdom said, for whatever reason, it is not important enough and that it will not permit this to be votable.

Therefore it seems logical that with the committee's having arrived at that decision I should ask for unanimous consent of this House to permit this to become a votable bill. I do not expect a tremendous amount of debate on the bill but at the end of the day that the House allow this to move forward to committee work. I ask for unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is some good reason why the government would not want to see this moved to committee in its present form. I would ask for unanimous consent for the intent of this bill, the wording, to be drawn to the attention of the justice committee to become part of what it is doing in terms of improving Canadian law.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I do not really know how the intent of a bill could be taken to a committee. Perhaps if during the intervening debate the hon. member is able to put the intent into words it could be presented. Perhaps the committee could read the transcript of these proceedings and derive the intent from that.

With respect, I do not believe this is a motion I am able to present to the house.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the perspectives of the government and the other parties. As I make my wrap-up comments I will do that for you.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-262, an act to amend the Criminal Code (probation order), introduced by the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

This bill has only one clause. It is intended to replace paragraph 731(1)( b ) of the Criminal Code with the following: b ) In addition to fining or sentencing the offender to imprisonment, direct that the offender comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order.

The provisions of sections 731 and 731.1 of the Code currently deal with probation orders. They were updated and modernized with the in depth reform of sentencing, which was completed in Bill C-41, a bill the House passed in the first session of the last Parliament. It became chapter 22 of the 1995 Statutes of Canada and currently is included in part XXIII of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 731 enables the sentencing judge to subject a delinquent to a probationary order. Under paragraph 1( a ) the court may defer sentencing and order probation if no minimum sentence is provided for the offence at issue.

It is this last limitation which the hon. member proposes parliament remove from the section. Judges would then be allowed to attach a probation order to any sentence of imprisonment no matter how long.

There are a few other related provisions to which I draw the attention of the House. Section 732.2(1) describes when a probation order comes into force:

A probation order comes into force

a) on the date on which the order is made;

b) where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment under paragraph 731(1)(b) or was previously sentenced to imprisonment for another offence, as soon as the offender is released from prison or, if released from prison on conditional release, at the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment; or

c) where the offender is under a conditional sentence, at the expiration of the conditional sentence.

Section 732.2(2) provides that no probation order shall continue in force for more than three years after the date on which the order came into force. Section 732.1(2) sets out the mandatory conditions which must be contained in a probation order and section 732.1(3) provides a list of optional conditions.

It might be useful for hon. members to be reminded of some of these conditions:

(c) abstain from:

(i) the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, or

(ii) the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription;

(d) abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon;

(e) provide for the support or care of dependants;

(f) perform up to 240 hours of community service over a period not exceeding eighteen months;

(g) if the offender agrees, and subject to the program director's acceptance of the offender, participate actively in a treatment program approved by the province; and

(h) comply with such other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable, subject to any regulations made under subsection 738(2), for protecting society and for facilitating the offender's successful reintegration into the community.

That final reference, the so-called basket clause, underlines the fundamental purpose of probation which is to protect society, but also to facilitate an offender's successful reintegration into society.

That is also the purpose of parole or conditional release. It is parole which provides that reintegration for offenders sentenced to sentences of over two years. I will have more to say about that later.

Let me give two examples of the span of control that probation can provide. It is quite common to see a conditional sentence, for example two years less a day, accompanied by a three year probation order containing similar conditions to those found in the conditional sentence order.

This protects society by providing a five year period of control and supervision over the offender with conditions that can be tailored and indeed changed over time to reflect changing circumstances and needs.

An offender sentenced to, say, 18 months in provincial custody could be under a period of probation supervision for up to three years. This, too, is commonplace and a sensible societal response to crime.

It may be useful to give some historical perspective on the use of probation in Canada. Probation started in this country in 1889 under the authority of an act to permit the conditional release of first offenders in certain cases.

Our first Criminal Code, passed in 1892, provided that first offenders convicted of offences punishable by not more than two years' imprisonment could be released on probation of conduct under a recognizance.

Subsequent 1921 legislation provided for the supervision of probationers in the community and thereafter most provinces enacted legislation creating probation services. There is no federal probation service.

If the hon. member's proposals were carried through, there would be potential for conflict with the role and understanding of parole and other forms of conditional release for federal offenders.

Penitentiary sentences already incorporate an appropriate range of supervised releases which have been carefully put in place for the safe and controlled reintegration of offenders into the community.

