Art Hanger

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

The parliamentary secretary asked me if I want to give them experience in this kind of operation. That is all well and good. I say yes, but let us look at the other side of the issue. Does it take 80 people to feed 350 cows? What are the other 75 people doing in the meantime?

I would have to say that if they are trying to teach somebody the value of getting up at six o'clock in the morning and putting in a full day's work then I think they have failed. Five of them might get up but the other seventy-five might or might not get up because they do not have to go to work. That is the attitude in the prison system. If they do not want to go to work, they do not have to. There might be some adjustment in their pay. They may get paid $1 or $2 less per day but that is about it. There is no obligation on the part of the inmates in our prisons today to go to work.

Most of the inmates are undisciplined anyway which is why they are in jail. They have had their hand against authority right from the beginning and are not going to learn any discipline tactics there. They are not going to learn what it means to get up and take a lunch box to work. They are not going to know what it means to earn a decent day's pay. They want it for nothing and if they cannot get it for nothing then they will take it. Unfortunately, that is often their attitude and is supported by the Liberal government on that side of the House. I do not think that is a healthy attitude to develop in anyone.

The former parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general agrees with all of that. He also feels this is all acceptable and rehabilitative, but that is where the breakdown in the programs

comes. It is not acceptable. It is a failure. Unfortunately the Liberal government on that side of the House cannot recognize that at all.

Let us look at another reality of the bill in reference to deterrence. To extend temporary absence programs would actually have the opposite impact on incarceration in the area of deterrence. In other words, how is it going to deter anyone? We are talking about this so-called rehabilitative viewpoint. How is this going to deter anyone from committing a crime and being incarcerated and not wanting to go back? Deterrence is not there to make it clear to the inmate or the potential criminal.

I have dealt with enough criminals in my lifetime and put enough individuals in jail to know what their mentality is like. For the most part they get together and discuss a lot of things when it comes to crime. They discuss a matter before they even do it, especially if they are operating in conjunction with one another. They will look at it and since they are already bent, for the most part, to break the law and defy authority, they will look at the system and ask "what is going to stop me, what are the costs of my going out and committing this act?"

If they say a person is going to be sentenced to two years less a day but they will make sure the person gets out quicker now than before, which is what this bill is actually stating, then by the time it filters down into the communities they will be out quicker than before.

The deterrent aspect of the bill diminishes the present law, the present form of incarceration and the demands placed on provincial governments to keep offenders in and cut down on the cost of crime. That again is something this government will not address.

As I pointed out before, Bill C-53 places prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration as equal to the consideration of the protection of society. The bill says that rehabilitation and reintegration are equal to the protection of society. The truth of the matter is that if the bill says this, then the opposite is true. It is not going to do that because under the present rehabilitation, parole and temporary absences program, the cost of crime continues to soar in our communities.

One study states that the cost of crime is in the billions of dollars. Before getting into the cost of crime as outlined by the Fraser Institute, I am going to criticize the government and the justice department substantially because they have never conducted any studies on the real cost of crime. I pointed that out briefly before. They have never availed themselves of the existing stats or sought input from victims of crime or communities as to the impact of crime on people. They have not done studies to determine what the hospitalization costs are for victims who have been assaulted or raped. The impact of criminal behaviour on our society has not been examined with regard to hospitalization costs.

Let us look at what the report says. I am reading from page 24 on hospitalization costs: "There are hospitalization costs associated with violent crimes which should also be included as part of the direct costs of violent crime. The average number of days of hospitalization, not including simple outpatient treatment, amount to roughly one-quarter of the total number of violent incidents. That is, for the 270,000 assaults known to police in 1993, about 68,000 hospital days costing about $68 million were required to repair the physical harm done to the victims". That is just a portion of it.

The legislation coming from that side of the House does not deal with the true costs, even if we just look at the simple category-and I hate to categorize it as a category-of assault. There were 68,000 hospital days costing the taxpayer or government at one level or another money to repair those victims.

The report says that since data on the number of hospital days required to treat the victims of assault are from victim survey data, using crime incidence counts derived from victimization surveys instead of incidents reported to the police might prove to be more appropriate.

