Patrick Gagnon

[Witness Protection Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it both an honour and a privilege to rise today to open debate on Bill C-206, an Act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.

I would first like to commend the Member for Scarborough West, the sponsor of this private member's bill, for bringing this important issue before the House.

His months of dedication and hard work to improve this particular aspect of our criminal justice system are reflected in the pages of this bill. The basic intent of Bill C-206 is very clear: The government must ensure the safety and security of persons who assist police and prosecutors in their efforts to crack down on crime, particularly organized crime.

This makes sense not only from a moral standpoint but from a practical standpoint as well. Past experience shows that witnesses who provide evidence or assist in police and prosecutors' investigations at the risk of harm to themselves or to their families, are often one of the most effective tools our justice system has against organized crime.

And we need that tool, today more than ever. Organized crime, and especially transnational and international organized crime, are growing concerns for Canada, and indeed for many nations.

Organized crime threatens basic social, political and economic institutions in countries around the world. And it is seldom easy, given the power and influence of many criminal organizations, for the authorities to obtain the information and assistance they need to move effectively against organized crime.

That is why we, as legislators, must take every step within our power to ensure our criminal justice system is as well-equipped as possible to respond to the threat posed by organized crime. For these reasons alone, I believe that this bill is both timely and well directed. However, having said that, I believe there are a number of fundamental issues that need to be considered before approval of the bill is given at second reading.

First, we must consider very carefully the scope of application of a protection program. Under Bill C-206, any witness appearing in a case prosecuted under a federal act could be eligible for protection or relocation.

My concern is that this broad, umbrella approach could be unwieldy and difficult to administer efficiently. Our experience regarding the RCMP Source and Witness Protection Program indicates that such a program should focus on very serious offences and cases involving organized crime.

A related issue here is the question of cost. The provision of protective services and relocation of witnesses or sources is a very expensive proposition.

The Prime Minister has said to this House and to Canadians on many occasions that fiscal responsibility is one of the basic principles of this government.

Accordingly we want to make sure that any witness protection program is not so broad that administrative overheads become unacceptable. All members will agree I am sure that we owe it to Canadians to make the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.

Still on the subject of administration there is the question of who will manage and administer the program. It would appear that Bill C-206 seeks to provide a legislative base to the witness protection services provided by the RCMP. However it may be desirable to review other administrative options.

For instance in the United States an independent body, the Office of Enforcement Operations within the Department of Justice, decides who will be accepted into the U.S. marshal's service witness security program. The decision is made after this office has considered the recommendations for admission from the responsible enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office.

The point I wish to make is that in the United States it is not the law enforcement body that makes the decision whether or not to give witness protection.

As well, once the witness is accepted into the program the protection is administered by the U.S. marshal's service. Again it is not the originating law enforcement agency that provides the protection but an independent agency, the U.S. marshal's service.

I raise these administrative issues as points that warrant further consideration and review before determining and legislating our own arrangements for witness protection in this country.

A second issue we need to carefully consider is the legislative basis for a witness protection program. It may be appropriate for example to link a program to provisions in the Criminal Code or other legislation.

Protection of people who assist in criminal investigations or prosecutions may involve changes in identity. This requires the active participation of federal authorities outside of law enforcement agencies.

It would seem to me to be appropriate to indicate that the responsibilities of these authorities also be captured in any legislation. The same rationale applies to the roles and functions of provincial authorities involved in the provision of protective services. Provincial interests in this area are a very important consideration given the constitutional responsibilities of provincial government for the administration of justice. At a minimum, I believe that legislation should permit provinces to opt in to a federal program. All of this is to say that we would want to work closely with the provinces in all respects.

There is also the question of cost sharing between the federal government and provinces desiring to participate jointly in a protection program. This could be addressed directly in legislation, or perhaps indirectly through the establishment of a statutory instrument or specific ministerial approval.

A last concern I would like to raise deals with the limitation of Bill C-206 to witness protection alone. Witnesses are not the only persons who provide information to the authorities in criminal cases and who may require protection for having done so. Many police investigations would never lead to arrests without the assistance of sources or informants, most of whom are paid for their services. Source information is just as vital to police investigations as witness testimony is to court proceedings.

