Geoff Regan

[Witness Protection Program Act, October 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-78 which is really about public safety. This must be very rewarding for my colleague from Scarborough West considering his diligence in bringing this vital matter to the government's attention. His efforts in this regard are certainly commendable.

The debate on private member's bill last spring and the previous fall showed great evidence of support on both sides of the House for the bill and for what he was trying to do. The debate on Bill C-206 demonstrated there is really a clear need for a legislated protection program for witnesses and sources in criminal cases.

It seems that demonstrated there was a clear desire by members of Parliament for such a program. One of the reasons for the desire and the need for the legislative program is that there have been some problems in the past. For example, at times there have been misunderstandings between the police and a witness or a source about what the agreement was between them, or what the roles of each was and what their responsibilities were. It is important that the bill clarify some of the rights, responsibilities and obligations on both sides in these matters.

In my view the solicitor general is to be commended for responding to an obvious need to bring about changes to the decade old program. Many people may not realize there is a witness protection program within the RCMP that has been active and operating for quite a few years. Also many programs are operated by municipal and provincial police forces across the country.

The solicitor general is to be commended for responding to the obvious need to bring about changes to this decade old program. We see his response today in Bill C-78, which is now before us. The bill is really another plank in the government's efforts to deal with crime.

I will give some examples of how we have dealt with crime in various ways over the past couple of years. There have been amendments to the Young Offenders Act. In fact I am looking forward to attending a forum in my area in Dartmouth next Thursday, where we will be discussing youth issues and issues related to the Young Offenders Act. It is being put on by CBC radio and I am looking forward to attending to discuss some of the issues arising out of past amendments and concerns of the public about the Young Offenders Act.

We have also had Bill C-45, which provided for reform of the corrections process and issues of conditional release. We all recognize that we had very speedy passage of the bill to provide for the use of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings.

All these things are planks in the efforts of the government to deal with crime. We are working steadily to fulfil our goal of ensuring that Canadians live in safe homes and safe streets.

Upon passage of Bill C-78 Canadians will have a witness protection program that will serve them well, because it will provide a legislated program that will operate more efficiently, more effectively, but will not cost taxpayers more money. I am sure that in my riding of Halifax West the taxpayers will be in favour of that part of the bill.

The whole area of witness protection is particularly important in places like Nova Scotia, as it is across the country. However in Nova Scotia the area where it will be most often used will be in drug enforcement. Our province is a key offloading area for drugs coming from South America, the Caribbean, and the eastern coast of the United States because of the fact that Nova Scotia is a peninsula with so much coastline and many little coves. This makes it picturesque and beautiful to visit, and I recommend that all members and Canadians who are interested should visit us and see our beautiful province. However it also provides an opportunity for drug smugglers to offload their product because it is difficult to

detect them and difficult for the RCMP or other police forces to cover all those inlets and bays.

The witness protection program is also used in areas of crime, including homicides and prostitution, which are also of great concern. If we can help in those investigations and the prosecution of cases of that nature with the bill, it is certainly worth pursuing.

I checked with one of the local RCMP offices in my riding and I was told that the existing witness protection program had been used there about 25 times in the past 20 years. Obviously it is not used constantly, but it provides a very important tool for police in investigation and prosecution for criminal offences.

It seems to me that in the future those who must turn to the witness protection program, like the approximately 70 Canadians who did so last year, will benefit from a number of programs provided by the bill. I believe members would agree that all Canadians would benefit from the improvements.

In many respects we are talking about trying to fight organized crime. Yes, there other kinds of crime involved, individual crimes. We can readily see how the witness protection program can deal with problems of organized crime. With that kind of an organized group there is much more need for witness protection.

In that sense one of the best ways to fight organized crime is with information that sources and witnesses can provide if they do not feel they are at risk of being killed, injured or maimed if they give evidence or assist the police in some other way. The bill is important in all those respects.