What is being said is that a victimization survey was done to prepare the report. The victimization survey quickly noted that the incidents reported to police and the actual figures of people being victimized are two different numbers. In other words the victimization rate is a lot higher than what is reported to the police. As a result the hospitalization costs skyrocketed to $550 million just to deal with assaults in this country. That is outrageous. Why would any government want to pass legislation that would further harm the people of the country? It defies logic. There has to be some explanation, but the explanation I am hearing from the government side is not logical.

I was on the CBC a short time ago and I tried to reason through some of the legislation that had been passed in reference to the criminal justice system. The victim is almost considered to be the accused. I have to say that the government sides more with the protection of the criminal than it does with the victim. It rushes in there and supports the criminal. It supports the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victim.

The facts are sitting there for all to see. They only have to take the shades off their eyes and look.

There was another study done by Brandon Welsh and Irvin Waller: "Crime and Its Prevention: Costs and Benefits". This study was done by these gentlemen at the Department of Criminology of the University of Ottawa. The study talked about shattered lives. What is it costing in shattered lives?

This bill would put the criminal back onto the street earlier so that he can victimize more people. It would allow the provinces to do the same thing. The attitude is to open the doors. The motto of the government is: open the doors so they can all get back out and do more damage. That is what is happening. That is the attitude of the government. It is unfortunate and it has a significant impact on our communities.

Welsh and Waller estimate the cost of shattered lives to be $12.1 billion each year. The study covered the period from 1991 to 1993. The cost is outrageous.

What is a shattered life? It is a murder. How do the people in the family feel? It could be a rape or an assault. It could be the cost of social services. For the most part the victims pay for their own care but those who commit the crime are supported by the state. The state rushes in to help them at every turn. It is totally unacceptable, but it is the Liberal philosophy of the day. The cost of shattered lives is significant.

The government has never measured the lost productivity of a person who has been assaulted. It has never measured whether that person is as productive as they were before. It has never measured the outrage, the fear associated with property crime or violent attacks. People have to change their lives but the government refuses to address the matter.

The bill should address the concerns of the community to its fullest and not just the bottom line of what might be in the correctional system both provincially and federally. I would support the bill, but Reform will not support this bill in this context.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

I am talking about self-rehabilitation. The parliamentary secretary to the justice minister cannot tell the difference. That is the problem.

This government does not know the difference between rehabilitation programs that are sponsored by the state and the self-rehabilitative desire on the part of the individual to correct his behaviour.

The individual who has a desire to correct his own behaviour is not supported by the system in any way, shape or form. In fact, he is probably hindered.

I have received numerous calls from inmates who have former prisoners who have been in that category. The minute they were arrested, they went through the process, stepped inside the prison at that point in their life and said "no more".

The system does not deal with those who have set their hand against authority as a matter of course. It does not deal with those people. In fact, it manipulates them and allows them to be manipulated by others within the system. That is what is happening in our prisons. No one can tell me that is a positive aspect of corrections Canada. It is not.

In effect, with all the money that is being spent on rehabilitative programs all we are really doing and all the taxpayer is really doing is warehousing. There is nothing substantive. There is no skills training any more, or very little.

They are shutting down a lot of the shops within the prisons which used to teach some skills that would give them a slight advantage, if you will, by stepping out and doing something constructive on the other side. It gives them something to work for and desire. Not any more. Look at the shops being closed.

There is an organization called CORCAN. Mr. Speaker would understand that organization since he has half a dozen prisons in his riding. There are a number of votes there that might mean a lot to you, I do not know.

Here is an organization within called CORCAN. CORCAN loses money every year. Why does it lose money? It is supposed to help the prisoners with their programs. It is supposed to teach them. It is supposed to employ within. Why does it lose money? Have members ever asked themselves that?

I speak directly in a way through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. Why does CORCAN, the agency that is supposed to employ people within the prison system, lose money? Why, with its existence as long as it has been there, does it only employ a fraction of the inmates in each institution?

I was at one institution in Alberta. Since Calgary is my home town, I have had a chance to visit those prisons more than many others.

CORCAN has a farm on the property owned by corrections Canada, 350 cow-calf operations. Some urban people might not know what that really signifies, but it is 350 cows. They give calves every year, they feed these animals and ship off the beef.

The beef goes all over the place. It goes to other prisons and elsewhere. I have not been able to track down where. How many people would that kind of operation employ? I know farmers and ranchers who own and have operations of that size. They are family run operations. In the setting at Bowden penitentiary, there are 80 prisoners looking after what many could operate as a family operation in this country. Tell me where the justification is to that?

