Debates of June 14th, 2002

Committees of the House

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The hon. member says I signed it. No, I did not sign it. I was not asked about it.

I would not use a prop, especially this report and the recommendation because it would be a bad prop. However it clearly says other members who participated, which includes me. The day I participated was the day officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were at the committee. I went there to outline my concerns about the way the deputy minister, officials and others were handling the agricultural file. They were not taking seriously enough the low incomes of producers in Canada. I hope that will turn around and there will be a new package to assist farmers. The Prime Minister talked about it extensively last night.

The hon. member tried to refute the Gray study. He should go back a few years and look at the Hartley Furtan study and others done in the 14 year period that ended in 1996 or thereabouts. The Hartley Furtan study and two others concluded that the wheat pool account increased returns to primary producers by $265 million per year versus the open market. These guys are trying to take money out of farmers' pockets and give it to the grain companies. It is hard to believe. The hon. member had better go back and look at the record. He could read some of the debates of the House concerning the Canadian Wheat Board.

I cannot imagine that the hon. members opposite do not believe in democracy. I have concerns about spending in terms of Canadian Wheat Board elections because there are not enough rules. The grain companies buy advertising to get their people elected. It is an electoral process where primary producers are elected to the board. I have always thought that when primary producers are in charge they should be allowed the right to govern their agency and do their marketing. In light of its recommendation, this crew obviously does not think farmers should be in charge of their own destiny through an electoral process. I am surprised.

The hon. members talked about value added. Value added is extremely important. The Canadian Wheat Board recognizes this and is working toward finding ways to improve value added in western Canada. However we do not want the flexibility to be such that we end up with lower prices for primary producers. I am a strong supporter of adding value. However one of the difficulties with the value added situation is that instead of adding value to the raw primary product it lowers the price of the primary product which in turn lowers the return to farmers.

Farmers should be paid their production costs plus a reasonable return on their investment. That is what they need. This would make the economy and the country more healthy. Value could then be added to that. However because of the monopoly power of the retail and wholesale trade and the grain companies they end up backing down the prices to primary producers. That is not the answer. We must find ways of adding value, but in the process we must add income for primary producers. Doing this would result in a better economy and better lives for those in rural Canada.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, members of the Liberal rural caucus told farmers and their constituents they were strongly opposed to Bill C-15B. They promised amendments would be made in the Senate. This week on the Stirling Faux radio show in Saskatchewan Senator Joan Fraser admitted that when she spoke to the minister she learned there had never been any such agreement.

Can the Liberal member opposite explain why he and his party misled constituents and the farmers of Canada into believing that the Liberals were a farmer friendly party, that amendments would be made in the Senate, and that an agreement had been made when in fact--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, we are a farmer friendly party and will be increasingly so. I do not know what Bill C-15B has to do with the report, but the chair of the rural caucus did his best to ensure the bill would be changed. I expect that when the Senate gets around to it Bill C-15B will be changed to ensure current farm practices relative to cruelty to animals--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Palliser.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased if somewhat surprised to be taking part in the debate today. I welcome the opportunity nonetheless.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food I too want to say at the outset that with the exception of recommendation 14 this is a good report. The report was issued after the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had travelled to virtually all the provinces of Canada to hear directly from farmers, consider and weigh their concerns and produce a report. The report became public this past week.

The previous speakers have gone through a lot of the comments. They have pointed out the good things in the report such as its recommendations to enhance crop insurance, improve the net income stabilization account and introduce a trade injury compensation package to offset the negative effects on our primary producers of things like the U.S. farm bill and the common agricultural policy in Europe.

A number of things in the report are worthy of comment. Recommendation 14 has been the focus of debate, as it deserves to be. I will read what it says for the record and then note the objection that has been added at the bottom. It reads:

Whereas additional on-farm activities and local value-added processing are an excellent way to give farmers more influence in pricing, the Committee recommends that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board authorize, on a trial basis, a free market for the sale of wheat and barley, and that it report to this Committee on the subject.

The bracketed comment at the bottom by the critic, myself, says:

I object strongly to any suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board be asked to authorize use of an open market for the sale of wheat and barley, even on a trial basis. This would undermine the Board’s effectiveness as a single desk seller, it would reduce returns to farmers, and eventually it would destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Malpeque. He is extremely knowledgeable. As a former president of the National Farmers Union he has spent years in the trenches, has met with farmers and understands the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing of grain far better than I. He indicated in his remarks that he was disgusted. That was the word he used.

At the same time I think the hon. member would admit, at least privately, that he is a bit embarrassed about what has happened. What has transpired, unfortunately, is that some members of the Liberal government on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food have been snookered by members of the Canadian Alliance into doing this on a trial basis.

I will provide some background. As Canadians know, there are not a lot of Liberal members from western Canada in this parliament. Despite the Liberals' large majority, there is but one Liberal member from western Canada on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I am not native to western Canada. It is not where I grew up. However it is where I have lived for some time and I have come to understand, at least a bit, the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In this instance what transpired is that we had two standing committee treks to western Canada to meet with farmers. We met with them in 1999 and then we went out again in February 2002. There is a crisis on the prairies in agriculture, especially in the grain and oilseeds which is the bulk of what happens in the eastern prairies. Some members of the committee felt that because there was no improvement from 1999 to 2002 it was important to look at doing something different and more radical. When recommendation 14 came along, and before we got to discuss it, some members on the government side were already thinking that the Ontario Wheat Board seemed to be working all right. There was not a lot of criticism.

Yes, we heard criticism of the Canadian Wheat board when we met with farmers. We also heard compliments about the work of the board, the fact that the status quo does not exist with the board and it is prepared to make some changes and to look at changes. Some members on the government side thought it was time to shake the pot and stir things up and do this on a trial basis, as recommendation 14 says, with the assumption that if we did not like what we found out in the trial, we could revert to standard operating procedure.