Another key element of the bill will be a clearly defined admission process and criteria so that not just anybody can qualify under the program. It is very clear from the RCMP or other police forces that want to make use of the RCMP program what the rules are, what the procedures are, and who can be admitted and how. This is very important.

The RCMP has a responsibility after the bill becomes law to thoroughly examine the applicant's suitability for the program in a variety of ways. That means not only the potential contribution the applicant can make toward an investigation, but the RCMP will also look closely at the individual, at the risk involved to that individual, what might be the risk of danger or harm coming to him, the impact on the person or his or her family, as well as the ability of the individual to adjust to the program. I suppose that could be a problem in some cases, depending on the kind of individual being dealt with. All those factors are obviously important in determining who should be admitted to the program.

Interestingly the protection of witnesses and sources does not just mean relocation, as we assume, and change of identity. It also means counselling or other kinds of support. I turn to the bill itself for a moment to read to the House the definition of protection in Bill C-78:

"protection", in respect of a protectee, may include relocation, accommodation and change of identity as well as counselling and financial support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of the protectee or to facilitate the protectee's re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient;

We see there are a variety of kinds of protection that can be provided and are necessary. Under the bill the RCMP is required to look at alternate methods of protection.

We talk about the kind of counselling support that a witness may need or a source may need and we think of prostitution involving children, for instance. While there is a basic need for protection in the sense of protection from violence of the child, there will probably be a need for counselling for a child who has been involved in prostitution and the violence and the intimidation associated with that activity.

We can all recognize how difficult and frightening it has to be for people to come forward who have been a witness or a source and have been involved in some way in a matter of this sort. It has to be terrifying, particularly if they are fearing for their lives and in some cases for their family or someone else who may be close to them. That is why the definition of witness in Bill C-78 includes those who might have evidence or will give evidence in the future, as well as those who might be at risk themselves, for instance their family.

The source witness protection program must, and with Bill C-78 it will, make it easier for people with information that may help investigations to come forward without fear for their own safety and the safety of their families. That to me is key. We are not only talking about the safety of their families, but by extension if we can get them to feel freer about coming forward and being witnesses or sources then it is the safety of all our families we are talking about here. The success of the program and of our crime fighting efforts in general depends on sources and witnesses and the information they can provide. Their safety is of paramount importance, which is why I am so pleased to support the bill.

The bill provides one important item that we do not have at the present and is needed. As we can see in the bill of the member for Scarborough West and the debate around that bill over the past year or so, we need consistency in how each case is dealt with. With the bill every case across the country will be dealt with in a consistent manner, which is a big improvement.

The bill will not replace other witness protection programs that exist across the country. I mentioned that provincial forces and municipal forces have their own programs. They will continue to operate. Those law enforcement agencies will continue to be able to participate in the RCMP source witness protection program, but

they will now be able to do so with much more accountability and transparency in the process.

Another important area in the bill solves some potential problems in the present system in the area of accountability and transparency, which we need to have more of in this process. The bill makes the administration of the program much more transparent and accountable. It goes through the commissioner of the RCMP to the minister and to the House of Commons. It provides for clearer lines of authority within the RCMP structure. That makes unquestionably for a more efficient administration.

The commissioner is required to make an annual report on the operation of the program, a full report indicating what kinds of problems they face, what amounts have been paid out, the number of witnesses who have been protected in various ways, and so forth. He must make that report annually to the solicitor general. The solicitor general will then table the annual report before Parliament so that members of the House have the opportunity to scrutinize the report. Therefore it makes the whole system accountable to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the public.

The annual reporting requirement will mean that information will be available to members and the public on the cost and the number of people involved in the program. It will be much clearer. It is very important for both parties to the agreements where a witness is being protected that both the witness and the RCMP or other police force have a clear understanding of what the agreement and what the responsibilities and obligations of both parties to the agreement will be.

This will provide for transparency and accountability with regard to the responsibilities and obligations for both the applicants and the RCMP as administrators of the program. These protection agreements and the obligations of applicants and administrators to fulfil these agreements will provide further transparency and accountability to the program.