As recently as late August the government introduced a new sentencing category to the Criminal Code called long term offender. A court which designates an offender as a long term offender can sentence the offender to a penitentiary sentence followed by a period of long term supervision of up to a maximum of 10 years which begins when the period of incarceration, including parole, expires.

This is only one example of the measures that have been implemented to ensure the protection of society. There are many more. To illustrate, there is work release, escorted and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole, statutory release and long term supervision.

Let me take a moment to describe these supervised releases in more detail so that members of the House can appreciate the comprehensive range of release mechanisms that are in place at the present time for the safe reintegration of federal offenders into society.

First, there is work release which is a release program allowing a penitentiary inmate to work for a specified duration in the community on a paid or voluntary basis while under supervision. Generally, an inmate is eligible for work release when he or she has served one-sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever is greater.

The institutional head has authority to grant a work release of up to a maximum period of 60 days under specified conditions which always include supervision.

Correctional authorities grant work releases to carefully selected inmates who perform work and services of benefit to the community, such as painting, general repairs and maintenance of community centres or homes for the aged. Work release is one of the first steps in the safe, gradual reintegration of offenders into society.

Then there is the escorted temporary absence. This is a short term release to the community under escort. Most inmates are eligible for such an absence at any time during the sentence. The duration of an escorted temporary absence varies from an unlimited period for medical reasons to not more than 15 days for any other specified reason.

The institutional head may authorize an escorted temporary absence. In certain instances involving lifers, National Parole Board approval is required.

For example, escorted temporary absences are granted to allow inmates to obtain treatment that is unavailable in a penitentiary, to attend critically ill family members and to prepare for other types of conditional release.

Then there is parole. This is a form of conditional release which enables some offenders to serve part of their sentence out in the community, provided they comply with certain conditions.

Since most offenders will eventually be released, the best way to protect the public is to help them to reintegrate with society through a gradual and supervised release mechanism.

Parole is a privilege, not a right, and the National Parole Board has the power to grant or deny it. In order to reach that decision, board members carefully examine the information provided by the victims, the courts, the correctional authorities, and the offender. A number of factors are taken into account, but protecting society is foremost.

This is followed by statutory release. Generally speaking, the offender is entitled to be released into the community once he has served two-thirds of his sentence. As is the case for parole, offenders who have been given statutory release serve the final third of their sentence in the community under supervision, provided they comply with certain conditions.

Every long term offender is subject to standard conditions such as keeping the peace. Special conditions can be added to ensure close supervision of the offenders, such as electronic monitoring and monetary participation and counselling. Correctional Service Canada provides the supervision.

In conclusion, the hon. member's proposal would create a potential conflict with the role of parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal offenders.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill. I am encouraged that the hon. member has brought forward this legislation. It is an interesting reflection of what he has experienced in his own constituency. I commend him for that.

I am glad to hear him recognize how busy the justice committee is. In fact, I came here tonight from the justice committee where we have been meeting for most of the day. We had the opportunity to question the commissioner of correctional services, a timely witness given the bill that is currently before the House.

As the government member pointed out, the bill would seek to replace a section of the Criminal Code and provide judges with the power to provide a probationary period for an individual who is convicted and sentenced to more than two years less a day. For those who are not familiar with the reason for that distinction, it should be made clear that offenders who are sentenced to two years less a day serve their time in a provincial correctional facility, while those who are sentenced to two years or more serve their time in a federal penitentiary. There is a difference. There is a distinction.

Having been a legal aid lawyer for some time I am aware of the many different programs available in the different jurisdictions to assist offenders in reintegrating into society. Those are all calculations which any defence counsel will make in discussions with the crown. They are all calculations made in the sentencing process.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talked about the potential conflict between different programs. I appreciate that, yet I fail to see reasons for not supporting this legislation which is a common sense approach.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia said he is not a lawyer. He is, in fact, a lawmaker. I understand how confusing it can sometimes be to read through these sections for those who are not schooled in the law. Those of us who practise law on a regular basis are familiar with them. I will not refer to the Criminal Code too much, but I think there are some provisions worth noting in addition to those noted by the parliamentary secretary.

Part of the reason people argue against this kind of bill is that the court cannot foresee what will happen to an offender in two years. The reason the court has the power to place the probationary conditions referred to on an offender of two years less a day is because the court still maintains some control over that offender. Realistically, if the offender is sentenced to four or five years, the court cannot gauge what kind of progress that individual will make in an effort to rehabilitate himself or herself to re-enter society.

