Patrick Gagnon

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the last motion raised by the opposition, Motion No. 19.

We heard a number of things here this morning and indeed most of yesterday afternoon about Canadians having a constant worry about the apparent rise in criminality in the country. I think we should keep in mind that criminality in Canada has been somewhat stable for the past 20 years. The statistics are there. There have indeed been a number of cases that were brought to the attention of the public and many of those were indeed heinous crimes and very disturbing. That is why the government and we on this side of the House have done considerable work to try to reduce criminality and make Canada a safer place.

I found it interesting when I heard a number of members claim that the federal government is not putting any money whatsoever into trying to protect Canadians and especially our youth. I would like to point out that the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is one of the few departments that has seen a slight increase in its expenditures.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is on a point of order and it could very well lead to a debate.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. This is a civil forum and it allows elected members from various parts of Canada to exchange in a civil and correct manner.

I also thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his kind invitation to his constituency. I would be more than pleased to have a civil exchange with the hon. member and with his constituents on various issues of concern to the people.

The motion, which we will oppose, was raised during a clause by clause review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The motion was ruled out of order because it entailed expenditure of funds and I believe cost saving measures are in order.

However, the hon. member failed to recognize one of the major accomplishments of the government, the establishment of the Canadian police information centre, CPIC, announced in November 1994. I assure the hon. member and his constituency and all Canadians that CPIC basically provides a comprehensive registry, including an offender's entire criminal history and additional information such as whether an individual has a restraining order, a peace bond or is prohibited from working with children.

We have had a number of cases in which in minor hockey leagues or when certain adults are called to supervise children, the organizations have access to this information. We encourage all volunteer service organizations in which children are involved to contact CPIC to make sure the people willing to lend their help are within the law and would not pose any danger to innocent children.

The motion in question is unnecessary. It would otherwise be inappropriate for inclusion in a bill which deals with corrections and conditional release.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

I think the language used in the House has been at times unparliamentary and the people from Wild Rose expect more from their member.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was no fan of the Grateful Dead.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

I will go.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member would delete from the provision an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

The provision to the effect that deterrence and society's denunciation are principles, and in my opinion, fundamental principles, guiding the courts and that rehabilitation of the offender is subordinate to them was added to clarify Parliament's intent in the matter of the courts' application of section 741.2 of the Criminal Code.

As the hon. member for Saint-Hubert so rightly pointed out, the thrust of Bill C-45 is to ensure that these individuals' return to society is done in a balanced manner, and of course the aim of the bill is to ensure greater public safety. However, I must unfortunately advise you that the government cannot support Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 as presented by the hon. member.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, before presenting our position on the motion as it was tabled, I want to stress the good work of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and her colleague from Bellechasse. Indeed, the hon. member attaches a great deal of importance to details, and I often agree with her on those details.

However, as regards her motion, I maintain that the word "reliable" implies that the information comes from sources which are recognized and dependable. Moreover, the proposed wording is not in line with that used elsewhere in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Consequently, we feel that Motions Nos. 14 and 15 serve no useful purpose, and they will not be supported by the government.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is obviously raising an issue beyond the technical scope of this motion. We have covered the role of French here in the House of Commons, within the federal government. I would like to point out to the hon. member that everyone tries to speak and write proper and correct French.

What I am saying to you could certainly apply directly to English speakers. Sometimes I myself go over and correct texts that have been given me by anglophones, and that are full of mistakes. There are syntax problems, and I often find these texts completely incomprehensible as the hon. member for Saint-Hubert claims happens in French. Unfortunately it seems to be the case for both official languages.

However, I am keeping to this text and to the motion as such. I do not think this is the time to politicize the debate and I do not think this motion has anything to do with the probable results on October 30, which will be, as we know full well, that a majority of Quebecers will vote no.

By deleting the words "serious drug offence", the motion would exclude serious drug offenders from the effect of the provisions on detention. It would defeat Parliament's purpose in expanding the scope of the provisions on detention to include serious drug offenders.

The aim of this measure was to calm the growing concerns of the public over the persistent problem of drug trafficking. In short, this is to some extent what the work of the legislator is about-making society as we know it safer. The measure is one of the initiatives in the national anti-drug strategy.

Under section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the provisions on detention shall be subject to a comprehensive review by a committee of the House of Commons three years after coming into force-which was November 1992. So, very soon.

This review will be more appropriate for the consideration of an amendment of this scope. I therefore invite the hon. members to vote against this motion and I would like to remind the hon. member that we are always careful in our use of French.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this is a very delicate question. Obviously it will entail probably going into a very thorough debate. I think we have had the occasion to do so in committee.

I would like to remind the hon. member that all those witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in regard to Bill C-45 and Bill C-41 expressed the view that statutory release plays a fundamental role in the protection of society. This period of gradual and carefully planned and supervised release is essential for assisting an offender to reintegrate into the community and is preferred over an offender's abrupt release at warrant expiry.

I should also add that there is a process in place. It takes a required amount of time to serve. We should also keep in mind that we do not automatically release people as the opposition likes to contend.

The provisions in Bill C-45 and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already provide a balanced response to the concerns posed by repeat offenders. The new sentence calculation model would ensure that an offender who receives a new custodial sentence for an offence committed while on conditional release would be automatically returned to custody. New consecutive sentences would always result in the offender serving a minimum of one-third of the new sentence in custody before parole eligibility.

I think we agree here in this House and I would imagine many members in the opposition benches would agree that we need to constantly seek ways of improving public protection. That is why the government continues to focus its efforts on more effective methods, which involve better identifying, assessing, and treating violent offenders on a case by case basis. However, a blanket abolition of statutory release for certain offenders would ultimately harm rather than improve public safety.

In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recognized the value of statutory release when it voted down a similar motion to abolish statutory release for all offenders.

I would also add that we will be opposing not only Motion No. 4 but also Motions Nos. 5, 11, and 17 as presented by the opposition.