I note that the RCMP source witness and protection program, which I referred to a few moments ago, protects both police sources and Crown witnesses.

These are the type of factors that must be examined before this government can, in good conscience, proceed further with legislation for a witness protection program. However, I do not want these concerns to overshadow the basic accomplishment of this bill. With this proposed act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses, the hon. member for Scarborough West has focussed the attention of this House on an important component of our criminal justice system. For that he deserves a vote of thanks from all members of the House, and indeed, from all Canadians.

I understand that other members will now take the opportunity to touch, in more depth, on the points I have raised, as well as discuss other key considerations.

[Economic Development, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the hon. members of this House to a recent initiative from our government to promote the economic development of Quebec.

On April 14, we announced, in conjunction with the Government of Quebec, a first set of projects to be implemented under the Canada-Quebec agreement on infrastructure projects. This program is being initiated a mere two months after the agreement was signed. This is palpable proof that we do meet the demands of the Canadian people. It also demonstrates clearly that we are intent on putting Canada back to work as soon as possible.

This first stage will see nearly $35 million invested in 50 projects involving 43 municipalities in Quebec. These projects will result in the creation of 400 direct jobs over the weeks to come because, as you know, this government was elected last fall to put Canadians back to work, and this program is being put into place to do just that.

[Co-Operative Housing, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address the motion.

Frankly I am dismayed by the apparent substance of the hon. member's motion. From my reading of it, she is in favour of receiving funding for housing but with no strings attached.

Not only does this go against all logic and common sense, it goes against the spirit and the tradition of partnership of governments working together in the Canadian federation.

I am sure members in this House will agree that the federal government must ensure equal access to federal programs from coast to coast. Moreover, publics funds must be managed in such a way as to benefit all Canadians.

I would like to stress the fact that the Canadian government has always worked in partnership with Quebec and the other provincial governments. We deal with the various aspects of this very complex housing issue by sharing responsibilities. Why? Because Canadians want the same national standards to prevail throughout Canada so that access to affordable housing does not vary from one jurisdiction to another.

All governments recognize the need to find creative solutions to facilitate the provision of affordable and accessible housing because housing involves various levels of government, all of which must be working in partnership to achieve progress. The federal government believes in the need to adopt a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach in this sphere.

This being said, the governments of Canada and Quebec have a long tradition of working together in the area of housing. We intend to maintain that strong co-operation for the good of all Canadians. This co-operation has a name, we call it compassion. This means that Canadians care for their fellow Canadians, and the government will not abandon that compassion.

Abandon is, in my opinion, something to keep in mind. I would like to remind the hon. member that it is the leader of her party, when he was a member of the previous Cabinet, who oversaw the abolition of all social housing programs, including those for housing co-ops, for non-profit housing, and for owners, whether they be occupants or leasers. The people who used to benefit from these programs are the same the hon. member seeks to help with this motion.

Madam Speaker, the government is presently reviewing these programs to make them more responsive to the needs of the people who were abandoned by the previous government and the present leader of the Official Opposition.

In contrast to the actions of the previous government, I would like to make known to the House some of the initiatives of the Liberal government. The major effort on the part of the federal-provincial-territorial partnership in the delivery of social housing funds has been to meet core housing needs. The objective is to assist families or individuals most in need, those who would have to spend more than 30 per cent of their income for suitable, adequate accommodation on the private market.

The latest figures, for December 31, 1993, show that there are more than 140,000 family units administered in Quebec and in 1992-93, the Government of Canada spent over $318 million on affordable housing in Quebec alone.

I am thinking, for example, of the Creesom housing initiative which helps disadvantaged people in southwestern Montreal. Madam Speaker, despite the cuts that governments must make, the federal government will give this original and innovative program $5.1 million in financial aid over a four-year period so that it can continue to help people on low and moderate incomes own property, individually or collectively. In co-operation with the City of Montreal, the Government of Canada will commit to 100 co-op housing units as part of the Creesom program in southwestern Montreal.

As well, the Government of Quebec recently announced a renovation program for low income home owners, Réparaction. In light of the reinstatement and provincial renovation program the federal government will be working with the province of Quebec to put in place cost sharing agreements.