As the member for Malpeque notes, we cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Once it is out, it is out. As western Canadians know there have been nine attempts by the U.S. government to derail, sidetrack and eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. It has failed on every one of those occasions. With this recommendation that has now been approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, if the wheat board were foolish enough, which it will not be because it has already indicated that this is a non-starter from its perspective, it would never be able to go back to business as usual after any kind of trial period.

The Canadian Alliance members on that committee, and I have respect for them, have duped some members on the government side on this particular issue. There is no question in my mind that the goal of the Canadian Alliance members is to eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what they say. They say they see a role for the Canadian Wheat Board but they also believe in freedom of choice and to do that, they think that there should be dual marketing.

Dual marketing is the thin edge of the wedge because we cannot have orderly marketing with single desk selling at the same time as we have dual marketing. When we open it up on a trial basis it is impossible to reverse the process, particularly when the Americans are as adamant about state trading enterprises such as the Canadian Wheat Board. They would never allow that to happen.

The reality is that on the current composition of the board we do have some regional realities. There are also some tensions within the cabinet itself on this issue. It may be, for example, that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board was perhaps not informed about this recommendation in time to have an influence with the backbenchers who sit on that committee. The minister of agriculture may not be as opposed to this so called trial period. That is telling and unfortunate in this instance.

Again, regional politics creeps into this. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board does hail from one of the great grain growing areas in western Canada. The current minister of agriculture comes from the province of Ontario and he feels that perhaps the Ontario Wheat Board, with the freedom of choice, is more palatable and worthy of a trial basis.

If we check with farmers on the Ontario Wheat Board, and the member for Malpeque was correct, they are not achieving the premium pricing. Yes, they do have flexibility but if we were to check with them, when they are selling on the spot market, they would not be receiving a premium price for the product. The Richard Gray study is accurate on this, $160 million comes in value added to the Canadian Wheat Board and flows through the Canadian Wheat Board to our farmers.

Shortly after I was first elected I had the opportunity to visit Chile. The member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands made reference to it. It was at the time when some of our farmers had been put in jail for violating and crossing the border to sell their product in the United States. I got into a discussion with an adviser to the Chilean minister of agriculture.

We were talking about grain and selling Canadian Wheat Board grain. He made two comments. His first comment was that he did not agree at all that Canadian farmers should be jailed for attempting to cross into the United States to sell their product. He felt that was wrong and I concur with that.

The other thing he said was of great interest. He had gone to various millers in Santiago and asked them why they would pay a premium price to buy wheat for milling purposes from the Canadian Wheat Board when they could buy it cheaper from the Cargills, the ADMs and the Louis Dreyfus companies. The answer he received was because they could sleep better at night as business people.

The millers know exactly what they are getting when they buy through the Canadian Wheat Board. If the wheat board says the product is x % protein, x % gluten and all the other ingredients, that is what it is. Whereas when they buy an American product it is less certain about what it is that they will receive. They are interested in satisfying their consumers on this front. It is important they get the product they want in order to bake goods to the best of their ability. That for me, as someone who does not hail from the prairies originally, was an important piece of news and one that I carry around with me.

The other reason there will be Liberal members who will be unhappy with this recommendation is that it is the opposite of what is in the interim report of the Prime Minister's task force. Recommendation eight in the report favours orderly marketing and single desk selling. Obviously recommendation 14, which calls for a free market on a trial basis on the sale of wheat and barley, is not orderly marketing. Given that the Prime Minister's task force only came out with its report a month ago and there are members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food who are also members of the advisory task force, it is hard to fathom how they managed to be on both sides of this issue in two separate reports.

I feel the cat is among the pigeons as a result of recommendation 14. I mentioned the nine trade disputes that the Americans have launched against state trading enterprises and I have spoken of the $160 million in benefits.

There are a couple of conflicting principles. The member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands who brings a lot of credibility to the standing committee because of his experience as a grain farmer talked about the need for value added. We can all identify and agree with it.

The problem we have when it comes to the board is that the other principle the board has is to maximize the return for farmers. As the member for Malpeque indicated we cannot sell lower to an individual or a group of individuals to make it attractive for value added and at the same time maximize the returns for everyone else. Those two principles are in conflict. We have been aware for several years that prairie pasta plants have been trying to get started in western Canada to ship more product out as value added rather than to ship bulk to Thunder Bay or to Vancouver.

The wheat board is working on that issue. It has not resolved it. It is a work in progress. It would have to be conceded by everyone that there are two conflicting principles and it is tough to square that circle.

The concern is that to some extent we have thrown the baby out with the bath water with this trial period. It will be used against the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no question that the opponents of the wheat board, and there are many, not just the Canadian Alliance but the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and a number of others groups, will use this report. They will waive it around and say that this is the way of the future.

We cannot have an open market on a trial basis. NAFTA chapter 11 is clear. If we turn over wheat and barley marketing, and the profits that go with it, to transnational grain companies we cannot reverse that decision unless we pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to those companies for lost future profits. The open market is not a path that Canadian grain farmers can go down and look around. It is more like a cliff that they can jump off. It will either be the Canadian Wheat Board or it will be Cargill, ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland and there is no going back.

All the evidence we have shows that the wheat board does not decrease prices paid to farmers, it increases prices. The recent benchmark study by the board, the auditor general's report, the Kraft, Furtan and Tyrchniewicz study of a few years ago on wheat marketing, and the more recent grain report on barley marketing, every credible independent study demonstrates that the board increases the incomes of farmers.

Furthermore, the vast majority of farmers consistently vote for a strong, effective wheat board with its single desk selling power. That is an extremely important point.

The board has elections every two years on a regional basis. There will be elections coming up, for example, again this fall. It will be up to the farmers themselves to vote. If they vote for an open market system then that is what Canadian grain farmers will get. So far they have continued to vote by a majority for single desk, orderly marketing. That is the current law. That is where it should be. It should be with the farmers and not with politicians as to what happens in that regard.

