Debates of May 26th, 1998

Conditional Sentencing

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion M-283 arrives on a day when this subject is being discussed a fair bit, since the Reform Party had tabled a motion addressing conditional sentencing among other things, and therefore the same area of criminal law.

You will understand that I am not going to go back over everything I said this morning on this. This will, however, give me the opportunity to go more specifically into one part of this motion which relates to conditional releases in their entirety.

I can understand the hon. member's questioning this aspect, because there have been media reports in recent days of certain releases which were, all in all, very questionable, and very much so in certain cases.

Overall though, once again, I believe that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party will not be able to agree, because it is not true that the system is rotten and needs to be demolished completely, and the law amended, nor that this act does not reflect reality.

As I said this morning, there is certainly room for improvement. There is always room for new ideas, in order to attain the very precise objective the Bloc Quebecois wants to see, as does the government. Any responsible party shares that point of view, that objective of protecting the public. I think that, if there is one point on which all the members of this House agree, it is the protection of the public.

At the present time, I believe the legislation on parole protects the public. Does it protect enough? Can it be changed? No doubt. Can it be changed to close up the loopholes in the system, and in the act applicable in such cases? Yes, certainly.

This must be looked at as dispassionately as possible, not by dragging out specific cases that make the headlines, dreadful cases that make one nauseated and affect our attitude toward the bill. That is not what is needed. I feel it must be looked at as coolly and objectively as possible, trying to find what we need to make this the best piece of legislation possible.

I would like to devote the rest of my time to parole and to violent crime. There is one incontrovertible fact on the matter of parole. Offenders serving long sentences are more likely to obtain parole than those serving shorter sentences.

At first glance, that may appear horrifying, but I understood looking at the problem more carefully that 65% of judges apparently, after very careful study, take the probability of parole into account in sentencing.

Thus, a judge who knows very well that an offender will be paroled may, in the case of a violent crime, impose a harsher sentence. Judges are therefore influenced by the possibility of parole and release.

This means that a judge about to sentence someone for five, six or ten years will calculate that the individual will be released after serving a third or two thirds of his sentence, whichever case applies. He will lengthen the sentence to ensure that the accused will serve a sentence that is respectable within our system.

It is wrong to say that the longer the time a person serves, the more quickly they are released. The effect of certain amendments was somewhat contrary to the objective set for them, that is, in terms of rehabilitation and return to society.

My proof is the series of amendments made to the law as a result of the passing of Bill C-45, on the famous quick review procedure. I think it was a good example of poor performance or rather the poor application of the intent of the legislator with this review.

We are therefore going to take a closer look at the accelerated review procedure. In a legislative reform in the fall of 1996, the government passed the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Certain amendments were introduced in Bill C-45, particularly with respect to the accelerated review procedure found in section 125 of the act.

After a few months in practice, the new provisions resulted in numerous irregularities, not to say some rather strange sentences. The result of Bill C-45's passage was that major organized crime drug traffickers were released on parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.

As soon as the 36th Parliament opened, the Bloc Quebecois began calling on the government to amend the new accelerated review procedure criteria in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The Bloc Quebecois member for Charlesbourg introduced a bill along these lines to try to plug the loopholes in the act in order to resolve the problem and particularly to improve the public's perception of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, an extremely important piece of legislation.

Section 125 provides that an offender may be released after serving one-sixth of his sentence if there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will not go on to commit a violent offence. There are a series of exceptions in section 125, but one was omitted, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding, because it seems to me that I asked the question in committee. Whatever the case, the exception applying to drug traffickers is still not included.

I think it would be easy to take care of the problem at this level and to improve the public's perception of the judicial system if the act were amended so as not to release someone found guilty of trafficking, money laundering, or importing or exporting drugs, after serving one-sixth of his sentence. But this is a long time in coming. The government does not seem to be in any rush.

However, we have reason to hope that the bill introduced by the member for Charlesbourg, a Bloc member and our party's critic for the solicitor general will progress and that eventually we will manage to convince the government to make the necessary amendments to have the bill implemented and, especially, to improve people's perceptions of parole.

Earlier, I was saying that I put questions to the committee and I thought I understood that money laundering and drug trafficking were excluded. We must certainly not forget that, in the Smith decision by the supreme court, Justice Lamer rendered a very important decision, establishing some link between drug trafficking and money launderers and violent crime, since we know that there is always violence at the end of the line with these activities, because those who want drugs steal, murder or whatever to come up with the money illegally to buy drugs. Yes, in the end these are violent crimes.

However, the national parole board does not make the same interpretation. I invite those who may be listening to reread the Smith decision. It is very interesting and will perhaps influence their decision in the application of section 125 of the law.

That said, members will understand that I do not support the member's motion. There is perhaps room for examination and the need for certain amendments in the law to make it more applicable and surer of meetings its objectives, but, in short, I think we have a good system. There is room for improvement, but we must be reasonable and look very objectively a the problem in trying to find solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive sentencing reform legislation introduced in the first session of the last parliament as Bill C-41 has been in force since September 3, 1996.