I think that while that is a compelling argument, it is not one that necessarily stands in the way of this proposed change because the code also provides at subsection 732.2(3):

A court that makes a probation order may at any time, on application by the offender, the probation officer or the prosecutor, require the offender to appear before it and, after hearing the offender and one or both of the probation officer and the prosecutor,

(a) make any changes to the optional conditions that in the opinion of the court are rendered desirable by a change in the circumstances since those conditions were prescribed,

(b) relieve the offender, either absolutely or on such terms or for such period as the court deems desirable, of compliance with any optional condition.

I think that is in favour of the legislation proposed.

There are those who would say we do not know where the offender is going to be in three years. If an offender is sentenced to a period of time, accepts the help offered in a facility to rehabilitate himself or herself, they can come back to court and ask that the conditions in the probation order be lifted. If in the opinion of the court they are no longer a threat to the public, the court has the power to lift the order.

I find myself commending this piece of proposed legislation because I think it provides the court more remedies to try to rehabilitate an offender.

I find it heartening that the hon. member sees value in providing offenders with a period of probation. It is heartening to see that the hon. member recognizes that greater options for probation and parole are mechanisms to reintegrate the offender into the community. The system is not simply restricted to sentencing him to time.

This bill will give the judge the option. Instead of having to say that the offence is serious, but there are compelling circumstances for the offender and, therefore, he does not want to sentence him to five years, he can sentence him to three years with a period of probation for two years.

It will allow the judge to have more flexibility in sentencing the offender to less time with a probationary period. I must say that it comes as a surprise to me that this would come forward to allow the court to do that, but I see some merit in it.

There are some problems with it. It is too bad it is not being referred to the justice committee, but our plate is full right now with a number of pieces of legislation that have been referred to us. It is an interesting piece of legislation which would provide the court some flexibility and I thank the member for presenting it to the House.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will indicate at the outset that I am in support of Bill C-262 which was first introduced in October by the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

It is not often that we in this House have an opportunity to debate a piece of legislation that, while brief in detail, could have a very important impact on protecting the public at large.

As mentioned by previous speakers, and in particular my colleague from Nova Scotia, we have an opportunity in the House to impact directly on our criminal justice system. The Minister of Justice has stood in this House many times and in response to questions from the opposition benches has said there are no simple answers. That may be partly true but at times there are simple answers. This bill in its present form is a very straightforward and simple answer to a problem that exists in our Criminal Code.

My colleague from Nova Scotia has already spoken about some of the nuances that exist when it comes to sentencing, the principles of sentencing and the difference between a provincial and federal sentence and the designation of two years plus or minus a day. I will not go into detail on that.

There is an opportunity here to allow judges to have greater discretion in the sentencing process, that is, judges who in the first instance place sentences on offenders and put in place conditions in the instance of a provincial sentence. Judges are in a unique position to assess the circumstances of the offence. They would have the benefit of the input of defence and crown counsel. They would have potentially heard a trial and made rulings of fact. Therefore the judge in the first instance has the unique opportunity to craft a sentence that is best aimed at meeting the principles of sentencing which are reformation and rehabilitation, not to mention the protection of the public and society's denunciation of certain criminal acts.

This bill allows judges to become more involved in the process for sentences that go beyond the two year mark. I would like to commend the hon. member as well. This is a unique and straightforward bill he is bringing before the House.

I want to make a few comments with respect to the Reform Party's position on this. In the past we have heard derogatory remarks in this House from members of the Reform Party about judges generally. I am not going to get into the details of that.

It is important to note that this bill gives judges more discretion. It is very important that we in this place do not stand up and be overly critical of a certain institution, such as judges, and then turn around and want to empower them with greater discretion in what I would interpret as a means to give judges greater respect and control within the justice system.

Bill C-262 clearly gives judges additional power. With that comes additional responsibility. Although judges have been given greater discretion by this legislation, I caution Reform members about some of their comments about judges generally. When members of Canada's Parliament refer to judges in this institution I do caution them.

As referred to earlier, the justice committee has a great deal on its plate. I would like to inform the hon. member that I took the opportunity today, because I knew this piece of legislation was coming forward, to ask the director of Correctional Service Canada what his reaction would be to this initiative. I was interested by his response.

The director felt that it was not necessary. He felt that there were sufficient safeguards in place and that Correctional Service Canada and the parole board had the ability and were in a better position to craft the conditions of release when a prisoner had served his or her time or, as we have come to know it, a portion of his or her time prior to being released. I was somewhat surprised that he responded so quickly with that. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I think this opportunity to have judges craft a sentence in the first instance early in the process might have long term ramifications.