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place between the leaders of all the parties in the House and I believe you would find consent to adopt the following resolution. I move:

That, during the summer adjournment in 2002, if the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages has completed a report, it may cause the report to be deposited with the Clerk of the House, whereupon it shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Independent Public Inquiry

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

moved:

That this House appoint a committee to conduct an independent public inquiry into Canada's sentencing, corrections and parole systems for the purpose of identifying measures to provide meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforce public safety, and instill public confidence.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to my motion, Motion No. 387, pushing for much needed justice reform.

This motion is quite broad in scope. It is a call for a reform in the way we handle criminals from the point they enter the corrections system at their sentencing to the time that they leave it through the parole process. Although the process can be broken up into segments, it needs to be dealt with in a unified manner as is evident from the haphazard setup that currently exists.

The motion calls for an independent inquiry. The question of corrections reform seems to have reached a stalemate in this place a long time ago with debate degenerating into partisan wrangling. A process needs to be set up that enables those of us in government to learn from the wisdom of concerned citizens and experts across the country and to do so in a format which ensures that their input will contribute to a process of real reform to the corrections system.

The motion reflects a recommendation made by the Canadian Police Association and also the Ontario Police Association as they push for improvements to Canada's corrections system. Canada's police forces are increasingly frustrated at the present system. They put their lives at risk every day as they go to work, yet the criminals they catch are treated so lightly that it makes some officers wonder why they should risk their lives to pursue them in the first place.

I suspect that most of these fine public servants feel that it would be unprofessional and inappropriate to express such a sentiment too vocally or too publicly. On the other hand, I would contend that it is completely inappropriate to use their professionalism against them by pretending that they should not speak out and by pretending that police morale is not a concern simply because they do not give aggressive voice to it.

Of course, there are tragedies of police officers being killed in the line of duty by dangerous offenders who have been released on some form of parole. If the government sets up some kind of public inquiry, as I suggest here, and does so in a way committed to pushing forward with real reforms, it can be sure of the support from Canada's police officers.

The motion focuses the inquiry on the primary functions of the corrections system or what should be the primary functions of the system, in other words, providing meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforcing public safety and instilling public confidence.

It is really very unfortunate that I have to speak on these issues in this place today. Just a brief scan over Hansard records from the past decade shows how frequently these concerns and these themes have already been raised, yet so little actual movement has taken place to bring about some constructive reforms and to bring those forward.

Members of parliament have repeatedly expressed the need for change, documenting the many failures of the current system. The general public has made its concerns known as well, perhaps most obviously in polling data which has shown an increase in the level of fear that Canadians have regarding violent crime. There has also been widespread criticism over the imbalance that exists between the rights of criminals and the rights of victims. There are also numerous organizations that exist to lobby for reforms. Many of them are victims rights groups.

I have already referred to the Canadian Police Association, yet its concerns, the concerns of victims groups and various lobby groups seems to fall on deaf ears. That is why it is necessary that some type of independent public inquiry be set up, a process that has real teeth, a process that will hear from a wide spectrum of Canadian viewpoints and a process which the government commits to respecting when it comes to amending the current system.

I want to speak briefly about the ongoing petition drive by the Canadian Police Association and the Ontario Police Association which they have called “No More Club Fed” campaign. It is very unfortunate that they feel the need to launch a public campaign like this against current government policy but they raise real concerns that are felt far beyond their own membership. In other words, the purpose of the campaign is to make the government see the need to bring an end to the club fed culture of Correctional Service Canada. They say:

It is time to instill meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforce public safety, and instill public confidence in our criminal justice system

They focus most of their campaign on the problems associated with parole and early release, and not without cause considering the growing list of police officers who have been killed and injured by non-rehabilitated violent offenders who are back in the community.

On March 10, 28 year old OPP Constable Dan Brisson was shot near Cornwall, Ontario. His assailant, Daniel Lamer, was being sought for violating day parole while serving a lengthy prison sentence for trying to kill another police officer back in 1991. Thankfully, Brisson survived the attack.

In February Manitoba officer Mike Templeton was also shot by a parolee. He is also fortunate to have survived.

Prior to that, RCMP Constable Dennis Strongquill was killed in Manitoba. He was shot four days before Christmas last year, leaving behind a wife and five children. The suspects were brothers who were out on parole and were wanted for parole violations. The 21 year old younger suspect had been denied parole three times previously. Prison officials had described him as “unstable, impulsive and violent”, but he was out on parole after serving two-thirds of his sentence.

One of the latest outrages is that of Conrad Brassard who is guilty of multiple counts of murder and attempted murder. The National Parole Board qualified him for release. While out on day parole, one of those incremental release programs that the government says is essential to effective reintegration of convicts into society, he raped and killed again.

The solicitor general has told the House that the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada have promised to conduct a thorough investigation of the parole board's decision. People are being drawn from various places for this very necessary investigation, but it is still under the auspices of the parole board itself.

As the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has pointed out however, it is most unusual to have the offending organization investigate itself. She has pointed out that whenever a police force makes a blunder the investigation is never conducted by that force. In my view this is an appropriate comparison of the growing concerns that Canada's police officers have about their own safety and the priority given to them by the government and its current legislation. These police officers who put their lives on the line in the service of the public are feeling increasingly taken for granted by a government which has other conflicting priorities when setting sentencing, corrections and parole policy.

Has the parole board learned its lesson? That investigation is not yet completed. In fact, it has probably hardly been started. What did the National Parole Board do? On June 10, it granted day parole to yet another convicted murderer by the name of Sonny Head, who was convicted of second degree murder in the death of a woman in 1994. He was part of a group of four youths who broke into the woman's apartment and stabbed her to death when she awoke and discovered them in her home. He was sentenced in adult court to life in prison with a minimum of seven years. What does life with a minimum of seven years mean anyway? It is an absurd concept to begin with. At any rate, he served only eight years of this potential life sentence for murder. He is already out on day parole. The day parole is only supposed to last for six months before he graduates to full parole.