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

The American crime rate has also dropped. It has dipped a little. The parliamentary secretary said our crime rate is going down. I say big deal. Property crime rates between 1962 and now have increased by 500 per cent. He ignores that statistic which speaks very clearly for itself.

Violent crime to this day, 1997, has increased by 400 per cent. The parliamentary secretary and the justice minister like to tell people to feel safe because the crime rate is dropping. They say they are doing a good job. The truth is it is a temporary blip. The crime rate makes these little adjustments from time to time but overall it has increased over the years.

The youth violent crime rate is rising which should be a concern for everyone in the House. But the Liberals have made it a partisan issue. They look at rehabilitation as the answer to all the crime problems. There is no talk about punishment, no talk about keeping people safe. Although the Liberals like to reiterate those words often, in effect that is not really what is happening.

That is the early release portion which the government is telling people it is going to grant to the provinces to make them feel safer.

The government also argues that the program for extended temporary absence for certain inmates will actually save money by lowering the prison population. That is the crux of the matter. That

is what this bill is all about. It is not about keeping people safe. It is not about dealing with the crime problem and repeat offenders. It is not about cutting down on the actual cost of crime which is what impacts on each person who may suffer from a break-in or an assault.

The crux of this bill is to empty the prisons. Get them out earlier. Bounce them out so government members will look good. They can tell the taxpayers they are doing something. They are addressing not only the problem of crime but they are cutting down on spending. Wow. That is the problem here. The government is cutting down on the cost of corrections and imposing it on the provinces at the cost of the safety of the taxpayers and the victims. That is what is happening. The government will never admit to that. But I believe if we go through the streets and the rural areas of this country, we will get a clear picture.

The parliamentary secretary likes to support all government legislation. I do not think there is really any debate behind closed doors on that side of the House. It is all an attitude of "let's just follow along here with those at the top. They say this is the best way to go". The best way to go is to develop all this legislation, kick it down into the caucus and tell the caucus what will happen. Then it goes off to committee. Again, this is a top down process. There is no debate in the committee about these bills. It is a joke.

A whole flock of witnesses come forward, some of them with their own agenda, others with a concern about what may be happening in their communities. Nobody listens because the decision has already been made. The decision has already been made on Bills C-53, C-68 and C-55, the so-called high risk offender legislation which is coming up for a vote too.

The decisions have been made, the bills have been formulated, drafted and are going to be discussed in committee. Where are they going to go? They are going to the floor of the House and they are going to be passed because of the greater numbers on the government side of the House.

Here is another example with respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General who is looking after corrections and our prisons. This is the message being delivered, and again the same kind of an attitude: "I know best. I know better than the people in this country. I can make you feel safe even though you are not".

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General is chiding me because I took a recent trip to Bowden. I stepped inside that prison to see what was going on and it is interesting. I encourage every member of this House to go inside and really have a close look at what is happening in our prisons. It is a joke.

Most of the prisoners have an attitude and it has been drawn, drafted and supported by this government and one or two previous governments that they can challenge authority at every turn. That is the attitude of the prisoners, that they can challenge authority at every turn. If there is some disciplinary action to be taken on the inside and the prisoner does not like it, what do they do? They appeal to the warden, the commissioner or the deputy commissioner and it goes up the ladder as if it were some sort of a union. They can say "I do not like you doing that to the authority of this country". That is what is happening in our prisons.

When that attitude prevails and is supported by the Liberals and those before them under Conservatives we have a problem on our hands. The prisoner, the violator of the law, does not know his place in society. He does not understand what is wrong. It is not called corrections, it is called support services for those who break the law. That is what we have in this nation. Now they are trying to impose the same type of thing on the provinces by bringing in Bill C-53 which allows them to kick offenders back out on to the street early.

In reality this is just another bill in a long line of bills brought before the committee. Everybody has debated them. I can think back to some earlier bills, although I was not privy to the debate on some of those, but it would not have made much difference because they are already decided beforehand; a long list of bills that weaken further this system that we call the justice system. Unfortunately there is less and less justice in the system.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General says he has been in the prisons before. He must condone everything that goes on in those prisons. I do not know. It is strange that he would want to support such a system and he will fight tooth and nail to maintain such a system. Even the prisoners complain substantially about it.