One thought which came to mind while I was listening to some of the remarks of the other speakers would be that the parole board or Correctional Service Canada would have the discretion to add or subtract certain conditions based on the progress of the offender or the rehabilitative steps the offender had made while incarcerated, depending on whether it was a long term or a short term sentence. The parliamentary secretary to the minister has referred to the fact that it is perhaps not necessary because for long term sentences the parole board or Correctional Service Canada are in a better position to assess that progress.

Again I hearken back to my earlier remarks. It is very important in all the steps an offender goes through from apprehension to eventual release into society that all the interested parties should have and through this legislation could have greater input into the process.

I want to refer quickly to a couple of cases. These are factual cases before the committee.

One involves an individual by the name of Raymond Russell who was a convicted killer. On May 29, 1996 he murdered Darlene Turnbull in her Vernon, British Columbia home. At the time Mr. Russell had been released on full parole and was boarding with Ms. Turnbull. Problems came to light as a result of a Corrections Canada inquiry after the fact. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime has done a great deal of research into this case.

The National Parole Board in conjunction with CSC did the report. It focused on the fact that there was a lack of exchange of information. It highlights the fact that apparently in many instances a breakdown in information exchange is occurring in the justice system. It poses very grave consequences for the public at large if all that information is not available.

In the context of this bill, we have an opportunity for judges early on to have input into long term sentences. They would then be subject to those conditions the judges might deem appropriate in the first instance and would be subject to review from the contemplated time of release to see if they were still appropriate. Although the Minister of Justice has said that there are no simple solutions, I would suggest that this is a very simple change that could take place. We should embrace it.

One thing Canadians have hoped for and have come to expect is that we should be looking for solutions that make the law more pliable and more applicable. If that involves updating or changing the law, we should encourage that.

There are times when the law could be made simpler. It could be made more user friendly. It could be more user friendly for police officers who have to be the first line of contact when the law is broken. It could be more user friendly for victims and people who are brought into the system through no will or no want of their own.

Another case involves Michael Hector who was a convicted armed robber and on parole when he was involved in the murder of three innocent people in the Thunder Bay area. He was on parole at the time he committed these heinous crimes. Prior to his release the National Parole Board had granted him day parole. It came to light that factually some of the conditions that had been placed upon him were not being followed.

It highlights again the need for appropriate conditions to be in place. They have been described in some cases as abstention from alcohol, non-association with prior comrades, or staying away from playgrounds in the case of a sexual offender. Those types of conditions could be diagnosed. Perhaps I am using that word inappropriately.

A judge in the first instance could make that determination and put those conditions in place. They could be reviewed prior to the offender's release, whether that is two, four, six or eight years down the road. They could be reviewed by the parole board and deemed to be appropriate or not appropriate. The important thing is the conditions are there and everything humanly possible is done to ensure that the proper conditions are in place.

I support this piece of legislation. I commend the hon. member for bringing this bill to the floor of the House. I am sure the policing community, the victims advocate community and the public at large would see this as a positive change to our Criminal Code. I am encouraged that all members have spoken favourably on it.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also glad to participate in the debate on Bill C-262 presented by the member for Kootenay—Columbia. Criminal justice issues such as this one are of much concern to all Canadians and to myself.

The proposed bill would amend the Criminal Code. More specifically it would amend it such that it would allow a court to direct that a federal offender, that is to say any offender serving two years or more, comply with a probation order. Currently as it stands, the court's authority to impose a probation order is limited to provincial offenders. That is the way it should remain.

If the hon. member's proposal were carried through, there would be potential for conflict with the role and understanding of parole and other forms of conditional release for federal offenders. Frankly what would be the point if it is going to confuse the issues?

Federal sentences already incorporate an appropriate range of supervised releases which have been carefully put in place for the safe and controlled reintegration of offenders into the community.

As recently as last August the government introduced a new sentencing category to the Criminal Code called long term offender. A court which designates an offender as a long term offender will sentence the offender to a penitentiary sentence and a period of long supervision of up to a maximum of 10 years which begins when the period of incarceration, including parole, expires.

This is only one example of the measures that have been implemented to ensure the protection of society. There are many more I could give. To illustrate, there is work release, escorted and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole, statutory release, and long term supervision as I have just mentioned. Let me take a moment to describe these supervised releases in more detail so that members of the House can appreciate the comprehensive range of release mechanisms that are in place for the safe reintegration of federal offenders into society.