All these factors lead to public safety. All these factors are providing a greater feeling of security, a greater sense of safety in coming forward for the witness.

If persons have heard about other witnesses in the past who perhaps did not feel they were treated properly, did not feel that the police had lived up to their part of the bargain in protecting a person, they will obviously be less likely to come forward. However, if we can clarify the rules, if we can have clear agreements between the RCMP or another police force and the witness that provide for the rights and obligations of both and what is going to happen for them, we will not have people saying that they did not get treated properly by the police. They can go to the agreement itself and look at what is on paper.

It is kind of like good fences making good neighbours. A good agreement with clearly specified rules on who is to do what provides for a good relationship between the two sides. I think it will add to people feeling freer about coming forward to the system and providing their information.

To review some of the issues we have talked about how in the past criminals have successfully used fear and intimidation to scare witnesses to keep them away from the police so that they will not bring evidence forward. This program is very important, because individuals involved in organized crime will go to great lengths to try to ensure that a witness or a source will not come forward. As I said, it can be a terrifying experience. They can certainly sometimes threaten and exact violent retribution from the witnesses.

Enforcement agencies need the support and assistance of the public. We are talking here about the public in more than one way. We are talking about the individual who is a witness. In some cases when a witness is relocated he or she may require assistance from the public in that regard to find a new location. I am not sure exactly how that would work, but it may require it in some regard. To achieve success in bringing criminals to justice and to further investigations, the police do need that kind of information and they need people to come forward.

The legislation will cover agents who are involved in investigations, not only in the trials but throughout the whole process, which is why I was pleased to see the definitions I mentioned earlier. Not only is the person who has given evidence in the past covered, but so is a person who has agreed to give evidence or information in the future. In any case where because of taking part in some way in an inquiry, investigation or in the prosecution of an offence a person's security may be at risk, the person is covered by the legislation.

I talked about protection and how it can include relocation, accommodation, change of identity, counselling, financial support or any other requirement needed to ensure the security of the protectees as they are called, or to facilitate re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient in a new location with a new identity.

Let us think about a witness who has been totally innocent, has not been involved in crime at all, but happens to be a witness to a serious crime. I am reminded of the movie "Witness" in which a young boy was a witness to a crime and had to be protected. In a case where someone is totally innocent it must be a bewildering experience to be called upon to be a protected witness, fearing for one's life; having to change identity and home; and being away

from family and friends. It has to be a very difficult and bewildering experience.

Interestingly the annual cost will not go up as a result of the program and if it goes down that is fine. It is an important program and will vary each year depending on how many people are being protected. The annual cost is $3.4 million. There are no additional costs expected as a result of introducing the legislation. The average cost per case is $30,000 but approximately 60 per cent of cases cost less than $20,000. If that can bring people who are involved in organized crime or other serious crimes to justice then it is well worth the money. I am confident that all Canadians, and certainly those in my riding of Halifax West, would support that and would certainly support the intent of the bill.

The changes proposed in the witness protection program act will give the RCMP's source witness protection program a solid legislative and regulatory basis. This is lacking in the existing program. It is important that we provide it and therefore I urge members to support this important bill.

[Petitions, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition from 32 petitioners of the riding of Halifax West who call upon the government not to change the present tendering process for moving in the Department of National Defence.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my bet is Britain has only been keeping records of that sort in Britain for 200 years. Therefore it was the hottest in at least 200 years, maybe longer.

There are certainly changes in the environment. We know we have had an ice age. Temperatures go up and down over a long period of time. However when we see it happening much more rapidly it tells us something. We ought to wake up and realize it.

I have reasons for saying Reform Party members do not show the concern I would like them to show.

They may say in their blue book that they care about the environment, but what I see in their speeches and in their comments is a lack of being convinced that the environment is a real problem. I think it is a big problem, and I wish they would share that view.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendments to the Auditor General Act. This is a very important bill and one of the best things we have done as a government so far.

