John Finlay

[Petitions, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions. The first asks Parliament to enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West at the earliest opportunity, to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

This petition is signed by 43 of my constituents.

[Children, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we look to children as the future of our society. Why then do some members of society treat children as chattels rather than treasures?

One million children under 18 work as prostitutes in Asia and another one million children worldwide enter the sex trade every year. These are shameful statistics. This is an international problem, one we must eradicate not only in Canada but in the rest of the world.

A first step is to pass Bill C-27, which would assist in the apprehension and prosecution of those who seek out and use child prostitutes, whether the crime is committed inside or outside Canada. This law will protect children from those who prey on them.

I call on the government to initiate other measures as well which would serve to protect our most important natural resource, our children.

[Agriculture, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food often says, this sector of our economy is living through a period of incredible change. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what the government is doing to help the industry adapt?

[Dangerous Offenders, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Wild Rose has used wild and whirling words to support this motion. I intend to use a little common sense and balance. That is what we are here for, to look at things with a sensible and critical eye.

No one on this side of the House believes for one moment that some of these sexual animals, as my colleague characterizes them, should be granted all kinds of rights. What we are arguing is that the Christianity which most of us profess should probably underline our legal system and the laws that we pass in the House. That includes such ideas as let he who is without sin cast the first stone and that everyone may be redeemed and everyone may be rehabilitated. That is what I would like to concentrate on.

My friend from Wild Rose says things are not better but he presents no evidence or facts to support this claim. Quite the reverse. The evidence and facts indicate that the rate of recidivism is down, that the number of repeat offenders is down. In fact, except for some fairly specific communities, crime is down.

My colleague does make a statement that is correct. The human condition is not perfect. Our system of government is not perfect. Our system of laws is not perfect. However, they will not be perfected by jumping at easy solutions, at autocratic, mandated, non-balanced ideas about how to correct people's behaviour.

We may get somewhere, as my colleague from Guelph-Wellington said, if we work together in our communities to solve the problems of crime. We may get there if we support community groups that are already working on programs to integrate the alienated, trying to improve education and care of children and helping young people have self-confidence and a confident look at the future, so they are not looking, as we say, at the devil that has work for idle hands to do.

That is the way the problem of crime will be solved, by getting rid of poverty, getting rid of unemployment and getting rid of people's malaise and fear about the future.

Let us be clear on what this amendment to the Criminal Code would require. First of all, every criminal who is convicted of a serious sexual offence, namely sexual assault under sections 271, 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code, would have to be examined by two psychiatrists in order to determine the risk of reoffending. If the psychiatrists conclude that the risk is high, then a dangerous offender application must be launched.

There would be no discretion on the part of the judge and certainly not on the part of the crown prosecutor. Under the present system the judge considers relevant information about the offender's criminal history, his or her mental state, usually as a formal pre-sentence report. Of course the perspective of the victim of the crime is considered. In other words, in a normal case a range of information is taken into account in order to establish the appropriate sentence.

What would happen if it was compulsory to remand every convicted sex offender to a psychiatric facility for a thorough examination by two expert psychiatrists so that these psychiatrists could give a precise prediction of the risk presented by every criminal?

Under the current law the crown attorney and the judge are the authorities who decide whether or not to seek the opinion of psychiatrists on the danger posed by a convicted person. It is not the other way around. The psychiatrists do not tell the officers of the court whether to proceed with a dangerous offender application.

There is a good reason for giving the crown and the judge the discretion to seek a detailed psychiatric examination of the offender and to initiate a dangerous offender application. It is because the dangerous offender process is essentially and primarily a legal one, not just a question of psychiatric prediction.

The crown attorney has to decide whether or not the dangerous offender application will meet the legal standards set out in part XXIV of the Criminal Code. For example, section 753 of the code requires the crown to show that the offender, by his conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing serious injury in the future. This is a legal test, as our courts have repeatedly pointed out. There is no point in making an application under part XXIV if it has no chance of succeeding.

Indeed, the dangerous offender rules require that psychiatric evidence be presented for both sides at the dangerous offender hearing. There may be a difference of opinion among qualified psychiatrists just as there may be among qualified lawyers or qualified prosecutors or, I would suggest, even qualified judges.