While this legislation included many reforms, including the first ever parliamentary statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing, several provisions addressing the needs of victims, the possibility of diversion for adult offenders and the new provisions for fines and fine enforcement, one of the centrepieces of the legislation was the conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The conditional sentence concept was first suggested in a white paper on sentencing in February 1984 by then minister of justice, the late Mark MacGuigan. It is a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years which may be served in the community if the court is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing now set out in the Criminal Code of Canada.

The offender must abide by whatever conditions are ordered by the court. If the offender is found to have breached a condition, the balance of the sentence can be ordered to be served in custody.

When it comes to determining sentencing, there will always be decisions that will generate controversy and will seem questionable at first glance. This is precisely why our appeal courts are so useful. Without in any way minimizing the concerns we all have about certain conditional sentences, I believe that the hon. members must look at things in a balanced way.

More than 18,000 orders for conditional sentencing have been brought down since September 1996, and the great majority of these were the result of well-informed and wise decisions. Certain questionable decisions have been brought to the attention of this House by various members. As usual, the opposition is passing off the exception as the rule.

Consequently, we shall be continuing to work in close collaboration with the provinces, as the minister has already said in this House, in order to monitor the application of the clauses relating to sentencing closely and to assess whether further changes are required.

We are working with the provincial and territorial authorities responsible for prosecutions and correctional services in monitoring the use of conditional sentencing. From September 3, 1996 to December 31, 1997, there were 18,247 conditional sentences in this country, most of these for non-violent offences relating to property, operating a vehicle and the administration of justice.

In Ontario, for example, fraud is the offence which attracts the highest proportion of conditional sentences in terms of all sanctions. We must also bear in mind that prior to the availability of conditional sentences a significant percentage of offences involving violence resulted in probation as the most serious sanction.

I would like to say a word about the case law that is developing. Over 200 conditional sentences have been appealed since September 1996. The courts are now working on an analytical and reasoned approach that could be used by judges in determining when to hand down a conditional sentence.

They could invoke the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in paragraphs 718(1) and 718(2). The specific purposes of sentencing, such as setting an example, deterrence, and rehabilitation, are being analysed and the courts are trying to determine how the sentences handed down can achieve these objectives.

Courts are placing emphasis on denunciations, deterrents and proportionality in sentencing offenders convicted of serious sexual offences. Let me refer with approval to some of the statements which appellate courts have made in the context of considering whether a conditional sentence should be granted for an offender convicted of a sexual offence.

Madam Justice Ryan for the majority of the British Columbia court of appeal in Ursel said “Violent, degrading sexual attacks against women demand denunciation and deterrence. In a case such as this those sentencing objectives could not be adequately addressed through a conditional sentence”.

The Quebec court of appeal in P.C. said “nor would the imposition of a less restrictive sanction” than imprisonment “satisfy the objectives of a general deterrence and denunciation of assaults against children by those who are supposed to be protecting them”.

The Ontario court of appeal in MacNaughton said “In our view it should only be in rare cases that a conditional sentence be imposed in cases of breach of trust involving the sexual touching of children by adults”.

I think that these citations should reassure the House. I subscribe to the thinking that these courts of appeal have adopted in the cases cited and in many others.

In my opinion, the courts have done well to focus on the fact that these offences do not generally lend themselves to conditional sentences, excepting in extenuating circumstances having to do with such things as the advanced age of the offender, and the severity of his mental or physical condition.

I would like to remind hon. opposition members that a conditional sentence is no less a sentence of imprisonment. The court orders the offender to spend a certain period of time in prison. The offender who meets the terms of section 742.1 may, under certain conditions, serve his sentence in the community. He may, however, be sentenced to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison if he violates any one of these conditions.

In closing, may I say that while I understand and share the concern citizens sometimes feel when reading accounts of certain sentencing decisions, and those exaggerated by the opposition members, I think the conditional sentence has added an important sentencing option to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Without complete information about a case, the particulars of a case and all the possible mitigating circumstances and other factors, it is very difficult for us to sit in judgment of the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Trial courts have, for the most part, exercised their discretion with prudence. Appellate courts continue to provide guidance and perspective and no doubt the Supreme Court of Canada will have the opportunity to give its views on conditional sentences at some point in the future.

When the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last month she tabled a letter to the chair suggesting it would be useful for the standing committee to undertake a review of the operation of conditional sentences at some point after the two year anniversary of the proclamation of Bill C-41.

This would be an opportunity for victims, criminal justice professionals, the public and even the opposition, because we do value their opinions when they are valuable, to express their views on the conditional sentencing option.

One issue on which the minister indicated she would particularly appreciate the committee's advice related to whether or not there should be further limits on the availability of conditional sentences than those presently set out in the Criminal Code.

I know the minister looks forward to working with the members of the justice committee, the member for Prince George—Peace River and all members in a shared desire to improve the criminal justice system for all Canadians.