It will create profound changes in the way government operates in this country. It will integrate the environmental agenda with the economic agenda. As well, one of the two or three most important challenges that we as a society and as a world face in the next 50 years is the environment.

We have been reminded in the last couple of weeks with different stories in the media of how much of a challenge this is. In fact it astonishes me to hear Reform Party members who seem to dismiss the idea of the environment as a major concern.

We have seen reports on global warming. A report last Monday, September 11 in the Globe and Mail indicated that global experts, the international intergovernmental panel which has been studying for years the issue of global warming, after years of saying they were not sure of this and years of denying it was a real problem, have finally come to the point where they are saying, yes, we accept that the level of global warming we are seeing has to be caused in part at least by human actions. It is human activity which is contributing to global warming. We cannot ignore it.

Even if we were not absolutely sure that our actions were contributing to global warming, to pollution and problems world wide, even if there was a 50 per cent chance there are some things we can do to stop it, are we not wise to be on the right side? I think we are.

We have also heard stories about the ozone layer. I heard about a week ago that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic this summer is twice as large as the year before. The things that are happening to our world can have a major impact on us.

The idea of global warming to people in Canada sounds great because we live through some pretty cold winters, especially here in Ottawa. I can tell the House it is always milder and more pleasant in Nova Scotia. Winters throughout the country are very cold. Therefore, global warming sounds nice.

In today's Halifax Daily News , a Canadian Press story reported some things that have happened this year as a result of the very hot summer. In 1989 I heard that four out of five of the hottest summers on record occurred in the 1980s. I am sure that has changed because in some respects this summer was one of the worst on record in terms of heat.

There was record destruction by forest fires across North America. There were terrible floods in southern Alberta. Toronto recorded the most humid summer in 30 years. In rural Ontario there was one report of 500,000 chickens dying in one weekend due to heat. We saw hurricanes. We have seen hurricanes before. They are not unusual. In the southern U.S. and on the east coast we saw terrible damage from hurricanes. All of these things added together have to mean that something is happening.

The summer of 1995 was the third hottest on record and maybe the muggiest. In Chicago more than 500 people died in a heat wave. In England it was the driest summer in 200 years. Those who say that we should not worry, that it is not getting hotter or that these are not really problems, should reconsider because these things have a great impact.

I mentioned the ozone layer. We have all become more aware over the last year since weather reports include UV readings of how much of a concern this must be. We know the impact of UV in terms of skin cancer. We should also be aware that if the ozone layer is depleted further and UV rays get through the atmosphere it can have a devastating effect. It is a gradual effect but more and more ozone depletion each year gradually stunts crop growth. If the ozone layer becomes thinner crops cannot grow. That is absolutely scary to the world. It seems to me that the environment must be a priority for the country and across the planet.

It makes sense that we are making it a priority to amend the Auditor General Act. In the red book the Liberals say:

Sustainable development, integrating economic with environmental goals, fits the Liberal tradition of social investment as sound economic policy. Preventive environmental care is the foundation of the Liberal approach to sustainable development;

The government is serious about promoting sustainable development. It is serious about being held accountable for its environmental actions and environmental planning. It really must be. Canadians want and deserve a prosperous, healthy country in which we and our children can work to achieve our aspirations.

This is also reflected in departmental decisions concerning the management of buildings, facilities and operations. The proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act before the House will permit, to a large extent, to achieve the kind of integration we are seeking. They are a key element of the government's response last fall to the first report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled "The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development".

The committee was of the opinion that, even though it is critical to examine measures taken by the government, it is even more important to make sure that environmental considerations are a basic planning element in every department. The committee asked that the environmental audit of government policies, programs and legislation be stepped up.

The committee believed that the government must report to Parliament and to the public the progress made to meet these objectives.

The committee advocated the government go beyond the idea of just an environmental auditor and instead establish a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. In these proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act the government will establish a commissioner. We will meet all of the objectives of the committee's report.