I also note that the ability of psychiatrists and psychologists to assess the nature and degree of risk of offenders has certainly improved in the last decade. I have heard Canada described as a leader in this field. I further note that the Correctional Service of Canada employs a wide range of clinical and actuarial testing in its intake and case management programs for federal inmates.

This proposed amendment to the Criminal Code gets the balance wrong. It would compel the crown to bring a dangerous offender application every time a pair of psychiatrists reached a medical conclusion about risk. Life is full of risks. We surely do not have to illustrate that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Perhaps if the motion called for discretion it might receive support. However, the motion advocates a sweeping measure that would diminish the role of judges and prosecutors and indiscriminately force every case of sexual offending to proceed through a lengthy, expensive examination by psychiatrists, even when there is little chance of those psychiatrists labelling the offender as high risk.

The Canadian Psychiatric Association has stated that there is already a shortage of qualified forensic psychiatrists in Canada. The Correctional Service of Canada and the provincial departments of justice are already hard pressed to find enough psychiatric advice for priority cases.

It is interesting that the Reform Party will spare no expense in this area, even if the chances of winning a dangerous offender case are thin. To put this in context, I refer members to some figures released very recently by Statistics Canada. In 1994-95 the federal government spent $913 million on adult corrections. The provinces and territories spent $980 million. The capital costs of building federal penitentiaries increased 70 per cent between 1990-91 and 1994-95. It costs about $44,000 per year to keep a person in a federal penitentiary. The per capita cost to operate the adult corrections system in Canada represents $65 for each person in Canada.

There is a way to be selective and strategic in the way we employ our limited resources. The speech from the throne from February 27 of this year contains the following statement:

The government will focus corrections resources on high risk offenders while increasing efforts to lower the number of young people who come into contact with the justice system. The government will develop innovative alternatives to incarceration for low risk offenders.

Motion No. 116 is typical of measures. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I selectively demand indeterminate detention for crimes which should be targeted more carefully.

I believe that prosecutors, courts and juries with the help of psychiatrists will in most cases pass appropriate judgments on sex offenders. I will not support this motion.

[Agriculture, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

A number of farmers in Oxford have received funding under the tobacco diversification program to help develop new crops and other opportunities in the tobacco producing regions of Ontario and Quebec. For example, Joe Strobel in my riding is experimenting with industrial hemp.

Could the minister update the House on the performance of the tobacco diversification program?

[Immigration Consultants, May 9th, 1996]

I simply indicated my agreement with the amendment.

[Immigration Consultants, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support the motion presented by the member for Scarborough Centre which is a votable motion.

The main purpose of the motion is to inform the House and Canadians that problems exist in the immigration consulting industry. Without reading all of them, I think most of us have seen the kind of stories which arise regularly in our daily newspapers. It is time we did something about them.

"Phoney immigration consultants bilk Russians desperate to start new life in Canada", stated in the Ottawa Citizen . The Ottawa Sun : Negligence, fraud alleged in immigration business''. The Law Society of British Columbia:Let immigrants choose''. Immigration advisor denies telling client to claim soldiers raped her''.Immigration specialist admits fraud''.

This is a little item from the Toronto Star dated December 6, 1995 under the heading Darts and Laurels''. It gives a laurel wreath to the immigration committee for recommending the regulation of immigration consultants:With no professional standards, some consultants end up taking advantage of vulnerable refugee applicants and immigrants''. According to the Canadian Press news agency, a draft report by the House of Commons immigration committee says consultants who charge fees should be licensed by a professional body which in turn should establish minimum standards, a code of conduct, continuing education

programs, a complaints procedure and a compensation fund for defrauded victims".

My colleagues who have already spoken to this motion today would agree with all those statements. A large number of these consultants apparently charge exorbitant fees to assist immigrants or potential immigrants to gain access to Canada. Some have no training or expertise with the immigration process and tend to make claims to new immigrants that they cannot deliver on.

Unscrupulous consultants are tarnishing the image of all immigration consultants by their actions. They often counsel people from outside the country who for one reason or another would normally be denied immediately from immigrating. These consultants set up stumbling blocks for our own immigration officials. They prep their clients on what to say, when to say it and how to manipulate the system. This has only added in recent years to the increasing lack of confidence by Canadians in our own immigration system.