Perhaps Head will be okay. Perhaps he will not be. However the very fact that the parole board has the authority to make such decisions even without the completion of its review of the Brossard decision is outrageous and demonstrates the systemic problems that currently exist in Canada's parole system.

I am confident that an independent public inquiry, as this motion suggests, would shed light on the way Canadians feel about such a situation. It is not something that encourages confidence in the system or in public safety.

Those who support the current system say “Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Gradual release works”, and I do not disagree that we have to try this. However, when one looks at the bald-faced facts of the Brossard case, one has to do some tremendous intellectual contortions to understand what would give the parole board members the idea that this man should have qualified for day parole. The fact that he did shows that there are serious problems with the qualification process and the criteria considered under the present system.

People might insist that these incidents do not happen very often. Those words ring rather hallow because these kinds of incidents are happening with increased frequency today. The victims are not always police officers.

According to National Parole Board, recidivism data of 1,800 full parolees which ended in 2000-01, about 25% were unsuccessful, 9.7% of parolees were convicted of new offences and 16% had their parole revoked for violating their parole conditions. Of 3,500 federal day parolees, 5% committed a new offence and 12% were put back in jail after breaching parole conditions. Of the 4,900 offenders released on statutory release, almost half had problems, almost 50%, 14.4% were convicted of new offences and 26.7% had their releases revoked for failing to abide by the conditions of their release.

The Canadian Police Association is reporting a recidivism rate of up to 40% for offenders released through the accelerated parole process and statutory release.

Some members have observed that Canada's recidivism rate is low compared with other countries. That is pretty small consolation to the victims and family members of victims. There is still plenty of room for improvement under our system. I have always been under the impression that improvements are not made by comparing ourselves with people who are doing worse at any given task or project. We strive for a well-defined and achievable ideal.

I am not sure what the benefit is of making comparisons with other countries that are pretty suspect on a whole range of human rights issues when it comes to corrections reforms. That really attempts to dodge the hard questions.

No doubt many of the reforms that are necessary will cost money, particularly in terms of increasing staff so as to reduce the workload for corrections and parole board employees and to ensure that there are enough corrections workers to monitor the growing number of prisoners being released on parole. This is one area where the government should receive the full support of opposition members, at least among the official opposition, for increased spending.

I know money is available. Just several months ago the government announced its commitment to allocate $500 million in renovations to the condo style luxury accommodations for women in prison. Earlier this week we learned that the government was the beneficiary of a much larger budget surplus than anticipated. Sadly, initial reports of the priorities of the Prime Minister for this money do not include corrections reform.

One area where reforms are needed in the parole system is the accountability structure for releasing convicts into the community. The “No More Club Fed” campaign points out that despite the responsibility of the National Parole Board for examining convicts to determine their eligibility for parole, Correctional Service Canada makes a couple of options available which do an end run under the radar and bypass that system.

It gives out temporary absence passes and there is the work release program. “These forms of release may occur prior to any form parole eligibility and without any review of the offender's suitability by the National Parole Board” says the Canadian Police Association. These kinds of things can be unsupervised absences.

A policy like this demonstrates that there is no inherent connection between offender behaviour and the parole process. There is no inherent obligation on convicts to demonstrate that they have achieved a certain level of rehabilitation before they will be considered eligible for parole. In fact, offenders who are serving their first federal sentence and who have not been convicted of a violent crime or serious drug offence may be released on day parole at one-sixth of their sentence under an accelerated parole review. The onus is on the National Parole Board to demonstrate why an offender should not be released under this program.

There are conflicting statements on the record about whether or not a quota system exists to push convicts back into the community as quickly as possible. Whether or not there is a quota system in name, corrections policy certainly suggests that one exists in principle.

Full parole eligibility is available for most offenders upon serving just one-third of their sentences and almost all offenders, exemptions being those sentenced to life or to indeterminate periods of incarceration, become eligible for automatic statutory release after completing two-thirds of their sentences.

According to a February article in The Report magazine, of about 14,000 inmates in federal prisons yearly, only 200 are deemed so dangerous that they serve their entire sentence.

According to the National Parole Board, about 43% of federal prisoners obtain full parole each year, while 72% are granted day parole.

Rehabilitation does not automatically happen. Therefore it seems absurd to defend Canada's parole system as part of an effective rehabilitation concept, yet that is what some of the government members in the House in particular seem to do.

There has been a lot of criticism. That is why the motion is here today. I would like to ask at this point if I could have unanimous consent, because I think there is great concern exercised on the part of the government as well as a number of the backbenchers, for this motion to be given the status of being votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent to make the motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussion on Motion No. 387 respecting sentencing, corrections and conditional release.

I understand the concerns that motivate the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin to make these proposals. For hon. members opposite, inquiries or system reviews are code words for let us get tougher, lock up more people for longer periods and throw away more of the keys. The government is equally concerned about providing additional safeguards to protect the Canadian public, but we are not ready to change a system that works simply because the official opposition thinks maybe that is where the votes are.

The hon. member wants to appeal to this electorate by making sentences more onerous and by delaying or eliminating conditional release in all its forms for particular categories of offenders that he considers most threatening. He just will not come out and say it.

That being said, even if we take the motion at face value, the proposals contain no ideas. Again and again during the consideration of private members' business and particularly when issues of public safety and criminal justice are involved, I am reminded of the response sometimes heard in question period: the hon. member just cannot take yes for an answer. The parties opposite insist on replaying questions which have been answered, making demands that already have been met, and in some cases bringing up matters that were resolved years ago.