The amendments do contain at least one significant departure from the committee's report, which is to create the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development not as a separate position but within the existing framework of the auditor general's office. This is not in any way a retreat from our red book pledge. Instead it is a smarter, more effective way of carrying out the pledge.

The Office of the Auditor General has clout. It is independent of the government. It is well respected and it has expertise. For all these reasons it can greatly enhance the auditing of the government's environmental performance.

There is another advantage to this innovation. Within the work of the auditor general issues of environmental and sustainable development will be integrated directly with economic considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable development is all about.

What then is the substance of these amendments to the Auditor General Act? These modifications establish the function of the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development inside the Office of the Auditor General.

We all know that every year when the report of the auditor general comes out there is a blaze of publicity. Everyone is aware of that. We can now expect an equal impact for reports of environmental failures or shortcomings of government. The fair publicity we know ministers will feel is going to be a powerful spur to action because it applies to every minister in every department. At times this may make things uncomfortable for those of us in government, especially the ministers. However, the government is prepared to accept that discomfort if the end result is better government for Canadians and a better environment for all of us.

The scope of these changes is more far reaching than a simple institutionalization of the control and reporting procedures on the conduct of the government relating to ecology and sustainable development.

More plainly put, these amendments challenge federal departments to take environmental action. In this sense, they go further than the red book commitment in vigorously promoting sustainable development.

Under the amended act, each department will have two years to develop its own sustainable development strategy which will be

tabled in the House of Commons by the minister in charge. The strategy must be geared to results and must set out the department's objectives and the action plan to meet them.

In effect, every minister will thus become a sustainable development minister. For example, the industry minister will be responsible for that portfolio and also for ensuring the Department of Industry operates in an environmentally sound way. The same is true of the foreign affairs minister, the transport minister and every other minister in cabinet.

This is a big step forward in moving sustainable development from concept to reality. The departmental strategies will assist the auditor general and the commissioner in not only monitoring the government and preparing their reports to Parliament but will also serve as benchmarks by which the commissioner and auditor general can assess each department's performance in making the shift to sustainable development.

This is not a one-shot affair to be undertaken with fanfare and then quickly forgotten. Every three years each department must update its sustainable development strategy and its minister must table that update in Parliament.

Thanks to these changes, Canadians can get a better idea of how government is responding to the environmental challenge we face.

The auditor general will be empowered to receive petitions from the public on environmental questions and then will pass those petitions to the minister responsible for the particular area, who must respond within a certain time.

I can see how that could have an impact in my riding. In my riding of Halifax West in the community of Five Island Lake there is a former salvage operation site where there is a big problem with PCBs and other heavy metals and toxins. The clean up of that is a big problem. Right now it is considered an orphan site because the small business which operated it for so long really does not have the wherewithal to enable us to go after it for the costs. It needs some kind of funding. I do not want to keep pursuing the federal government. This kind of thing would help to create pressure to see that it is made a priority.

That will be the overall impact of the bill. It will help to ensure that environmental issues become a higher priority hopefully across the country, hopefully across our society but certainly within government.

The number and the focus of the petitions received by the ministers and the status of these matters will be monitored, and the commissioner will report to the House of Commons on the results obtained.

The amendments also require the commissioner to report annually to the House of Commons on behalf of the auditor general. These reports can focus on anything related to sustainable development, whatever the commissioner considers important enough to bring to the attention of the House. In particular, the commissioner's annual reports will indicate how far departments have gone in meeting the objectives and expectations they have set for themselves in their strategies.

The annual report of the commissioner will not be the only report to the House of Commons on the government's environmental performance. These amendments will ensure that environmental observations will continue to be included in the auditor general's reports as well. That is important because the auditor general's reports are more general in scope. They will include the considerations of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and the environment as well. Indeed, one of the commissioner's duties will be to assist the auditor general in preparing aspects of these reports referring to the environment and sustainable development.