I can remember one prison I walked into. There was a fellow by the name of Austin. He was a very vicious murderer. He was a weightlifter, he used steroids, he was a real tough individual to deal with. He murdered one or two people in southern Alberta. This inmate controlled the prison.

Corrections Canada, with the support of the solicitor general and the government members, agree with that. They say let this man exist. They do not come out and say that to the public but by their inaction to do something about the interior problems within these institutions they condone it. If you do not do something to stop it then you condone it. That is the bottom line.

What benefit would a situation like that developing in our prisons be to other offenders?

There may be some who might not agree with the process within, who have a desire to be self-rehabilitated. I have talked to many. I have talked to some who have gone into prison who had no desire

ever to go back again, who are extremely critical of the system inside because it does not deal with self-rehabilitation at all.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate what I consider to be a significant bill. It is a matter which should be debated. However, I believe there is a lot missing in the intent of the bill that should be addressed.

This country has a rising cost of crime that the victims as well as others have to share. They have to share in the cost of the release of prisoners, the lack of rehabilitation and the repeat nature of criminals. Most criminals repeat their crimes. That drives up the costs of crime in society. It is now at the point where it is no longer acceptable. Most people do not realize how much or what they are paying for.

The government states that the bill would authorize the provinces to create additional types of temporary absence programs. In other words, offenders at the provincial level will be put out on the street at a much higher rate than they are right now. The rate is already high. The government says it is a cost effective measure to cut down the costs of incarceration and so-called rehabilitation.

The Reform Party does not support this bill. It falls far short of what it should address. It is tinkering with the justice system. It is downloading some of those costs not so much on the provinces, but on the communities where the offenders are going to be dumped. I say "dumped" because there is no indication that there will be solid programs put in place to pick up the influx of offenders who will be returned to the community.

The bill also deals with the extension of temporary absences granted to inmates, up to a maximum period of 60 days.

The government argues that the bill is minor in scope, that it is merely a reflection of what the provinces have requested of the federal government. My question to the federal government is this. Who in the Department of Justice has analysed the true cost of crime in the country? What studies justify the action taken by the provisions in this bill? What studies on repeat offenders have been put forward so opposition members can evaluate them?

Seventy per cent of inmates in institutions have been previously incarcerated. What studies show how these costs are going to be reduced when we consider the impact on communities? The police will have to shore up their already very meagre resources to detect and arrest repeat offenders. The courts will have to hear and re-hear the same offenders coming before them. The victims of property crime will have to pay the deductible on their insurance policies, while their insurance rates will continue to rise. People will have to be hospitalized after being assaulted by repeat offenders.

I have seen nothing from the government or the justice department which addresses those issues. However, studies have been attempted by other institutions in the country. I will name one and reflect on it from time to time as I speak this morning. The Fraser Institute sought information from the government. It was looking for studies that the government could put forward to justify its legislation. Nothing has come out of the justice department.

In fact, it has been always the opposite. The government looks at the bottom line, what it is costing a particular department and it says, that is our cost. We are reducing them. That is the message the government is attempting to sell to the electorate but it is not telling the truth.

The truth of the matter is that as more offenders are released the cost to the community is increasing, because of shattered lives, because of the pain and anguish from an assault, a sexual assault or a robbery. Shattered lives are never factored into anything that the government does when it comes to criminal justice legislation. The government ignores it. It does not want to know about it. It wants them to go away. It does not want to listen to the victims and the taxpayers when they cry out for protection or a change in legislation. The government just does not want to deal with that matter.

The government also argues that the proposed legislation is part of an overall program to make our streets safer by gradually reintegrating offenders back into the community. How many more times can we address this whole issue of parole and temporary absences given the fact that most people desire the opposite?

The studies and information that the Reform Party has received reflect the opposite. People want to see the offenders locked away. They want to see them punished to some degree. Yet the government does not want to address any of that. It knows better and it says so. It tells the electorate: "You elected us because we know better than you on how to handle this whole affair".

The government talks about reintegrating offenders back into the community. If 70 per cent, give or take 5 or 10 per cent of the prison population, have been imprisoned before, what does that tell us about the so-called rehabilitation programming structure that the federal or provincial government has established? Some of it has been imposed on the provincial governments through legislation.