Motion No. 387 proposes an inquiry into the correctional system that was reviewed thoroughly just a short time ago. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made a thorough statutory review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the government responded by accepting almost all of the recommendations less than two years ago. Would the initiative proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin enhance public protection, prevent crime or even save lives?

As far as the area of sentencing is concerned, I simply would state that the idea of examining this is redundant. The Department of Justice is sensitive to emerging needs and continually monitors existing legislation. As far as the get tough ideas, the Alliance would like to see us push forward through another consideration of the justice system.

The Criminal Code of Canada has been toughened repeatedly to respond to demands for more stringent treatment of particular categories of offenders. To touch on a few examples, the code provides for the designation of dangerous offenders who are then subject to mandatory indefinite sentences. Upon conviction of serious harm offences, the courts may specify that the offender must serve one-half rather than one-third of his or her sentence before even being considered for parole.

Further, courts may invoke the long term offender provision created in 1997 that entails up to 10 years of community supervision after the normal sentence has been served. The hon. member from Saskatoon has not made it clear what sentencing measures he might recommend, or for that matter what he considers wrong with those that are in place, or how his proposals would create safeguards beyond those already available.

It is apparent from his comments in this place that his presumption is that the law should be able to prevent every crime. We will continue to proceed in a manner that would lead us in that direction. There always will be crime unfortunately with tragic consequences, but these are the rare exceptions to the overall successes of our criminal justice system.

The police, courts and correctional system deal with social misfits who have demonstrated a disregard for the law. I am sure that common sense would lead to the conclusion that it is quite likely some of them will break the law again no matter what their sentence might turn out to be.

Over the last decade parliament has pursued a series of measures that have increased penalties and restricted releases. On the sentencing end of things it is sufficient to say that there has been considerable movement over recent years toward the punitive end of the scale.

I would now like to look at the correctional implications of these get tough proposals that are disguised by the hon. member as a call for an inquiry.

Would the administration of the sentences be made more efficient? Would there be measurable improvement in the supervision and control of offenders? Would Canadians benefit in any way?

In answer to these questions I would like to devote my allotted time to sharing with the House and with all Canadians some thoughts about public safety, the correctional system and conditional release as it now exists to provide a basis for our consideration of the changes in this area proposed by the motion before us.

It may be helpful for members to know something of the conditional release process and the roles and responsibilities of the correctional agencies of the ministry of the solicitor general, Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

In each of these debates it becomes clear that some hon. members do not hear or do not wish to hear the true state of affairs in this important area. These agencies within the solicitor general's portfolio as part of our criminal justice system deal with two fundamental issues that lie at the very heart of what defines the quality and nature of the culture of the country.

The first of these is public safety, an issue that is of paramount importance. The passage by parliament of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 enshrined in law the principle that the protection of society should be foremost in the minds of those entrusted with the administration of court imposed sentences in the federal correctional system.

The second issue is the importance of human freedom as emphasized in the correctional system by the deprivation of that freedom. This is the most extreme sanction the courts can impose on Canadian citizens. There must be a rationale for applying this penalty that is based not only on denunciation and the desire to punish but also on a fair assessment of the results of incarceration.

The correctional service is responsible for the administration of court imposed sentences of two years or more in ways that contribute to the safety of the public. Its employees, both in federal institutions and the community, deal with more than 20,000 offenders each day of the year and must carry out the responsibility in a society which places an enormous importance on the rights and freedoms of all of its citizens.

How the correctional services and parole board go about their business is a matter of concern not just to a small minority but to all Canadians. Nobody should think that a decision by the National Parole Board to release an offender to the community is made lightly. The decision making process is objective, careful and thorough. It is quite obvious that any release decisions are framed by court imposed sentences.

Correctional staff who make these assessments and recommendations and the parole board members who independently consider release decisions are our neighbours. Their children walk the same streets and attend the same schools as our children do. They are as unlikely as any of us to put an offender's desire to be free ahead of public safety. They apply their training, common sense and grasp of the detailed information before them to each application for conditional release. It is not in their interests to release individuals likely to commit violent offences or those whose victims might be children.

We hear from the party opposite and its supporters in the media that the government favours the rights of offenders over the rights of victims. As I pointed out, this is absurd. The government consists of people trying to do the best job they can. No right thinking human being, politician or not, would take the position of favouring offenders over the protection of their own families.

There is some evidence that what we are doing is right. The rate of violent reoffending by released offenders has dropped a full 45% during the last seven years. This proves that our approach is right, not perfect, but is moving in the right direction.

What I have been saying about offenders applies to most within the correctional system. They come from our own communities and most will return to be our neighbours. It is in our interests to be more thoughtful about how we administer their sentences, not simply to make sure that their sentences are long and miserable.

All of this being said, we will continue to work to improve the criminal justice system but this motion is not necessarily the way to go.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to support this timely motion put forward by my colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin in view of his concern about a problem in Canada. I commend my colleague for bringing it forward. The motion reads:

That this House appoint a committee to conduct an independent public inquiry into Canada's sentencing, corrections and parole systems for the purpose of identifying measures to provide meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforce public safety, and instill public confidence.

That sounds like a worthy goal but the parliamentary secretary completely dismissed the idea of bringing forward an independent inquiry to look at sentencing.

The last time the government attempted to amend the criminal code with regard to sentencing was almost seven years ago. In June 1995 Bill C-41 was rammed through the House of Commons much like Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 were rammed through this spring. The government attempted to pass legislation and then recessed for the summer. That is the way Bill C-41 went through the House.

Before I proceed, for the record I would like to state my opposition to the blatant disregard for democracy that the government has shown. To cut off debate on Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B as mentioned by the member from Yorkton an hour ago was nothing more than a cowardly act clearly demonstrating the government's desperation to have these contentious bills dispensed with given the growing opposition and the swelling dissent from within the Liberal ranks as well as the strong opposition from the Canadian Alliance.