In light of this referral and the minister's desire to benefit from the committee's thinking on this important issue, it would be premature for this House to pre-empt the committee's work by voting in favour of the hon. member's motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to speak to this motion. I believe it is an excellent motion and I commend the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing this matter forward. It is consistent with his party's motion that was debated in the House today.

The motion calls for the House to instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, to prepare and bring for a bill to prevent the use—and I might suggest the word misuse—of conditional sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of a sexual offence, drug trafficking or a violent crime.

Specifically, the use of the words “sexual offence” and “violent crime” I could not agree with more.

As I have said, members of the Conservative Party support the motion. However, I find it somewhat disturbing and almost embarrassing that the government has taken the position that it would be opposed to this.

I know that this particular section of the Criminal Code originated from this government. It is unfortunate that it does not recognize that it has been misused. I do not criticize the intent so much as I do the fact that common sense should have allowed the government to see that it was going to be misused.

The application of conditional sentencing has deeply affected Canadians' confidence in the criminal justice system. It is another instance where, unfortunately, Canadians seem to have their confidence undermined when the government passes legislation that fails to protect them.

The mandatory use of this type of disposition is not something we are dealing with here, but the discretion is there. The discretion exists and, sadly, discretion allows lawyers—and I am a member of that group—to potentially push the limits.

Let us be honest. That is what lawyers do. That is what lawyers are going to do when given the opportunity. They are going to argue their case in front of a judge and try to push the limits as far as they can.

Conditional sentencing was put in the Criminal Code to address in a better way the issue of non-violent offenders. It would help to reduce the number of individuals who, if convicted, would find themselves serving time in a federal or provincial institution.

I do not argue with that philosophy. We certainly want to divert individuals away from incarceration if and when the circumstances allow it. However, the emphasis should be on the denunciation of violence, general and specific deterrents, which is something many cases, including the case of the Queen v Grady, espoused. We want to generally and specifically deter individuals and denunciate violence when a specific criminal act occurs, but it always has to be balanced with the protection of the public, coupled with the reaffirmation and rehabilitation of a person when they run afoul of the law.

Surely violent offences, sexual offences and offences involving children, in particular, were never the intent of conditional sentencing. The hon. member opposite spoke of the fact that probation exists, that probation was an option when it came to sentencing and that this is, in essence, a perpetuation of that.

I think what we want to see and what this bill addresses is truth in sentencing. Let us let the judges make that discretion. This is a halfway measure. That is what it amounts to. We want judges to have discretion, but this is on the horns of a dilemma where the person is basically allowed a second-second chance. We are putting them back on the street and saying “We are going to give you one more shot at it. If you offend again, then you are going to come back and complete the sentence that you would have received had their been truth in sentencing the first time around”.

We are becoming far too tolerant when it comes to offences of violence. The minister herself has said time and time again that this is a priority.

I really fear there is a lot of lip service, a great deal of discussion and a great deal of intent on the part of the government to address these types of offences, when what we need is hard core legislation. We need the government to do what it was elected to do. If it is going to change the law this is the place to do it.

With all due deference and respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not make the law. The Supreme Court of Canada is charged with interpreting the laws that are made in this place. What we have seen in recent years is the Supreme Court of Canada setting the standard or striking down significant pieces of legislation, as it did in the Queen v Feeney, sending them back here and telling us what we are to do. That is not the way our criminal justice system should operate in this country.

Judges are, contrary to the will of parliament, using conditional sentences in cases that involve violence and sexual abuse. That was not the intent. Surely there is not one member on the government side who would stand here and say that was the intent of the legislation. It has to be corrected and it has to be done quickly.

Sadly we have seen a lack of speed and a lack of response time on the part of the government when it comes to dealing with criminal justice issues. Are there any more fundamental issues that need to be dealt with quickly and need to be dealt with in a non-partisan way, I might add?

If this is something that the government is serious about, if it is something that it really intends to do, here is an opportunity. This is a golden opportunity for it to stand and say: “We support this initiative. This is something that Canadians would want”.

That, again I would emphasize, is the litmus test. Does it offend Canadians' sensibilities? Do Canadians look at this piece of legislation, conditional sentencing, and say: “Yes, that is something that we embrace if is to protect our communities, if it is to help people to deal with issues of violence?”

Surely that is not the case. We need only to pick up an editorial article in any newspaper and it will say that Canadians are losing confidence in our justice system day after day. I ask rhetorically if the government is ready to support this member's motion. Is the government ready to act and make a difference by embracing and moving on this motion? Unfortunately I am afraid that will not happen.

No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. I think that goes almost without saying, but precisely that is what can happen when a conditional sentence is applied. As I said earlier, it is a halfway measure. It is almost a way out for some judges in instances where they cannot quite come to grips with a certain set of circumstances, where they want to give the person another chance.

That decision can be made by our correctional services. They are charged with that responsibility now. Let the judges do their job but do not give this halfway measure, this out that judges are permitted to use on conditional sentences when they pertain to violence.