In addition, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation offers financial assistance for victims of violence. The Project Haven and Next Step programs provide emergency and long-term shelter for victims and their children.

Under Project Haven, which expired on March 21, 1992, commitments were made for 458 emergency shelters in 78 municipalities. The second phase of the family violence initiative, Next Step, expires on March 31, 1995. This phase provides for 150 independent housing units and 100 emergency shelters, with a budget of $20.6 million. By January 31, 1994, 46

independent units and 53 emergency shelters had been completed, at a cost of $4.5 million. That is far from nothing, Madam Speaker.

As for Quebec, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is working in collaboration with the Government of Quebec to create eight new shelters which will be completed by the end of March 1995. Three are already in service and the others are either under construction or at the design stage.

As I am sure members can appreciate, the demand for this type of facility far exceeds the level of resources that we have been able to direct for the establishment of new shelters and the funds to March 31, 1995 have already been committed.

I think we all understand that the fiscal capacity of all governments is extremely limited, and that includes the Government of Quebec. However I believe we must also take into account societal problems and priorities, and not simply focus strictly on fiscal solutions.

To conclude, I will say that in this area it is difficult to have a perfect balance, but the Government of Canada is trying very hard and is having good results thanks to a close partnership with all Canadian provinces, including Quebec.

[Irving Whale, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the excellent work done by the government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, the hon. Douglas Young, regarding the case of the Irving Whale . This ship, which has been called a time bomb for the environ-

ment, will finally be refloated. This is good news for the residents of the Magdalen Islands and P.E.I.

The witnesses heard by the Gagnon-Easter committee were able, for the first time, to express their fear to me and to Wayne Easter, the hon. member for Malpeque. They were unanimous in saying that it was time to act, and our government listened to them.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate all those who worked relentlessly for that happy ending in the case of the Irving Whale . All of Eastern Canada is very grateful for that outcome.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not able to talk to you about the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I am here to confirm to hon. members that the government intends to deal with this rather sensitive situation.

We know that the crime rate is rising in Canada. The other opposition party tabled a motion asking for a total change in the way we treat not only victims of violence but especially prisoners. I will simply remind it that the government's purpose, which I am sure the hon. member will applaud, is to strike a better balance in the penal system and justice system we have in Canada.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a number of interesting comments.

He should keep in mind that the percentage of incarcerated people in Canada is second to the United States. We should also add that there are costs, $8 billion a year. He is also telling us that the U.S. judicial system is somewhat better than the one that we have in Canada. When we look at the number of crimes, murders committed in the United States, it is nothing comparable to what we have here or anywhere else in the civilized world I should add.

I am shocked that the hon. member is saying that they have a better system when we know in the city of Detroit there is more criminality going on in one year than all of Canada put together. Look at the statistics.

I am asking the hon. member to check the facts. We have been here for four months. We have taken various initiatives. It is a very complex matter. We are dealing with aboriginals. We are dealing with children. We are dealing with all walks of Canadian life. It is not an easy issue to solve, granted. We know there are problems. There are cracks in the system.

The initiative being taken by the government is to ensure that we close these gaps. That is why we need the co-operation of the opposition. We also need their compassion. That seems to be lacking with the party opposite, certainly with the member opposite who says he is appalled at the way we want to address this issue.

In conclusion, I find it really offensive to hear the opposition member tell us that the American system is much better than the one we have here in Canada.

In closing, I am convinced that the plan in the government's red book will make all Canadians more secure in the years to come.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion put before this House by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.

The hon. member has put forward the motion that this government should be condemned for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system. Specifically the motion accuses this government of allowing the rights of criminals to take precedence over the rights of victims.

The hon. member is quite right. In the five short months that this government has been in power it could have done much more than it has done to take action on criminal justice issues. We could have taken the easy road and won cheap popularity by pandering to those who want change without proper consideration of the consequences. We could have acted precipitously rather than proceeding deliberately and systematically.

We rejected this type of approach in favour of a broad and reasoned strategy to reform our criminal justice system. In short, this government honoured the pledge it made to Canadians in its electoral platform to work for a fair, balanced and humane justice system.