The auditor general alone will be responsible for appointing the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I am sure the auditor general will choose someone with excellent professional qualifications and strong personal commitment. This will guarantee that the commissioner will be sufficiently at arms' length.

A decision on the funding for this position will be made once these amendments have been adopted. But let me assure you that there will be sufficient funding to guarantee these amendments will be implemented effectively.

The government is wasting no time in moving to meet its obligations under the proposed amendments. The government is committed to ensuring the promotion of thinking green as a central component of decision making at all levels of government and I hope eventually at all levels of our society.

The Prime Minister and all ministers have signed a guidebook entitled "A Guide to Green Government". It will help all federal departments make sustainable development their business. That is good news. It will also serve as a curriculum for the commissioner when she or he reports on the success departments are having in

integrating sustainable development practices into their own activities.

Sustainable development is a shared responsibility requiring the co-operation and involvement of Canadians from all walks of life. In preparing sustainable development strategies departments must involve stakeholders. That is one of the requirements of this bill. Thinking green is a central component of decision making at all levels because of the bill.

Departments will be required to report annually on their progress and they must provide information on the number, type and status of environmental assessments they are conducting.

Another example of the government's commitment was the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act last January. This legislation will ensure the environment is formally integrated into the project planning process of the federal government.

Through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency the government is already working hard to make sure environmental assessments of new government policies and programs are done and done well. These are important measures that establish a framework for sustainability at the federal government level.

For years, governments have talked of sustainability and declared their support in this regard. It has always been difficult, however, to ensure these commitments are met.

This is why environmental groups have long demanded an independent control and reporting function focussing on environmental actions. They saw this as a way to force the government to keep its promise. And just as obstinately, our predecessors in government have resisted having to keep their word.

The Liberal government has a different approach. We are not afraid of openness, because that is what Canadians want. It might worry us to be criticized when there are shortcomings on the environment but it can only do us good in the long run. Therefore we are making sustainable development the priority it ought to be.

This is another important step along the path to sustainable development and a healthy future for all Canadians. I recommend quick passage of this bill.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party made statements about lawyers and how terrible it is that so many lawyers in the country will get involved in the issue in various ways. Sometimes in this job it helps to have some understanding of the law and some training in law because we are dealing with interpretations. Reform members are telling us how laws will or will not be interpreted while at the same time they are claiming they have no understanding of legal matters.

The law is all about making distinctions. The penalties differ according to different elements of a crime. If there are additional elements in an offence then the penalties are different. For example, common assault is not considered in the same way. The penalty is not the same as an assault causing bodily harm because there are additional elements that require a stiffer or more serious response.

The reason the Criminal Code has so many sections is that we are making distinctions and there are many different elements and different kinds of crimes. When we are talking about an attack on a group there is a distinction. An attack of any kind is an important crime. It is important that there be strong sentences against attacks of whatever kind. When people are attacked because they belong to a group, whether it is a religious group or whatever, it is a kind of terrorism against the group. It is an additional element that requires an additional response. It is a little more serious. Both are serious but this is a little more so. It is an additional element and that distinction must be made.

I recently read the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Egan and Nesbitt case which deals with the issue of sexual orientation. There are quite a number of different opinions but they all used the phrase sexual orientation. I do not know what members here or what lawyers in the country claim to be better lawyers and to know more about the law than the Supreme Court of Canada. However they are comfortable using that phrase and express no concern or no hesitation in doing so. That is the first point I wanted to make.

The second point is this section does not condone any kind of activity. However, the government has introduced an amendment which provides that nothing in the bill will change or make something not a crime or condone any activity that is a crime at present. Therefore if pedophilia is a crime now it will still be a crime. If necrophilia is a crime it will still be a crime. Those things will not change. I cannot see why they are so concerned about this provision.

Too often these kind of offences have received lighter sentences than they should and there are no bases in these cases for appeal. There must be a basis for an appeal and this provision provides for that. They must be treated seriously and the bill provides that. I recommend support.