It is my feeling that immigration consultants should attain and approve a basic level of knowledge and training before they are permitted to operate in Canada. Through consultation with the provinces, national guidelines could be established to protect new Canadians from unscrupulous consultants.

I realize, as other members have said, that this is a provincial area of responsibility. Provinces deal with the licensing of businesses, industries and professional organizations within their jurisdiction. Therefore, as the mover of this motion said, we must exert some pressure on the provinces in order that they provide the kind of security, safety and regulation for our immigrants. Apparently there are very few provincial requirements for licensing, no bonding prerequisites and no rules and regulations to govern these consultants.

Many MPs are immigrants themselves. I am one. All of us know what it means to be a Canadian. It is really unconscionable that some Canadians and others are taking advantage of our potential immigrants' desire to move to our country by charging huge fees, often misleading them into believing that they will qualify easily when there are hurdles to be considered.

It does our reputation abroad no good. It does the immigration and citizenship department no good with respect to the citizens of this country. We have heard quite enough complaints, a good number of which may have been generated by just such unscrupulous consultants.

I hope that the House will support this motion. We would get some action with the provinces on this problem. I note that they have been slow to act. There has been pressure, but obviously not enough.

Every province has rules concerning professional organizations be they accountants, lawyers, teachers, doctors or paramedics or consultants of various kinds. Certainly this is an area that cries out for some reasonable legislation.

I want to commend the remarks of the member for Bourassa who indicated that in the province of Quebec there are some 22 bills that govern some of these matters. A professional organization there has helped. Since immigration is now a provincial matter, we might well take a lesson from our sister province, Quebec.

I also want to agree with the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley who pointed out that immigrants often suffer from a language barrier. They may have come from a country where authority is a fearful thing. They have concerns about their children, their loved ones or the family that they may be leaving behind. They need to meet someone who exemplifies the qualities for which this country stands, not someone who is out to take the shirt off their back and leave them destitute.

We need a regulatory body. I agree with my colleague's remarks that it must do more than simply licence and collect a fee. It must provide some education. It must provide some ongoing professional development and training as these bodies normally do.

In conclusion, I believe the mover of the motion, and I think all others who have spoken in support of it, would accept the amendment. I would accept the amendment proposed by the member for Bourassa that the motion be amended by replacing the words, "work and consult with the provinces to develop legislation that would set" with:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should inform the provinces of the problems related to the services of immigration consultants and work with them in their development of legislation that would set guidelines and licensing regulations to govern the businesses of immigration consultants.

[Martin Streef, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate Martin Streef of my riding for being named the Ontario Region Outstanding Young Farmer for 1996.

While still in high school, Mr. Streef established in 1977 Streef Produce Ltd. with his four brothers as partners. Starting from scratch, the company is now one of the largest potato producers in Ontario and operates five farms on 1,500 acres in Oxford and Brant counties.

It is refreshing to see young farmers rising to meet the challenge of today's marketplace. Mr. Streef has shown that hard work does pay off and serves as example to other young farmers planning an agricultural career.

On behalf of the House I extend my congratulations to Mr. Streef and the other seven regional winners who will compete at the national event November 13 to 17 at the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto.

[Chernobyl, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 10th anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. This was the biggest peacetime nuclear accident, so far. Fully one-third of the area of Ukraine has been contaminated by nuclear fallout.

Many Ukrainians, especially children, have been affected by nuclear radiation. Medical scientists are presently studying what has become known as post-Chernobyl syndrome. It affects all victims and gives them a distrust of government and a feeling of being ignored by the rest of the world.

As we commemorate this disaster and send our sympathy to the people of Ukraine, may it spur us on to co-operate with all other nuclear nations in seeking better safeguards for the use and disposal of nuclear materials.

Ten years after the accident in Chernobyl, let us work together to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

[The Environment, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the last week of March, Canada hosted Globe '96 in Vancouver, an international trade fair and conference on developing the business of the environment.

What are the direct benefits to Canada from the money we spent to host this conference?