Bill C-41 as stated earlier amended the criminal code providing an express statement regarding the purpose and principles of sentencing. Contained within that legislation were provisions for alternative measures, alternatives to prison for adult offenders. Bill C-41 contained conditional sentences where offenders sentenced to two years less a day could serve their sentences in the community under supervision rather than in prison.

The Canadian Police Association, an authority that even justice ministers often cite as law enforcement experts, commented on Bill C-41 but the commentary was anything but complimentary. In a brief submitted to the standing committee on justice the Canadian Police Association said:

Bill C-41 with few exemptions, is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse in almost all of it, completely unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada.

The police association went on to say:

While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles, eliminating this most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system.The common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial consequences for criminal actions.

Where sentencing reform calls for protection, this bill offers platitudes. Where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand further still.

I could not have summed up what Bill C-41 accomplished better than what the Canadian Police Association did.

The government has a pathetic record when it comes to tightening the screws of justice. Conditional sentences are a prime example.

Since the introduction of Bill C-41 members of our party have requested amendments and subsequently asked that the criminal code be amended to restrict the use of conditional sentences. We have had ample reason to be concerned about the release of violent offenders, including rapists, back into our society and on to our streets. Pretty good reasons would be our daughters, wives and mothers and unfortunately, now we can even say our sons.

Sex offenders have the highest rate of reoffending. They have the highest recidivism rates and pose a serious risk to our safety and to the lives of our families. However, despite our repeated requests, successive justice ministers have refused to limit conditional sentences. As a direct result we see rapists walking free. We have numerous examples to prove this fact.

This afternoon I would like to mention a number of the appalling examples. On January 26, 1998, a Quebec court judge granted 24 year old Patrick Lucien and 23 year old Evans Sannon 18 month conditional sentences for sexual assault. The judge granted these lenient sentences although the crown recommended prison terms of five and four years for their heinous crimes. A community sentence was totally inappropriate and unacceptable for those two individuals who took turns raping an 18 year old victim while the other one held her down.

When questioned in the House about this case, the former justice minister said that she was satisfied to leave it in the courts. She was satisfied to leave that case and similar controversies to the courthouse rather than deal with the law here in the House. She was not prepared to amend the criminal code limiting the use of conditional sentences. We had then and still are requesting that happen.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is planning to review conditional sentences, hopefully to an end of finally making them off limits for violent and repeat offenders, as we have been recommending for seven years.

Two weeks ago Chatham speech pathologist Larry Hyde was convicted of possessing some 5,000 images of child pornography on the hard drive of his computer. In the ruling the presiding judge described the images as very vile and yet Hyde was given an 18 month conditional sentence and ordered not to associate or communicate with anyone under the age of 18 unless he was accompanied by another adult.

Following the Hyde case, one newspaper said that conditional sentences for possessing child pornography seemed to be the norm across Canada. It is normal now. That is what we have come to in the country. It is normal to put these perverts back out on the street as quick as we can.

Last September, Daniel Isaac Sichel of New Brunswick was handed a six month conditional sentence for possession and trading of child pornography on the Internet. In December, Richard Blumhagel was sentenced to a nine month conditional sentence in a Windsor court for distributing videotapes of child pornography.

The only comforting news in the Hyde case is that the Chatham police have placed his photograph on the provincial sex offender registry.

Daily in the House we see members presenting petitions asking the government to make it a criminal offence for the sadomasochism of children and child pornography and yet we watch our courts put them back out on the streets with conditional sentences. It is a shame. Shame on the court and parole systems that allow such individuals to be walking our streets.

Limiting conditional sentences is only one of many changes that must be made to ensure offenders receive meaningful consequences. The other way, and perhaps one of the most important in my mind, is limiting parole and eliminating statutory release. Although the Canadian Police Association does recognize that there is a place for the conditional release of offenders, it believes that parole must be earned and not be an automatic right as is currently the case.

We completely agree with the Canadian Police Association. Criminals must earn their right to parole by the way they conduct themselves in prison and whether or not they better their lives by gaining a skill while in prison. Their right to parole should not be an inherent right.

National Parole Board statistics for 1999-2000 show the number of incidences committed by offenders on conditional release has increased. A corrections performance report states that the number of escapes from minimum security prisons are increasing.

Recent and all too frequent high profile people, such as police officers, as the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin mentioned, have been murdered by those who have been out on parole. Police officers who uphold the law and peace in the country have been shot and killed by individuals who have been out on parole. This is wrong.

We need a government with the will to make changes. The parliamentary secretary talked about reviewing the CCRA. The government accepted 48 of the recommendations two years ago but has failed to implement them.

Studies that are not accepted and nothing is done with them may as well be thrown in the fireplace. They do no good.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not expect to take part in this debate, but I cannot help myself. After being here for eight years, I find it difficult not to get involved, particularly after what I just heard from my Canadian Alliance friends.

In politics, it is easy to engage in some demagoguery and this is not always done in bad faith. These people are not always aware that they sometimes promote outrageous ideas, or that they focus on just one side of the coin. I often say that, regardless of how thin the coin may be, there are always two sides to it.

This is why I am speaking out. I understand and I fully agree with my colleagues. We have examples which show that there are always some who fall through the cracks. These are not necessarily the least important ones, but there are isolated cases. However, the danger is in making generalizations about this kind of situations.

There are also examples in Canada. The number of these examples in on the increase, with the new evidence allowed, such as DNA and so on. We find an increasing number of judicial errors that were made in Canada.

We all remember a young man—who was no longer young when he was released—one David Milgaard, who served 24 years of a prison sentence although he was completely innocent. Even before definitive evidence could be produced that he had had nothing to do with the crime for which he was charged, public opinion, as I recall, wanted to see him handed an even tougher sentence.