We are not saying to do away with conditional sentences altogether. That is not the intent of the hon. member's motion. It is to specify when it is appropriate to use them. That is the key issue here. It is not that the law itself is entirely bad, but it is the application with which I and other members on the opposition side take issue.

I will not recite horror cases to emphasize the need to bring the legislation about, but we are certainly aware, all too aware, of cases where conditional sentencing has been applied improperly and resulted in individuals not being sentenced properly, further undermining the confidence of the general public and certainly undermining the confidence and perhaps having a more direct and life shattering effect on victims who have been victimized by offenders and then go through the trauma of seeing the individuals who put them in that position walk out the courtroom doors. I have seen it happen myself and it is not a happy day when that occurs. Conditional sentencing is one small but very important example of what is currently wrong with our justice system.

In conclusion, the government has an opportunity. We have heard a lot of talk, a great deal of talk in the Chamber. What we really need and what Canadians want to restore their faith in the justice system is action, legislative action.

The government has failed to act on what it should be doing in condemning this type of use of conditional sentencing. It has talked a great deal about strengthening the Young Offenders Act, cumulative versus consecutive sentencing, the faint hope clause and victims rights.

All these issues have been given a great deal of air time, but we are yet to see the concrete legislation the government could and should be bringing in. That is what we are here to do in the Chamber. We are here to make laws. We are here to make changes when they need to occur. I believe the motion that has been brought forward is a step in the right direction, and that is why we support it.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of speaking to preventing the use of conditional sentencing for violent criminals and drug traffickers earlier today on our supply day motion. My comments in that speech are just as applicable here.

As I stated earlier, the former minister of justice erred when he refused to limit the scope of conditional sentencing. Through Bill C-41 it is available to even violent offenders and drug traffickers. At first the former Minister of Justice said the courts would of course restrict the application to non-violent offenders and they did not. Then he attempted to tinker with the wording through Bill C-17 and that still has not worked. He and the government for political reasons refuse to admit their error and correct it. In the meantime those Canadians affected are holding our justice system in disrepute.

To support these criticisms I will first of all refer to the Alberta Court of Appeal case of Steven James Waldner. Mr. Justice Berger made it very clear that conditional sentencing was open to violent offenders and drug traffickers when he said at page 6 of the decision “Parliament has made the legislative choice to exclude only those offences punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment from the regime of conditional sentencing”. At page 7 he said “Unless parliament has barred what would otherwise be an option, the starting point must be that all options are open”.

I will provide a case of drug trafficking and conditional sentencing. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia decided that Trung Viet Bui's conditional sentence was appropriate. Mr. Bui and his brother-in-law were in the drug trafficking business and undercover agents caught Mr. Bui. He sold approximately $3,000 worth of cocaine in the first transaction and about $35,000 worth of cocaine in a second transaction, not exactly a nickel and dime operation. Obviously these individuals were well connected to be dealing at this level.

We all know of the damage done to our society by the sale of drugs. Younger members of our communities are particularly susceptible to addiction and to criminal actions to support their habits. The court of appeal decided that since Mr. Bui had served a year of his conditional sentence without difficulty, he should continue. Little discussion occurred regarding deterrence of denunciation over high level drug trafficking and what it does to our society.

I will now move on to some sexual assault cases. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia in the Ronald Neil Scott case dealt with the issue of conditional sentencing. Mr. Scott was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching in relation to incidents with his step-granddaughter from when she was five or six years old until she was 10. His actions came to light when the victim told a school friend that Mr. Scott would offer money for touching his privates. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and placed on probation for two years. He was sentenced prior to conditional sentencing coming into effect but his appeal occurred subsequently.

The court decided that conditional sentencing was a lesser punishment available to the accused and he should be considered for its application. It also stated that parliament had formed the intention to provide for and encourage the imposition of conditional sentences and wherever appropriate the courts must carry out that intention. The court decided that the offender was not a danger to the community because he had only done these acts with his step-granddaughter. He obtained conditional sentencing even though it was not available at the time of his offence or at the time of his sentencing.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Regina v M.M. also took advantage of conditional sentencing. The accused was convicted of three counts of gross indecency with the three children of his girlfriend. He commenced his sexual activities with one victim when she was nine years old and with the other when she was 10. He was often left alone to babysit the three girls. The abuse continued over a period of nine years and involved countless acts of gross indecency. Evidence was presented that he often had sex with their mother in front of the three girls.

In deciding whether to accept conditional sentencing as a possibility, the court viewed the purpose of the reform to reduce the number of persons sentenced to prison. The court viewed a conditional sentence as still a jail sentence but one that is served in the community. The court decided that no sentence could right the wrong done to the three girls. The court agreed that sexual assault was a crime of inherent violence but recognized that parliament had decreed a scheme of conditional sentencing. A conditional sentence was applied.