If this is not working, why are we passing more legislation to deal with the same program and the same failed rate that already exists? Why are we compounding the problem? That is what is proposed in Bill C-53. When the Liberal government puts to people, the electorate and the taxpayer, that it is trying to make our streets safer, that is false information. It will be doing the opposite. Already the temporary absence program and parole have been a dismal failure.

Let us talk about the parole board for a moment. It deals almost with the same form of release. I am speaking about the violent offender more than any others when I talk about the parole board. The violent offender still plays a significant role if the attitudes of people are looked at when discussing criminal justice matters and certainly release matters.

Let us face it. The parole board's decisions really are not all that beneficial to the safety of the community. If those offenders have to serve their full time we would not need a parole board at quite a substantial cost to taxpayers. The matter could easily be handled by those within the correctional system.

The probationary aspect or early release, I do not care if it is provincial or federal, reflects the same thing. I see the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister shaking his head. Imagine, the most recent study to come forward with regard to crime statistics shows that the Canadian rates for property crimes are equal to or higher in some areas than those rates across the border. These property crimes include motor vehicle thefts, break and enters and vandalism.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, February 3rd, 1997]

What are friends for, one of my colleagues across the way asks. I guess that is the attitude over there. It shows itself to be that, given the fact that they are all Liberals. Most of them do not really seem to have any other qualifications.

Eighteen hundred appointments have been made into these quasi-judicial bodies by the present government. That is out of 2,225. The bill states that 271 jobs will be eliminated. Wow. Out of 2,225 appointments 271 jobs will be eliminated.

Let us look at the facts. Those 271 jobs were not there anyway. They were vacant positions for the most part. In some cases some of these boards will no longer exist. The fact still remains that too many of these appointments take away accountability from the minister.

Let us get back to the former minister of immigration. The new minister does not say anything really different. I have heard that minister say very similar things when asked about a decision the board has made. "It is out of my hands" the minister will say. Whose hands is it in? Is some non-elected entity making decisions that impact on the taxpayers and in some cases their safety, if we want to reflect to the National Parole Board? That is happening.

Decisions are being made by quasi-judicial bodies because ministers no longer are accountable for those decisions, they say. Let us look behind the scenes now of both the Immigration and Refugee Board and the parole board.

A whole industry feeds off these two boards. The parole board costs $25,163,000 to run. That is just the surface cost. The National Parole Board is not quite as expensive but certainly comes close. It is in the neighbourhood of $70 to $80 million to run each year.

There is the decision process that is impacting on people. Look at the uproar. When Reform first came into the House in 1994 we attacked the parole board because of the decisions that were being made. People were dying as a result of that quasi-judicial body, an unelected group of people who had no concern really for what was happening in the community.

It is only due to the pressure of the Reform Party that anything was changed. Even then the changes were superficial. The Immigration and Refugee Board has been ripped right out of the hands of the public. They have no say on how decisions are being made and no one to really go to and say to the minister: "You made a bad decision there". He says he is not accountable any more.

As a result, there is a great rage that sort of turns around and around in the public's mind about both the parole board and the refugee board operate. They are not doing their job. The refugee board is taking good positions away from individuals who would rather immigrate here and try to go through the process in a legal way as opposed to ones that the refugee board allows. For the most

part, those positions are being filled in an illegal way: people coming here and claiming status knowing full well that they are not legitimate claimants.

In conclusion, if we are to gain any respect or consideration back in Parliament regarding both the parole board and the Immigration and Refugee Board, we could well look at scrapping both of those boards. Their duties should be put closer to the people, the immigration department for the Immigration and Refugee Board and in merit release committees that will deal with parole issues because they would be a lot closer to the community.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this whole aspect of tribunals, administrative tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies, has been the subject of much debate in this House. If one looks to the very near past, one such debate centred around the Immigration and Refugee Board.

A fundamental question has to be asked about the existence of these boards. What they really seem to do is take accountability away from the minister and the department that have these particular types of board.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you were sitting on the other side of the House here and often this debate would rage around the Immigration and Refugee Board and the abuses that took place. Many of the people who were appointed were, to put it mildly, Liberal supporters of the party. They were dumped in there because somebody owed them a favour. That was and still is, I might point out, the whole essence of the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is an entity that should not even exist as far as I am concerned.