Finally, a key component of our election platform, better known as the red book, is a program designed to ensure safety in public and private places. We propose a comprehensive approach, namely a twofold initiative which recognizes the need for measures against violent crimes and high-risk criminals, while also emphasizing the importance of crime prevention.

The project is well under way in all these important areas. It is obvious, however, that some members are not aware of the work being done, or of the reasons why we concentrate our efforts on these particular areas.

I want to provide members with some information to enable them to better understand what the government is doing, and why it is doing it. Let us first look at the important issue of crime prevention. It is no surprise that the costs associated with crime in our country are enormous, both human and financial costs.

We know that the United States is the only nation in the Western world which has a higher rate of incarceration than Canada. In 1991, the costs related to our police, courts and correctional services reached a staggering $8 billion. We know that the human costs of crime and fear of crime, including the consequences of victimization for communities, are also very high.

The facts speak for themselves and we must adopt a comprehensive approach against crime in our society, one which recognizes the traditional role of our established organizations but also takes into account our social policies.

To be truly effective, crime prevention must tackle the social and economic factors linked to crime; it must go to the roots of the problem, which include poverty, unemployment, drug addiction and family violence.

We know that the human costs of crime and the fear of crime, including the effects of victimization on individuals in our society, are all too high. I believe the facts speak for themselves when I say that we must pursue a broad based approach to crime in our society, an approach that recognizes the traditional role of our established agencies, but also examines social policies.

To be truly effective the prevention of crime must involve examining the underlying social and economic factors associated with crime and criminality, the root causes of crime such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, alcohol and substance abuse and finally violence, to name but a few.

Fundamental to this approach is a shared responsibility among governments, their criminal justice systems, social service agencies, education systems and communities not only to fight crime but to deal with the social problems which ultimately lead to criminal activity.

The establishment of a council on crime prevention that would bring key players together to address crime prevention and safety within our communities is one of the commitments of this government. It is one that the Solicitor General is working on in collaboration with the Minister of Justice. The council will serve as an advisory body to all levels of government on broad policy priorities and activities related to crime prevention.

The composition of the council will reflect the wide variety of stakeholders in crime prevention and social development. To succeed then in our efforts to prevent crime and find practical solutions we must not only work in tandem with our partners in the criminal justice system but broaden our partnership to include our communities and neighbourhoods.

Without this support we cannot present a strong and united front in solving the difficult problems that touch us all, whether our efforts are directed at family violence, youth at risk, illiteracy, high risk offenders stemming from the drug trade or eliminating hate crime. Crime prevention is also an important part of the work of the National Parole Board and Correctional Services of Canada. Both of these agencies are concerned with the safe reintegration of federal offenders, those who have served sentences over two years, in society.

It is a fact that the majority of federal offenders, two-thirds, serve their sentence and do not break the law after being released into the community. Ensuring greater public safety for Canadians entails reducing the risk of those who do reoffend. Public safety remains the primary and constant factor of all correctional decision making. It is recognized that public safety is best served when offenders are given the treatment and training they need to successfully reintegrate into the community.

Correctional Services of Canada's life skills program for offenders is a good example of the type of fundamental work under way in our federal penitentiary system to help offenders acquire the skills they need to make a clean start in life.

I said earlier that our approach to fighting crime is a two pronged approach. The other side of the public safety coin is the need to find more effective ways of dealing with repeat violent and sex offenders. Improvements to handling and treatment of these offenders in the federal corrections system is a priority.

In its election platform the government recognized that Canadians want better protection from dangerous offenders and we are serious about following through on our commitment. Several reports, including those coming from inquests and Commons' committees on justice and legal affairs, have stressed the need for action in this regard.

We are developing a series of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. For example, we are working on measures that would enable us to more easily detain until the end of the sentence repeat sex offenders who victimize children.

The Solicitor General has also stated that he wants to look at tightening up the sentence calculation process so that offences committed by repeat offenders on conditional release will result in more time served in penitentiaries.

We are also reviewing with the provinces a number of measures which could improve public protection from high risk offenders, including the greater use by the provinces of the dangerous offender provisions at the time of original conviction and sentencing. As well, the federal government will take steps to address the release of high risk offenders into society at the end of their custodial terms.