I will now provide another case which goes to show how we permit and maybe even encourage criminals to move up the scale into more serious crime. The Court of Appeal in British Columbia in the case of John Paxton McEwen had to consider conditional sentencing. In 1997 at age 24 he attacked a 78-year old woman who was out walking near her home at 10 o'clock in the morning. When he stole her purse from around her arm she suffered a broken and dislocated arm. Surgery was likely required and she suffered serious psychological injuries. The experience had a very serious effect upon her life.

His previous record indicated that he had had a large number of second opportunities. In 1992 he was convicted of mischief and given a suspended sentence and probation for eight months. Also in 1992 he was convicted of impaired driving and fined. In 1994 he was convicted of driving while disqualified and fined. Also in 1994 he was convicted of assault, sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a year. In 1996 he was convicted of theft and he was fined. He was also convicted at that time of failing to appear and he was fined.

The trial judge gave McEwen a conditional sentence for one year for his attack on this elderly woman. He was also ordered to take drug and alcohol counselling and to stay away from the victim. The court of appeal decided that the trial judge's decision did not go far enough. It ordered the remaining portion of his one year conditional sentence to be served in custody but subject to any parole as if he had been incarcerated for the entire period.

When we look at his continuing record and the growing seriousness of his offences we can see that he is not getting the message. The conditional sentence will certainly do little to convince him of the error of his ways. More individuals will likely be victimized in the future.

I have to question just what messages are being sent to victims in communities by these conditional sentences. These cases show that you can traffic in cocaine at highly profitable levels and if caught, serve your sentence at home. You can sexually assault children in your care and serve a little time at home. You can even attack senior citizens while they walk in the community and be sent home for your efforts, even if you happen to hurt them badly or possess an extensive record.

That is just not good enough. The justice committee must be encouraged to fill the void which the Minister of Justice has refused to address.

Reducing the number of prisoners serving time in our institutions is one thing. Failing to deter or denounce violent crimes is something else entirely. The former justice minister brought in conditional sentencing to reduce the pressures on our institutions. Obviously little thought or consideration was given as to how the best interests of offenders and the corrections system would impact negatively on the interests of victims and society at large.

The concept of conditional sentencing is not at issue here. What is at issue is who should qualify to benefit from it. Violent and multiple repeat offenders as well as major drug traffickers should be excluded. I urge the government to fix this problem immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, with my eye on the clock I thought it would be useful and at least it would make me feel a little better if I spoke to some of the issues raised in this motion today.

The hon. member has properly focused on a relatively new section of the Criminal Code that deals with sentencing, specifically conditional sentencing. This sentencing mechanism was introduced into Canadian law quite recently. I recall being in the House when it was introduced. I recall sitting on the committee when it was reviewed. The member and others who have spoken are quite correct when they suggest that the parameters or restrictions or the guidelines for its use were on the light side as opposed to the complex side.

I recall at the time, and I certainly was not alone as a member of parliament in looking at this, that we found it quite difficult to attempt to draw a line as to when conditional sentencing might be used and when it should not be used. Every time we bundled up and grouped certain types of offences generically there were always one or two situations or scenarios where one might suggest that conditional sentencing would be appropriate. There is always an exception to the rule in other words.

We felt that the judicial community, the judges of this country, would be well up to the task in deciding when to use these rules. It turns out that in 99% of the cases they were. There are certainly cases now where it appears that judges need guidance from the appeal courts. If the appeal courts find that the problem is more widespread, if the judicial community is not able to handle it and draw the line themselves as we had hoped they would, then it is an area for statutory amendment.

The member's motion certainly points down that road and may in fact lead in that direction. I sense the possibility for change. I commend the member for his motion. I look forward to seeing what the House will do in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I must say it is a sad day in this House of Commons that this government has shown itself to be completely unresponsive to the general public about this issue, unresponsive to the victims of crime and unresponsive to the cries of those victims for real justice.

I see the parliamentary secretary sitting across the way shaking her head. I heard her say in response to some of the examples my hon. colleague from Surrey North cited that it is fearmongering.

[An hon. member]

It is.

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

She says it is.

I would like her to come to my riding and other ridings in the country and say to the victims that it is fearmongering when criminals who have brutally raped them walk out of court and do not face any time in jail.

[An hon. member]

How many?

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

How many? Why did she not tell us how many? She commented during her remarks that there have been more than 18,000 times since September 3, 1996 that conditional sentencing has been used by our courts. But she did not say how many times it was used in cases of rape, how many times in cases of drug trafficking. How many times? How many of the 18,000 were for rape? How many were for violent offences? How many were for drug trafficking? Because if it is one, then it is one damn well too many.

For this government to say it will leave it up to the courts, leave it to the judges to decide or it will appeal, there can be no doubt that the Liberal Party of Canada and the government is made up mostly of lawyers. They want to perpetuate this type of nonsense. They want to keep the courts busy. They just want to keep appealing it instead of correcting the problem. Even if there is one person who does not serve time in jail, and I am not talking about four star hotels where they can flex their muscles and exercise, I am talking about putting them to work, I am talking about real justice and punishment that will deter these people from doing it again.