However, a fundamental question must be asked regarding the establishment of these administrative tribunals. What is the real purpose of each board and why does it exist?

I have spoken often in the House and asked several questions of ministers. In particular I will reflect on the former immigration minister since I was a critic at that time, and put questions on accountability to him. What would his reply be? His reply was consistently the same. "I am sorry but that quasi-judicial body out there was put into place for a good reason," he said. That good reason, according to the minister, was that he did not have to make the decisions any more. It was just an entity in which he had no say or could make no statement on how an outcome or decision was to be made.

We have seen the decisions that the board has made. Who are the board members? For the most part they are Liberal and Conservative friends. They are owed a favour and are stuffed into this highly paid job. The job pays $86,400 a year. That is $20,000 more than parliamentarians make on their basic salary. There is something wrong with the system when that form of patronage exists.

The decisions and results of the board impact not only on the taxpayer who has to pay the bill but on the whole immigration process. It brings the whole matter into disrepute. In fact, the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board bring the immigration policy and process into disrepute.

I will digress from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and address something in this bill. This bill is supposed to be a wonderful, cost saving effort on the part of the government to deal with the patronage issue. However, I do not see it that way at all, not when we look at the availability of the number of appointments that can be made. There are 2,225 available positions to put friends into. Both past Liberal and Conservative governments and again today the present Liberal government have been packing that particular board again with a bunch of friends.

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be back here. I am as excited as I can possibly get to come back to Ottawa. I am so comfortable when I go back to my riding, if I can use those terms, that it definitely feels like I am away from home when I come back to Ottawa. I will get on with my presentation, Mr. Speaker.

It is encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary support the creation of this peacekeeping medal. I trust he will follow through with his suggestion of just looking after some minor amendments to make it happen.

It is my distinct honour to speak to Bill C-300 which is the design of my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands. I support without reservation the spirit and the substance of the proposed legislation before the House today.

It has been said that this bill seeks to correct a wrong, to correct a very serious omission of not awarding recognition in a formal sense to the tremendous contribution that Canadian peacekeepers have made. The bill asks that the Canadian government make available a medallion and clasp in recognition of the bravery of our peacekeepers.

If there is any question of the appropriateness of bestowing such recognition one should consult history. I quote Commander General Guy Simonds in 1942. He surmised: "The final criterion of a good or bad award is the reaction of the troops. If the troops feel it is a good award, it is a good award. If the awards are criticized by the troops, they are bad awards". He goes on to say: "Before forwarding any recommendation, at each level the commander should ask himself the question `would the front line soldier, if he knew the facts, consider this well deserved?"'

In light of General Simonds recommendation for the criterion one should use in consideration of an award to the peacekeeping personnel, there can be no question of the course of action we, as parliamentarians, should pursue. We know that it was input from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association that moved my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands to introduce Bill C-300.

I suggest that everyone in this House has a friend, an acquaintance, who has served on a peacekeeping mission. In fact, in my own riding, I have a consistent visitor, Mr. Ron Howard, who has conversed frequently with the Department of National Defence over this peacekeeping initiative. He has been keeping me up to date on the feelings of the veterans, those who really laid their lives down to make this world a better place. I respect him for his persistence. I respect him for his consideration of his fellow soldiers, his colleagues. I certainly respect him for his dealings with myself in pushing me forward and keeping me abreast of the concerns that many of the veterans have, especially the peacekeeping veterans.

They appreciate their United Nations medals and it is their hope and desire that Canada provide a distinctive recognition for their peacekeeping efforts. It is therefore only fitting that a volunteer service medal be awarded by the Government of Canada to peacekeepers who have served our nation well. This legislation would authorize the issuance of such a medallion.

I would also like to state for the record that there can be no question that Canadians soldiers are the bravest in the world. Time and time again our personnel have demonstrated ability and courage under difficult circumstances and in perilous situations. I think of Bosnia and some of the very tense moments when our peacekeepers were nailed down and sequestered, even entrapped in some areas in a very dangerous situation. They are recognized for their bravery and courage.

It is noteworthy that in this legislation there are provisions for the recognition of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other Canadian citizens who qualify. This is a significant and proper recognition, given the increasingly perilous situations RCMP officers find themselves in overseas.