I also remember a resident of Mont-Laurier in Quebec who was accused of a crime. He served his sentence in prison, but continued to proclaim his innocence when he got out. For more than 20 years, this man has tried every legal recourse to prove his innocence.

Recently a resident of the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville was charged with rape. The woman retracted her statement; she was no longer sure that it was him; she then changed her mind and said that she had been mistaken and that now she was sure that it was him. The case dragged on and finally, the system ruled that this woman had a few problems, at least in her perception of things. So the man was released. He was an electrician, a family man who led a completely respectable life. But his life was ruined because of all this.

There are more and more cases where teachers are being charged. Recently in Lac-Saint-Jean, a man's life was literally ruined by a young girl who falsely accused him and this was entered in evidence. But it took eight or nine years before definitive proof was established. The judge even sentenced the young girl to 20 years and a few months in prison for giving false evidence and making a false accusation.

The present judicial system is not perfect. It could always be improved, particularly when people are released conditionally and not kept under any supervision. The cell doors are thrown open and they are told “You are free to go now. We are no longer keeping an eye on you. We are no longer watching what you are doing. We are no longer even wondering what you are up to”. This should also be watched.

But to go from there to making generalizations and wanting a prison system so inhumane that the only hope left for the accused or the inmate is suicide or something equally horrible will not be any improvement, whether inside or outside the prisons.

I do not think that the prison system should be a means of vengeance, but a means of protecting society, a means of educating those inmates who want to participate in programs, who are willing to try therapy.

This is, unfortunately, a necessary evil in our society, but must not be based on vengeance alone.

This, unfortunately, is what has always bothered me somewhat about my friends in the Alliance. I remember when we were first here, back in the days of their first leader, Mr. Manning—whom we can now refer to by name—when several representatives of his party, the Reform Party at the time, were given the mandate to go to one of the Asian countries to investigate its use of corporal punishment and to report back on it. I have forgotten which country it was. People will recall this, as it made all the newspapers. It generated plenty of headlines.

These are not necessarily examples to be followed, however. I think that what should be taken as an example is the best of our society, what works best in our society, and we should try to adapt it to suit a variety of situations. Let it be clearly understood, I am not in favour of just any prisoner being let go unconditionally if that person is not likely to fit back into society.

Some people sentenced are not fit to be reintegrated into the community, even at the end of their sentence. When their sentence is over, however, they are released without any follow-up. This is a practice that needs to be prohibited, and we must take steps to improve the situation.

My brother recently became a guard in a provincial detention facility, where the inmates are sentenced to less than two years. There are inmates there who committed absolutely odious crimes, but who were lucky. People who, for whatever circumstances, because of the mood of the judge or deals made between lawyers, ended up getting a prison sentence of less than two years and therefore ended up in a provincial institution. Yet, they fully deserve to be in a maximum security federal institution for a longer period.

There are all kinds of injustices. It is up to parliamentarians, those who are interested in this work, to co-operate, to work together in committee, everyone, government and opposition together, to try to find solutions that will benefit society and reduce the risks.

However, it is not necessarily true that locking tons of people up without any contact with the outside will reduce risks for society. There are risks within prison walls. There are the risks associated with the working conditions and the safety of prison staff. There will be other risks. If these risks are not on the streets, they will end up behind prison walls. These risks can be found just about everywhere.

I do not wish to go on forever on this topic, but I would like to congratulate my colleague, and I want to make sure that he understands me. I have nothing against his motion. I find him to be a sensible and serious man. He has the interests of his fellow citizens at heart, but the means that he is proposing are not necessarily the means that I would advocate.

While I recognize his hard work, perhaps he should raise this issue with one of the committees, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to be debated, to debate the solutions that he is proposing before a broader audience than the House.

When I see members focusing on something absolutely revolting and making a play for our emotions as they have done in the past—I am not referring to the member who put forward this motion—I think that it verges on grandstanding. It is sad, but it does not necessarily shed any light on things or contribute to any useful solutions.

I invite the member to try to put forward his motion in another forum, a parliamentary committee or somewhere else—the choice is his—so that it can be debated and we can try to find solutions which will benefit our society in the short, medium and long term.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Motion No. 387.

The fact is that there is sufficient evidence, some anecdotal, but widespread enough evidence, that there are significant flaws in our criminal justice system, in our penal system and in our parole system such that the Canadian public is quite rightly concerned and fearful of the ramifications of a system that is so important to the protection of individual Canadians in their homes and in their communities. They are legitimately concerned.

A full, independent public inquiry into the parole system and the corrections and sentencing system to provide a more objective and educated perspective and analysis of this very important area is indeed warranted and would provide a lot of answers for Canadians. It may in fact identify not just what is not working in the system but what is working. I would hope that we would take the time to look at best practices models from other countries and find ways to incorporate some of them, so that it would not be simply an inquiry into what is wrong with the Canadian system but would actually take time to work on and identify some of the successes in other countries in this regard in terms of reforming our system. We could look at it from a very positive perspective.

The Liberal government is singularly incapable of that kind of analysis, proactivity and vision. It is a government that is paralyzed by leadership intrigue, which is ironic because we do not see leadership in anything else. The fiscal deficit may be gone but there is a vision deficit on the other side. The government has not been able to tackle any of the major issues facing Canadians, whether they are economic issues, trade issues, agriculture issues or justice issues. In every case this is a government that delays, dilly-dallies and denies that problems even exist.

In fact I wish that the justice committee and the House of Commons could be more fully engaged in studying this issue and that as parliamentarians we could address it. The fact is that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the government have done so much to reduce the roles and authority of committees and individual members of parliament to do so that I think nothing less than a full public inquiry is necessary. I agree with the hon. member on this motion.

We could spend a great deal of time reviewing some of the individual cases and some of the stories of people in Canada whose lives who have been changed irrevocably, people who have lost loved ones or have been brutally attacked and had their lives changed in terrible ways by repeat offenders who ought not to have been freed to relapse into crime.