The parliamentary secretary in her comments said, and I wrote this down maybe not word for word but something close, that the government is willing to work with the provinces to monitor and see whether further changes are needed. To monitor. That is about all bloody well good this government is for, to monitor. It certainly is not intent on making any meaningful justice changes, any meaningful justice reform.

I see I am about out of time. That is unfortunate. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River says that they wanted to rely on the judges when they passed Bill C-41 to draw the line because there is always an exception to the rule. That is what he said. Yes there are always exceptions to the rule. I can say that less than two months after these conditional sentencing provisions came into effect in September 1996 I raised the issue of how it was being inappropriately used in cases of rape.

There was a young mother whose ex common law spouse broke into her home and raped her on the kitchen floor. He was found guilty and convicted but the judge did not give him any time in jail. One of the conditions he imposed upon this criminal was that he felt it would be better for the mother and the children if this individual continued to pay his child support. That was one of the conditions. That is what conditional sentencing does. It imposes these harsh conditions on rapists.

I want to thank the hon. House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and my hon. colleague from Surrey North for their participation in the debate. I want to say to everyone watching this debate at home tonight that I and the victims of these crimes are absolutely appalled at the parliamentary secretary's callous disregard for meaningful justice reform.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was no callous disregard for the House or for the member's debate. I would like that withdrawn.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is very clearly a point of debate, not a point of order.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak on the hepatitis C compensation package.

The position the government has taken on this package to compensate hepatitis C victims is untenable. It is untenable simply because it leaves too many innocent victims out.

The compensation package as supported by Ottawa, by the federal government, compensates only those victims between 1986 and 1990. That is wrong. I am glad and I am sure all members of the House are to see that these victims are being compensated. The tragedy in that package is that the victims prior to 1986 are not being compensated, nor are the innocent victims after 1990. What I am telling the House is that position is untenable and the Canadian people are making that known from coast to coast.

Canada is a pretty generous country. We are ranked number one in the world by the United Nations. There is no way the Canadian people are going to allow a package that screens out, that discriminates between innocent victims. They want all victims compensated.

The Prime Minister presented a new twist to the compensation package the other day. I am reading directly from the Ottawa Citizen , today's edition, the Prime Minister talking about the compensation package. He is linking drug abusers and AIDS victims into the package. The Prime Minister stated:

What about those who have used needles, who are those who have a problem with...transmitted by sex, and after that, the others?

The Prime Minister does not get the message. We are talking about innocent victims who received tainted blood through our health system. There is something wrong when that happens. I think all of us agree on that. When the Prime Minister clouds the issue there is something wrong with his thinking. What we are talking about is compensation for innocent victims.

We need some movement on this file by the health minister. I have been asking him since the Krever report was released back in November 1997 to act unilaterally, to act alone, as a federal government should, on this issue. At the end of the day we have only one federal health minister and he and no one else is responsible. He is solely responsible for the safety of Canada's blood supply system. It is as simple as that.

We are asking for compensation for all the victims of hepatitis C outside that package already announced. We want the victims prior to 1986 covered and we want all victims after 1990 covered.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health enjoys the full support and confidence of the government. His unwavering commitment and hard work to obtain financial assistance for victims of hepatitis C as a result of blood therapy is known to all and bore fruit when provincial and territorial governments collectively announced with the federal government the financial assistance package for those victims during the period from 1986 to 1990, a period clearly identified by Mr. Justice Krever as a time when those responsible for Canada's blood system could have and should have acted to prevent this type of infection but did not.

Achieving a consensus is never easy in a federal system but it is essential in sustaining the strength of the Canadian federation. It is therefore a tribute to the health minister that he was able to weave that consensus premised on the principle of governmental responsibility. We all know the events of the past couple of weeks necessitated revisiting this initial consensus but that does not detract from its desirability.

Following that meeting a working group of officials was created to review a number of possible options to address remaining questions on the issue. That they have agreed to this process indicates that all parties understand the importance of finding a pan-Canadian response. Members of this House have a duty to facilitate directly and indirectly the attainment of that pan-Canadian consensus. It serves the interests of all when we achieve it. It serves the interests of none if we fail.

Leadership is best tested during difficult times. I assure the House that at all times during this difficult process the federal Minister of Health has always enjoyed the full support and confidence of the Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and fellow government caucus members.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has created uncertainty, confusion and unnecessary anxiety for Canadians about their retirement security. It announced changes to seniors programs that would be costly and disruptive for millions of citizens and then neglected to bring in legislation which left Canadians twisting in the wind when trying to figure out how to sensibly plan their retirement.

Financial experts are uncertain as to what to advise their clients. Middle income Canadians fear that the clawbacks and the taxes on their retirement savings will be so high that they will penalize their thrift. Lower income Canadians do the numbers and have no doubt that RRSPs will merely be offset by a lower government pension.