Society must protect itself from individuals who may be unfit for release and we are working with the provinces to deal with this issue in a way which is consistent with the charter.

Also being studied are methods of bringing the corrections and mental health fields together in a co-ordinated and integrated manner. While supporting tougher measures for violent and repeat sex offenders we must also highlight their need for enhanced rehabilitation programs while in prison to reduce the chances of these individuals reoffending.

The government in line with its red book commitment is putting various measures in place to improve the parole process. Among them are better training for National Parole Board members, legislative changes to better deal with those who are not performing satisfactorily and the requirement that members' appointments be based on merit, competence and integrity. After all, parole board members have a difficult and demanding job and only the best qualified people will be considered for future board positions.

In recent years a relatively small number of well publicized cases involving high risk offenders on conditional release have done much to erode public confidence in the institutions that have been entrusted to protect society.

In the parole system the Solicitor General is working to rebuild that public trust and restore that confidence. I believe the government's commitment to work to improve public safety from high risk offenders and to improve the parole process are firm examples of the type of action that will put us on the right track to win back that confidence.

Another example is the government's commitment to address the issues of youth violence.

I can of course only be concerned about the marked increase in violent crimes committed by young Canadians in recent years. We have all heard or read media reports on youth gangs and their criminal activities. Most incidents occur in large cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but small communities are not completely immune to the problem.

We do not yet know the real scope and seriousness of the problem of violence and criminal gangs among young people in Canada. According to some research on criminal justice, the crime rate among young Canadians is rising, but the rates for homicides and serious offences involving violence have remained relatively stable.

The number of charges for minor assaults such as slapping, punching and kicking has significantly increased. However, we do not know if this reflects an actual increase in the number of violent offences, or if it simply means that victims are more inclined to go to the police, or that the police is more likely to lay charges.

I want to be clear: I am not trying to minimize the problem of violence among young people, which is unfortunately worrisome. As a concerned citizen, I know how acts of violence can generate fear and intimidation in our communities.

In its program to promote justice and fight crime, the federal government clearly states that one of its priorities will be to take action on the increase in violent offences and delinquency among young people. Canadians of all ages should be able to enjoy the fundamental right of being safe in public and private places.

Last, I would like to turn to the issue of victim's rights. When the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley tabled the motion we are debating she was obviously unaware that victims have more rights under today's criminal justice system than at any other time in Canadian history. Victims of crime are now formally recognized as legitimate and essential players in the federal corrections and parole process.

This recognition ensures that victims can be kept informed of an offender's prison and parole status if they so do request. Information from victims can now be considered at parole hearings and the victims may now attend parole hearings at the discretion of the parole board. No longer is their attendance dependent on the agreement of the defendant.

Aside from these changes police services and courts across the country are now much more sensitized to the needs of victims and this sensitivity is embodied in guidelines and new police policies which reflect an understanding of victims and the emotional trauma that they have often suffered.

These are positive and much needed changes. The government also recognizes that further change to accommodate the needs of victims is still necessary. As I said in my opening remarks we are not going to act in haste only to have to repent at leisure. When the government brings about change to the criminal justice system it will be lasting change, change that will stand the test of time.

Last year we travelled across the country meeting and listening to thousands of Canadians and seeking their input as we built our electoral platform. We did not spend all that time reflecting, consulting and listening just to turn our backs on Canadians the moment we were elected to office.

Canadians told us then and they are telling us now that they want change based on a thorough examination of all the issues, consultation with all interest groups, and a calm and rational appraisal and weighing of all the facts.

That is the type of change that we are committed to bringing to the criminal justice system and that we are working for even as I speak. It is the type of change that Canadians expect and deserve and the type of change that the government will deliver.

[Motions For Papers, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 16th, 1994]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 11.

Question No. 11-Mr. Easter:

How many new appointments were made between June 1992 and January 1994 to the personnel of the Department of Agriculture at the level of director and above? How many were internal transfers within Agriculture Canada? How many were transfers from other federal departments? How many were designated as exempt staff? How many new personnel were retained by the department on the basis of contracts? What were the names of the individuals involved, the positions they held previously, the positions to which they had been appointed and the dates of their appointments?