First there is work release, which is a release program allowing a penitentiary inmate to work for a specified duration in the community on a paid or voluntary basis while under supervision. Generally an inmate is eligible for work release when he or she has served one-sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever is greater. The institutional head has the authority to grant a work release of up to a maximum period of 60 days under specified conditions which always include supervision.

Correctional authorities grant work release to carefully selected inmates who perform work and services of benefit to the community. Work release is one of the first steps in the safe gradual reintegration of offenders into society.

An escorted temporary absence is short term release to the community under escort. Most inmates are eligible for such an absence at any time during their sentence. The duration of an escorted temporary absence varies from an unlimited period for medical reasons for example to not more than 15 days for any other specified reason. Again the institutional head may authorize escorted temporary absences at his discretion. In certain instances involving lifers, National Parole Board approval is required.

For example, escorted temporary absences are granted to allow inmates to obtain treatment that is unavailable in the penitentiary, to attend critically ill family members and to prepare for other types of conditional release. An inmate may be granted an escorted temporary absence to meet with the staff of a community residential centre where he or she wishes to reside or to confirm employment as part of his or her release plan.

An unescorted temporary absence is another form of short term release but without an escort. Most inmates in the penitentiary system are eligible for unescorted temporary absences at one-sixth of the sentence or six months into the sentence, again whichever is later. Lifers and inmates with indeterminate sentences are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences until three years before their full parole eligibility date. Maximum security inmates are not eligible for this type of release.

An unescorted temporary absence can be for an unlimited period for medical reasons and for a maximum of 60 days for specified personal development programs. Unescorted temporary absences for community service or personal development can be for a maximum of 15 days, up to three times per year for a medium security inmate, or four times per year for a minimum security inmate. The duration of other types of unescorted temporary absences ranges from a maximum of 48 hours per month for a medium security inmate to 72 hours for a minimum security inmate.

Then there is parole. Parole is a form of conditional release which allows some offenders to serve part of their sentence in the community, provided they abide by certain conditions imposed. Because most offenders will ultimately be released into their communities, I believe the best way to protect the public is to help offenders reintegrate into society through a gradual and controlled supervised release.

Parole is a privilege rather than a right and the National Parole Board has discretion whether to grant that parole. In determining whether to grant parole board members carefully review information provided by victims, the courts, correctional authorities and the offender. In arriving at a decision the board considers a number of factors, above all the protection of society.

There are two types of parole, day parole and full parole. Day parole requires the offender to return to the institution or halfway house each evening unless otherwise specified by the National Parole Board. Most federal inmates can apply for a day parole at either six months into their sentence or six months before the full eligibility date, again whichever is later.

Day parole is normally granted up to a maximum of six months. Lifers, those serving for first and second degree murder, and inmates serving indeterminate sentences are eligible three years prior to full parole eligibility date. Day parole therefore provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in community based activities to prepare for full parole or eventual statutory release.

Full parole is a conditional release which allows an offender to serve the remainder of a sentence in the community. It is the culmination of an offender's gradual structured and controlled release program. Under this form of release an offender may live with his or her family and continue to work and contribute to society.

Next there is statutory release. As a general rule an inmate is legally entitled to be released into the community at two-thirds of the sentence. Similar to parole, offenders on statutory release serve the remaining third of their sentence in the community, again under supervision provided they abide by certain conditions. However, not all inmates are entitled to statutory release.

As I mentioned, there is a new sentencing category recently added to the criminal code called long term offender. This procedure is similar to the dangerous offender category process in place and applies to offenders convicted of sexual offences such as sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, exposure, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm. The procedure is also applicable to an offender who committed another offence with a sexual component.

An offender designated as a long term offender at a special sentencing hearing will be sentenced to a penitentiary sentence and a period of long term supervision for up to a maximum of 10 years which starts when the period of incarceration, including any parole, expires. A court can impose long term supervision where in its judgment the risk presented by the offender can be managed in the community through appropriate supervision.

Every long term offender is subject to standard conditions such as keeping the peace. Special conditions can also be added to ensure close supervision of offenders such as electronic monitoring and mandatory participation in counselling. Correctional Service Canada provides the supervision in these cases.

The hon. member's proposal is well intentioned but falls short of the impact intended by the recent changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act added to the Criminal Code brought by the government to enhance the protection of the public. At the risk of repeating myself, federal probation would create a potential conflict with the role of parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal offenders.