In the budget of 1996, over two years ago, this government announced proposed changes to old age security, the guaranteed income supplement as well as the elimination of the retirement income tax credit and the seniors tax credit based on age. These proposed changes were called the seniors benefit. Some benefit. Those planning for their sunset years quickly saw this proposal as ad hoc, flawed and illogical.

Financial advisers and citizens have been seeking certainty so they can figure out how best to maximize their retirement dollars. The official opposition and other parties have asked many questions in this House. They have been urging the Liberal government to end the suspense, decide on a policy and let us all know where we stand as Canadians. Still from this government there are only trial balloons, empty rhetoric and more foot dragging.

Perhaps the government should say we screwed up, we are going to withdraw our proposal and come back later when we get our act together. At least it could assure Canadians that their hard work and sacrifice to save for their own retirements will not simply be eaten up by another Liberal tax grab.

Will the minister tell Canadians when the government will introduce legislation to let people know where they stand with respect to seniors programs, and what it intends to do to ensure fairness to Canadians who have scrimped and saved for years for their retirement and who now fear their thrift will be penalized by cuts to benefits promised to them by their government? I look forward to the answer.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to taking the time to fully examine what is best for the public pension system and the retirement income system as a whole. That is why we held meetings across the country last fall with seniors groups, social groups and pension industry experts on the proposed seniors benefit.

From Halifax to Vancouver we listened carefully to the concerns and views that Canadians expressed on this very important matter. We have taken the time to consult with seniors and other interested parties on the 1996 proposal.

We believe the government has a responsibility to ensure that it is fully aware of Canadian concerns and views about the public pension system and the retirement income system. That is what we have done. Now we are reviewing the proposal based on what we have heard. That is why an announcement has been delayed. We are making every effort to ensure that the concerns of Canadians are reflected in our proposed policy on the public pension system.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on March 20 the story broke in the Calgary Herald about the government's responsibility for radiation death and sickness in the Dene community of Deline. Sixty-eight days later and the community still waits for written confirmation of a meeting with this government.

On March 30, I called on the ministers of health, Indian affairs and natural resources to meet with the community to immediately address this crisis. Fifty-six days later continuing silence. Speaking with the community representatives, as of noon today this meeting had not been arranged.

A gentleman diagnosed with bone and lung cancer last week has just died. The community has already laid out its plan. This government should immediately respond with actions, not words, to the plan for essential response and necessary redress outlined by Chief Raymond Tutcho of the Dene First Nation. This plan calls for immediate crisis assistance, comprehensive environment and social assistance, full public disclosure, clean-up and monitoring, acknowledgement of government responsibility, community healing and cultural regeneration. Immediate crisis assistance, yet 68 days of government silence on this request.

Since 1939 what has this community received from the government? Nothing. Yet a federal crown company profited from this obscenity while it served to fuel the atomic arms race.

The Dene had a community meeting arranged on this issue for tomorrow and Thursday. That meeting was cancelled and replaced by a funeral for the community member who died of bone and lung cancer. The minister knows bone cancer is linked to exposure to radioactive dust and particles. What is even more sickening is the government has known about this since the early 1930s, over 65 years.

The Sahtugot'ine, the Bear Lake people, made this clear in a statement showing a government official in 1932 claimed: “The ingestion of radioactive dust will cause a build-up of radioactive material in the body. Lung cancer, bone necrosis, and rapid anaemia are possible”.

While the community buries its dead the government tries to bury the tragedy. How can this government state it must examine more history? Why are the ministers of health, Indian affairs and natural resources not there right now dealing with this catastrophe? There are literally millions of tonnes of this poison buried in the region. It is in the water and the food chain. Is this government through its inaction willing to consciously condemn yet another generation of children, women and men to radiation death? While whites were told to shower, the Dene children played with radioactive dust. This community is now losing its elders to this tragedy.

The minister stated in her interview with CBC on May 17 that she is under the impression that the clean-up at Sawmill Bay employed current radiation standards and implementation measures. This suggests the minister is disregarding out of hand the testimony of the Dene record and the oral history of the clean-up crew.

Does the minister consider the provision of federal dollars for radioactive clean-ups, where even dust masks are not provided, as meeting radiation standards? The minister responded to my questions with comments like “it behooves us to understand the circumstances and we will act to include the Dene people in our review”.

While the government may be content looking at the history, the death and illness toll from this obscenity continues to mount. Where is the Minister of Health while people are dying? Immediate crisis assistance? Will this government commit right now that all three ministers will meet this community and lay out an action plan before this House recesses for the summer, yes or no?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West regarding the Deline community concerns about past mining activities involving the Port Radium uranium mine.

The government is taking this matter extremely seriously and is seeking to gain a better understanding of the activities associated with the mining and the transport of the uranium ore.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been assigned the lead role in co-ordinating federal government activities. Key to these activities will be the active participation of Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada. A collaborative approach with the Government of the Northwest Territories health and social services department has been established.