I had the opportunity to ride back on a plane with a troop of RCMP officers who had served in Bosnia. I do not think it is well known that we have RCMP officers serving in that capacity, teaching the rule of law to those in other nations where there is conflict. Of course there is more recognition in Haiti.

It is a tough situation to be in an area of conflict without any weapons. Those officers inform me that often they were sequestered in one room with really nothing to defend themselves because of the conflict raging on around them. That is a tough situation to be in. I believe that it is fitting to recognize them for those brave acts. They are jeopardizing their lives by falling into those circumstances.

The RCMP troops were sent over overseas to train fledgling police departments the principles that are central to our democracy, for example, the fair and unbiased application of the law and the separation of politics from policing, something that is unfortunately deteriorating in this part of the world. For that reason the RCMP officers should, for their contribution to Canada's peacekeeping efforts, be recognized.

In summary, I would like to state some of the obvious. There is justification for looking at history and bringing it forward in a manner so that it can be recognized by the public that there is a need to recognize our soldiers. Among the reasons for supporting this legislation is providing a distinctive Canadian recognition to all Canadians who have served with the United Nations peacekeeping force by awarding a Canadian volunteer service medal, and to give recognition for the September 30, 1988 Nobel peace prize awarded to Canadian peacekeepers signified by a clasp on the medal's ribbon.

The 34th Parliament supported this initiative through the introduction of two private members' bills. The standing committee on defence and veterans affairs in a peacekeeping report called for the establishment of a Canadian volunteer service medal for United Nations peacekeeping. Another reason for support is the endorsement of a distinct Canadian recognition for our peacekeepers comes from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and the Canadian Association United Nations Peacekeeping Chapter.

There is a lot of support at all levels. Other countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Ghana and the United States already have distinctive national medal awards for peacekeeping. We would not be alone.

Parliament set a precedent in June 1991 by approving the award of the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea to its Canadian personnel. This is, in addition to the UN medal, awarded to veterans of the Korean war and a Canadian medal worn with a ribbon shared with the Commonwealth countries of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Recognition would not be limited to the Canadian forces but would include the RCMP and other Canadians who qualify. I believe that would be a wonderful addition because so many others within our different agencies are risking their lives to support world peace.

Finally, other nations such as Sweden and Finland are establishing a medallion award for their peacekeepers. New Zealand and Australia are also considering such an award. It is therefore only fitting that Canada not be left out.

I urge my colleagues on the opposite side of the House to quickly rush through whatever amendments would be deemed necessary to quickly finalize this initiative by my colleague for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

[Justice, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let the battle of the bow ties begin.

At the Press Club tonight, Financial Times columnist and CFRB radio talk show personality Michael Coren will square off against the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. We are all looking forward to a spirited discussion on the viability of social conservatism.

Special thanks to the Laissez Faire Club of Ottawa for co-ordinating tonight's event. Laissez Faire has also offered to sponsor a Reform-Liberal debate on crime and punishment. On behalf of Reform I accept the challenge.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I put the challenge to the justice minister. Meet Reform at the Press Club, 6 p.m. on March 3. Come out and defend your government's soft on crime record. Explain to Canadians why killers like Clifford Olson and Karla Homolka are eligible for early parole. Explain why our prisons have become comfort cottages. Tell Canadians why sexual predators are running lose and why violent youth crimes continue to surge upward.

Reform, on the other hand, will present our fresh start plan to get-

[Justice, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the opinion of the hon. minister but I hold in my hand copies of the registration under the Canadian Copyright Act which clearly puts Clifford Olson and his lawyer in possession and in control of these tapes.

The facts are that the lawyer and Clifford Olson do possess the tapes and they do have control. There is a real chance that Olson will either release or sell the tapes to the media.

I appeal to the minister on behalf of Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt and other parents who have lost their loved ones to this sick maniac. I call upon this government to act immediately. Will the Solicitor General confiscate and destroy the Olson tapes? Yes or no?

[Justice, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after almost a year of refusing to reveal details of the contract between Corrections Canada and Clifford Olson whereby Canada's most notorious serial killer was able to produce 12 videotapes about his child slayings, Corrections Canada has finally and reluctantly released the agreement under access to information rules.

The contract raises some important legal questions, particularly with regard to who owns the tapes.

My question is for the solicitor general. Since it appears that Olson and his lawyer own the tapes, what is to stop them from selling those tapes to the media or other sensationalists?