Federal sentences already incorporate a comprehensive range of supervised releases for the safe and gradual integration of federal offenders into the community. Probation is a part of a variety of supervised releases which are suitable for provincial offenders and that is where the probation should remain in my opinion.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon and address Bill C-262 put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. I would also like to compliment the member for Sydney—Victoria for showing us the distinction between the sentences of two years less a day and two years and beyond.

I understand the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia has responded to the concerns of a judge in his riding and the need for trial judges to have input on probation orders. I compliment this member of the bench for coming forward with constructive comments.

In many cases it is true that trial judges have a detailed knowledge of a case that may not be accurately reflected at the time of probation. For reasons outlined by the hon. parliamentary secretaries, such traditional discretion concerning parole in all cases may be in conflict with the existing role of parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal offenders.

For reasons discussed by the hon. parliamentary secretaries, the government feels that Bill C-262 may contravene the fundamental purpose of probation which is not only to protect society but to facilitate the offender's successful reintegration into society. While in these cases of sentences over two years judges may not have influence, an important fact to keep in mind is that victims do. A balance has been struck between the rights of the victim and the rehabilitation of the offender by the ongoing involvement of the victims and the victims' families. They are the ones who should also influence probation decisions and conditions.

The conflict of Bill C-262 and the comprehensive range of releases has already been discussed by my colleagues. This discussion on Bill C-262 should be unnecessary in light of the far ranging reforms made to sentencing in Bill C-41 in the first session of the last parliament. Bill C-41 was a response to and a product of over 14 years of effort to achieve comprehensive reform in the sentencing process as part of the criminal justice system in Canada.

The need for reform in the sentencing process has long been recognized by judges, parliamentarians, lawyers and by Canadians themselves. For over a decade there have been calls for such a reform, a royal commission on the subject, the law reform commission, the Canadian Sentencing Commission which reported in 1987, and in 1988 an all-party committee of the House which had a comprehensive set of recommendations with respect to sentencing, conditional releases and corrections.

While many of those recommendations were reflected in the government's sentencing bill, my hon. colleagues opposite chose to reject the entire bill. Here they stand today asking for changes in sentencing that may well have been addressed in 1995. If this judicial problem existed at that time it would have been prudent of the member for Kootenay—Columbia to have meaningfully participated in a debate on the fundamentals of that bill rather than on the semantics.

Under the terms of that bill Canadians now have a say through parliament on the purpose and the principles of criminal sentencing for the first time. Previously, parliament's role in sentencing was limited to setting certain maximum levels of incarceration and rarely minimum levels rather than dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.

Bill C-41 brought together a statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing, the rules governing procedure and the admissibility of evidence in the process, and the various sanctions the courts may impose to punish, to deter, to rehabilitate, all in a form that represented the collective view of parliament. The changes proposed then, unlike the one today, were broadly accepted by criminal justice professionals, the provinces and the territories.

The establishment of a statement of purposes and principles was endorsed by the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the justice committee of this House and the former law reform commission of Canada.

Through Bill C-41 parliament provided the course with clear guidelines. It effectively granted discretion to the judiciary. Parliament stressed the need to punish certain types of behaviour by clearly stating that the purpose of sentencing must be to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter offenders and other persons from committing crimes and to separate offenders from society where necessary. This provided judges from coast to coast to coast with much of the discretion to sentence according to the motivation and severity of the crime rather than being boxed in by the word of the law.

The statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing provided that a sentence must take into consideration the will to protect society, to assist in rehabilitating offenders in promoting their sense of responsibility, and to provide reparations for harm done to victims of the community. A general principle that ran throughout Bill C-41 was that jails should be reserved for those who should be there. Alternatives should be in place for those who commit offences but who do not need or merit incarceration.

What alternatives will be available? For the first time Bill C-41 introduced diversion for adult offenders. At the discretion of the investigating officers and the appropriate authorities, persons charged with minor offences, in particular for the first time, could be sent into a parallel stream away from the courtroom to be counselled or to be helped to overcome whatever problem led to the infraction. This government saw fit that judges have a great deal of discretion in determining whether alternative sentencing was appropriate. To date courts continue to have probation as an appropriate sanction in the cases that require it.

Bill C-41 was only one of the many initiatives in the area of criminal justice this government has implemented in order to provide a balance and a comprehensive approach to the challenge of crime in Canada. We have worked hard and long with the judicial community to form policy that addresses its unique considerations.