The federal ministers are committed to meeting with the Deline community members in the near future to determine an appropriate course of action.

Over the past year the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been working in collaboration with the community to address a number of environmental issues of interest to them. Drawing upon this existing good working relationship, a strategy for meeting the information, research and communication needs related to the radiation concerns in the community is being developed with the Deline uranium committee.

In fact we are already working with the Deline uranium committee to answer questions about present day levels of radiation. Current conditions will be assessed through a research proposal developed earlier this year by the committee.

We hope to build on this spirit of co-operation as we work to address concerns about the historic operation of the Port Radium mine and the transportation of ore from the mine. The next steps will be determined as our collaborative work with the community progresses.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are asking why the Liberal government will not agree to all party meetings on the proposed bank mergers.

On May 7 I pointed to recent U.S. evidence on the behaviour of big American banks toward small business, evidence that was being presented to a bipartisan congressional committee in the U.S. House of Representatives studying their proposed bank mergers.

The evidence showed in the U.S. four things: big banks make fewer loans to small business, big banks lend more money to bigger business, the bigger the bank the smaller their small business loan portfolio, and big bank service charges are at least 15% higher.

Moreover a Wall Street Journal analysis found that small business lending declined in the U.S. banks which merged but went up in their non-merged competitors over the same period.

Canadians want to know why American legislators can study proposed bank mergers in their country while the Liberals reject all party hearings on the proposed bank mergers in Canada. Why can the U.S., the birthplace of modern capitalism, strike an all party inquiry into bank mergers and their impact on Americans but the Liberal government turns a blind eye? Is it because the Liberals are protecting their friends, or is it because they support the mergers?

Recently I proposed that the industry committee hold hearings on the impact of the bank mergers on small business, consumers and rural Canada. The Liberal majority on that committee voted it down.

Here is what the Liberals want to do instead. They have appointed a Liberal dominated task force, the so-called MacKay task force, but this task force is not mandated to look into bank merger proposals or lost jobs or service charges for consumers, business and farmers. Three of its members have already had to resign because of a conflict of interest. They were employees of the banks that want to merge.

The government has set up a committee of Liberal backbenchers to study the bank mergers as well. They get to stand up and say they care while they play both sides against the middle. There is only one problem. The hepatitis C vote showed us all how much Liberal backbenchers and their points of view count for in the government.

At the end of the day they can produce their report but it will not matter a bit to the Prime Minister or the finance minister because they will make whatever decision they will make regardless of what the Liberal backbenchers recommend. The backbenchers will be told to fall into line and history shows they will to the last MP.

Why does the government not want all party hearings now? Would not the recommendations of an all party committee have much more credibility than what we would get from Liberals alone? Are the Liberals buying time for the bankers association's million dollar PR campaign to soften people up and allow the banks to persuade Canadians that bank mergers are inevitable anyway? The CBA is spending millions of dollars on TV ads and the individual banks are spending millions on lobbyists.

No, the Liberals want to wait until the fall, wait until they get their marching orders from the blue ribbon panel, throw a bone or two to their backbenchers, and only then will they allow the finance committee of the House of Commons to conduct a study which will be the equivalent of closing the barn door after the horses have left.

Who will benefit from the bank mergers and who will suffer? Bank CEO's stock options whose value goes up every time the market goes up on the excitement of all this merger mania will benefit to the tune of millions of dollars. The figure I would like to see is the comparison between the total increased value of these stock options and the payroll savings the banks will be making after they downsize their merged workforce.

How many jobs will be lost and where will these jobs be lost? Small business is very worried about the future of banking sector. Small business representatives have a lot of questions about the mergers themselves as do farmers and other consumers in other parts of Canada including rural Canada.

These are the kinds of questions we believe an all party committee could effectively study now. That is why we are calling upon the Liberal government to strike an all party committee to review the bank mergers immediately.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric from the NDP the government remains concerned about the growth and support of small businesses in Canada.

Small businesses are the backbone of economic growth and job creation. That is why the government has worked hard over the past few years to improve the environment for small businesses, including the issue of access to credit.

We have worked with the banks to improve the reporting of small business lending activity. As a result statistics are now available publicly on bank lending to small and medium size enterprises.

Concerns have been expressed that the proposed mergers in the banking sector may result in reduced access by small businesses to bank credit. The government is indeed concerned about the potential effects on the Canadian consumer including small businesses of allowing bank mergers. The proposed mergers have the potential to fundamentally change our domestic banking sector.

The work of the task force and the future of the Canadian financial services sector will be valuable in the government's deliberations of the merger issue and I look forward to its report in September.

The government will not allow any merger in the banking sector to proceed without understanding its impact on the small business community in Canada and without the input of Canadians during the consultation process.

I invite the hon. member to join the Standing Committee on Finance when we hear from Canadians on this issue as we go across Canada. The last time I checked the Standing Committee on Finance was an all party committee. I believe a member of the NDP sits on that committee. I invite the hon. member to participate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)