The fact is that there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that a systemic problem could very much be the case, so our party and I support this private member's motion. Any analysis of or any shining of light onto this issue by an independent inquiry would be very helpful. It would help this place, parliament, to deal with the issue with more information. We cannot simply deal with some of the information; we need all of the information to build good public policy. Good public policy is built around reality, not perceptions. I agree with the hon. member that there are some fundamental flaws in our criminal justice system now, but we need to have the facts before we proceed. The only way to have those facts is through this kind of inquiry.

I commend the hon. member for his motion. As I said, we support it and would hope that the government, instead of in a very pithy and partisan way denying the legitimacy of the motion and claiming that everything in the criminal justice system is working very well, would embrace a solid idea from opposition, as I think it ought to, and demonstrate some level of transparency, openness and commitment to reforming Canada's criminal justice system or at least identifying some of the fundamental flaws. The government itself ought to support the motion instead of denying that any problems that exist.

I would also argue that on numerous issues, whether it is on health care or economic issues, the government has really tried to deny problems and tried to delay implementing solutions, to the extent that it has created irrevocable damage for Canadian competitiveness, quality of life and standard of living. This is in stark contrast to the Mulroney government, which studied and analyzed situations and was not afraid to take bold visionary steps to correct problems and to embrace opportunities.

The best example of that in a completely different area of public policy was what the Mulroney government did with the Macdonald commission report. Donald Macdonald was a Liberal and a former finance minister under the Trudeau government. His commission on North American trade issues recommended that Canada spearhead efforts to enter into a free trade agreement with the U.S. The Mulroney government, in which my leader the right hon. member for Calgary Centre was the foreign minister and played a leadership role in this area, took the advice of that commission. It proceeded with and embraced the advice and the vision of that commission and took huge political risks, but it actually changed the country, changed the continent and improved significantly the standard of living of Canadians.

Donald Macdonald said in a speech I heard about a year and a half ago that he did not believe that the current government, the Liberal government, this cruise control, do nothing, dilly-dallying government, would have done anything with that report. However, this is the kind of vision we need now, whether it is on criminal justice issues or economic issues.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kings--Hants for his comments. It occurs to me that he is the only member in the House who has spoken, other than my colleague from Crowfoot, who actually read and was aware of the content of the motion.

The motion basically asks for a public independent inquiry. I may differ with the Bloc member and with the Liberal member but I will express my point of view, as have many other people. As the Progressive Conservative member just pointed out, there is a lot of anecdotal stuff out there and it is growing. There is some statistical stuff and so on. We get all this information on the table and see where it goes from there.

I want to touch on a couple of other things, particularly with respect to the police association's campaign that is going on now. The whole issue of the treatment of prisoners is also a serious concern and it is where the club fed rhetoric came from. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the luxurious living standards that many prisoners now enjoy. That kind of easy living is now being enjoyed by violent offenders as well as less dangerous criminals.

I want to be clear that I believe convicts are human beings and should be treated as such. Their dignity and capabilities should be nurtured and strengthened even while in prison to increase their chances of successful reintegration into society after being released. That idea should be basic to the correctional system's commitment to public safety.

However, at the same time, and this must be the priority, historically and long held, criminals must also face and feel serious consequences. We can call it punishment if we want, which is all right by me, but they must feel that. Simply putting a prisoner behind bars is not sufficient to get the message across that the person has committed a terrible act that society considers unacceptable. Just being behind bars does not do that.

Other consequences must also exist, including most obviously the deprivation of the pleasures of life. I do not believe Canadians are particularly impressed with giving prisoners, including murderers and rapists, access to golf courses, big screen televisions, fishing and horse stables. I am quite sure that most Canadians would not consider appropriate the availability of pornography, easy access to drugs and the facilitation of sexual liaisons as priorities for prisoners.

Real rehabilitation involves character development and skills training, teaching convicts to accept responsibility for their actions, helping them to develop a mentality that enables them to share the values of the majority of the Canadian citizenry out there as to what is and what is not acceptable behaviour, and of course, very importantly, making them employable.

Instead, the priority of Correctional Service Canada seems to be that of making prisoners feel good, to boost their self-esteem but going about it in a backward way. Prisoners can develop good character and become employable. I have had contact through prison ministries and so on with people like that. I am convinced that self-esteem is a byproduct of those other attributes that are developed and built into an individual. We do not create self-esteem directly. We create it with other kinds of conditions where the byproduct is self-esteem.

If Correctional Service Canada would focus on the important issues and frame its rehabilitation policy accordingly, self-esteem would follow. It is a natural corollary of that, and Correctional Service Canada would have a better track record than it does today.

I should also make mention of the whole issue of sentencing as time moves along. I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-467, that would make amendments in that direction. It would require that any person found guilty of an indictable offence committed while out on conditional release must serve the remainder of the original sentence and at least two-thirds of the new sentence. The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough introduced a similar bill and it has come up from time to time.

The issue of concurrent sentences needs to be examined and looked at seriously. The Canadian Police Association recommends that offenders who commit more than one murder or serious sexual assault should receive consecutive parole ineligibility periods. The faint hope clause needs to be looked at. According to the National Parole Board, 80% of offenders making application under this clause have been successful. Mechanisms like the faint hope clause revictimize the families of slain people and therefore I think are unacceptable in a modern corrections model.

The sentencing system also needs to make real room for the role of the victims and the inclusion of victim impact statements. In some small ways attempts have been made at that, but not in a serious way. That must be done as victims deserve better. They need to be provided with victim impact statements and know that they would be used. Victim impact statements would be on file and may help in the rehabilitation of convicts if they are willing to be a part of that. Victims should be able to receive closure by knowing that the one convicted for causing them harm is being punished effectively.

I and other members of the Canadian Alliance are supportive of restorative justice if it is not premised on a soft on crime philosophy--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)