Herb Gray

[Penitentiaries, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a good point, but she is a bit late on it.

The Correctional Service of Canada's commissioner has already announced a national inquiry, not just into the circumstances of the escapes from Ferndale but into the situation involving minimum security institutions, including the approach to classification. This is already under way. I am sure it will do a good job in dealing with the concerns she has raised and which I fully understand.

[Business Of The House, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have to confirm that the House will not sit tomorrow and will not sit next week. In fact it will resume on May 24. The work that hon. members do-and I am sure they have work to do-will have to be done outside the Chamber during that period.

On May 24 and May 25 the House will begin work on Bill C-28 regarding student loans followed by Bill C-27, the income tax technical legislation. If there is time we will also call Bill C-26, to amend the National Library Act.

Pursuant to special order on May 26 the House will consider report stage of Bill C-17, the budget implementation legislation.

After the House leaders meet again the week we are back, we will have further information for them and for the House.

[Government Appointments, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked an important question. Our approach is twofold.

First, we are appointing people on the basis of competence and merit and, second, when it comes to the National Parole Board I have said on behalf of the government that I intend to introduce legislation in the House to create a system of accountability and discipline for parole board members.

Certainly our experience with this system is something that can be looked at in terms of other commissions and boards. I look forward to having the hon. member's input, as I do that of all members of the House, in dealing with this important issue.

[National Parole Board, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I would take the hon. member's suggestion aboard, but I want to point out to him that the rules in this regard make this a matter of discretion, an optional matter for the minister. The word in the rules is "may".

The hon. member may want to reflect on his question because some of the people who submit application for appointments may not want it to be made public in terms of the impact on their existing employment and there are similar factors.

I suggest that the hon. member should bear in mind that it is our commitment, as we have been doing, to appoint people on the basis of merit and competence. We are prepared to submit our judgments which we are authorized to make by this Parliament to the test of this House and the public.

[National Parole Board, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the applicant's qualifications are a matter of record and often a matter of public knowledge. This record and this public knowledge are something that exist quite apart from any interview, no matter how lengthy that interview is. If we are looking for competence and merit, we want to look at a person's record of achievements, a person's training and a person's qualifications. That is what counts. An interview may be useful but that cannot outweigh these other factors.

[Correctional Service Canada, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is something I want to review urgently with the Commissioner of Corrections in view of what I think should be our priority and that is protection of the public.

The point made by the hon. member is an important one and I will insist that the Commissioner of Corrections take it aboard.

[Correctional Service Canada, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Corrections has just announced the setting up of a national inquiry into this whole situation. I am asking him to review this as a matter of urgency because protection of the public has to be our priority.

That is what I think the public wants whether the people in question are in a maximum security institution or a minimum security institution.

[Young Offenders Act, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government wants to do more than apologize for omissions of the previous government. It wants to bring forward legislation very soon to modernize and improve the parole and corrections system so that the concerns of the public in that regard will be answered to in a concrete way.

I hope that we will have the support of the Reform Party when we bring forward this legislation because it is action people want, not just words.

[National Parole Board, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out that the legislation adopted by Parliament does not give the Solicitor General the authority to order such a moratorium. It is not a matter of a cop out. It is a matter of stating what the law says.

However, I have said in the House and outside that it is the intention of the government to present legislation which will update and improve the parole and correction system. I look forward to the support of the hon. member and his party in expediting that legislation when it comes before the House.

[National Parole Board, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the legislation and I do not find anything in it which gives the Solicitor General the authority to declare a moratorium on any kind of work done by the parole board in deciding who may be entitled to a release.

In fact, I ask the hon. member to consider whether he and his party really want the members of the parole board in their decisions to be subject to political direction or interference. I do not think they would really want that on reflection. I do not think the House would want that. I do not think the public would want that. In any event, the law does not give the Solicitor General permission to give the kind of order that he is seeking.

I also want to add that the legislation talks about the protection of the public as a principle the parole board has to follow, and protection of the public is certainly the priority of the government.