[G-7 Summit, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Halifax is ready. World leaders will begin to arrive tomorrow in beautiful Nova Scotia for the Halifax Summit.

They will discuss issues that will affect all of us. Reform of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund can help to build peace and economic stability throughout the world. Better co-operation to fight organized crime is key to all of our security whether we live in Tokyo or Timberlea.

I thank everyone who has worked so hard to make this Halifax summit a great success.

The summit action is not just around the table. Mount Saint Vincent University will bestow an honorary degree on Hillary Clinton. Halifax West will welcome hundreds of international media to see a few of our fabulous sites and we will show off our cultural industries and have a Ceilidh on the Cove in Hubbards. We welcome the world for a fabulous summit.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some but certainly not all of the comments of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

We should look at what Bill C-301 does. First, it would apply when an accused has two previous convictions for any of the 15 offences listed in the bill. Bill C-301 eliminates discretion of the court in sentencing the offender for the commission of a serious indictable offence.

I understand that violence in our society is an important problem, and I do not disagree with the intent here, but let us look at this for a moment. This response has some attractiveness; it is certainly simple and seems to be a very clear response. Is it the right answer to this problem?

It is true that all human institutions have human failings, so our courts are not perfect. However, by and large, if I read through decisions and look into the depth of the cases, I and most people also would find the same things, that we agree with the sentences if we actually have all the facts before us. One problem is that very often we only have a few very simple and limited facts about the case and the decision. Sometimes it seems the simplest answer is sometimes also the wrong answer.

It is noteworthy that all the offences listed in this bill already carry the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In other words, the judge already has the power to impose life sentences for any one of these offences, let alone for three. Although he does not have to, he has the authority to do so, and to take into account various factors in deciding on the appropriate sentence. This reflects the basic principle of let the punishment fit the crime. And it should. It means the key decision maker in matching the penalty to the crime is the individual who was there to see the case and all the facts of the case, the judge.

I know we will hear the argument that a pattern of three serious offences is enough to prove that an automatic life sentence does fit the crime, or at least the pattern of crime. To make a life sentence mandatory for offences other than murder or treason is a significant and I think ill-advised departure from our criminal law.

The Criminal Code currently provides for a mandatory life sentence for first or second degree murder or for high treason. There are other mandatory minimum sentences, but they are the exception in our criminal law. Mandatory life sentences are extremely rare.

I refer my colleagues to the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, "Sentencing Reform in Canada: The Canadian Approach", chapter eight, in which the commission opposed mandatory minimum sentences on the grounds that they diminish the role of the judge and can therefore result in arbitrary punishment and other inequities.

As an alternative to mandatory minimum sentences, the commission set out a number of sentencing principles, including this statement at page 154 of its report:

The paramount principle governing the determination of a sentence is that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender for the offence.

It seems to me that is as it should be. From Bill C-41, the sentencing bill now before the House, I refer to section 718(1): "A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender". The government is already adding that provision to the law with Bill C-41.

The reason for not removing the court's discretion to determine the sentence length is both sound and straightforward. The court should have the ability to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors that will help the criminal justice process impose the punishment that fits the crime.

The sentencing commission report sets out a long list of such aggravating factors at page 320, including the use of violence in the crime, existence of previous convictions, a manifestation of excessive cruelty toward the victim and other factors. Bill C-41 similarly acknowledges the importance of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing.

It is apparent with respect to the offences listed in the bill the court already has the authority to consider past offences as aggravating factors and to impose a life sentence for any of the offences listed in this bill.

The hon. member has tried to confine his three strikes model to a limited number of indictable offences and thereby avoid some of the excesses of the American statutes. He has succeeded only in narrowing the focus of Criminal Code offences that already carry a maximum life sentence.

Supporters of the bill will argue it is the pattern of offending that makes the difference, that requires this drastic change in our approach to sentencing. Let us examine the objectives of sentencing. One of the purposes of criminal law is denunciation through punishment. Nothing is achieved from the point of view of punishment by making a life sentence mandatory for three offences as opposed to allowing the court to consider all relevant factors in imposing sentence which can be life for any of the 15 listed offences. It seems likely such a pattern of repeat offending would lead the court to consider a very long sentence for any of these serious crimes.

The other purposes of sentencing include deterrence and the long term protection of society against criminals likely to reoffend. From this perspective, Bill C-301 casts too wide a net in its indiscriminate approach to patterns of offending. Would it not be better to tailor a law to the actual conduct that shows a likelihood of reoffending violently? Can we not focus on the circumstances of the offence, on the offender's mental state, on the brutality of his actions, all factors that evidence a continuing threat to the community?

We have such a law found in part 24 of the Criminal Code, dangers offender sections. This part specifically allows the court to impose an indeterminate sentence for a pattern of serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 as follows:

An indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder, involving, (i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or

(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict psychological damage upon another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more.

A number of particular sexual offences are also included in the definition. This approach to patterns of offending allows the court to link past offences and violent conduct to a prediction that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons.

The court is also required to hear psychiatric evidence and dangerous offender hearings allow both the prosecution and the defence to introduce evidence about the potential threat posed by the offender to the community. Those are good opportunities to hear what threat there is and the reasons for a long sentence. This structured approach contrasts with the automatic life sentence this bill would impose.

I recommend we let the courts do their job. The Criminal Code already provides for life sentences for these 15 crimes and additionally sets out a dangerous offender procedure which targets patterns of violence and links such patterns to predictions of violent reoffending.

[Committees Of The House, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade concerning Bill C-87, an act to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.

The committee has considered this bill and presents it without amendment.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's comments in relation to the TAGS program in Atlantic Canada.

I understand her concerns, but it is important that she realize that the process of retraining people who have been working in the fishing industry, which has been so devastated in the last few years by the failure of the cod, for example, and other aspects of the fishery, and trying to institute a program whereby you help people retrain and build them toward the possibility of working in other areas is not an overnight process.

I am not at all surprised that there have been problems and that the training programs have not succeeded greatly in getting people into other industries. If there is someone who has perhaps worked always on fishing boats or in a fish plant and has maybe grade five or grade ten education, they cannot be turned overnight into someone who will to be prospering in the information age. It is a long process and it takes a lot of effort and a lot of investment. It cannot be done overnight.

There seems to be a theory in the Reform Party that says let us cut them off and they will find something else. That is an interesting theory. It may work if they are in British Columbia. There is enough happening in some parts of the country, to some degree at least, so that there are other opportunities. In Atlantic Canada there are some opportunities, but there are not the kinds of opportunities that are going to deal with that kind of situation.

If people who have been fishing all their lives or working in fish plants cutting fish are cut off instantly from all kinds of government support, from the TAGS program for example, then they will not instantly get into a situation where they are to be out there if they have no support. They do not have the money to go west to find a job. If they get out there, what job are they going to take? What would you retrain them for? How long would it take to train a person in that situation to get a prosperous, successful job in a modern economy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not familiar with my riding and its nature. There is very little agricultural activity in my riding.

The member mentions rural Saskatchewan and that I should have some understanding of these issues. My grandfather would agree because he, my mother's father, was the member of Parliament for Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan and spoke often of the concerns of agriculture in the House in the 1950s.

The budget is balanced. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that in last year's budget Atlantic Canada took quite a strong hit. We lost a lot of military bases. Close to my riding, the base in Shearwater was cut by 40 per cent. We lost the base in Cornwallis and have had other cuts across Atlantic Canada in the 1994 budget. It was gratifying and satisfying to see a greater balance in this budget.

The hon. member talks about the problem of diversification in agriculture. Canola, invented in western Canada, is one of the products being grown more and more in western Canada and is providing a real good cash crop for western farmers. The area is also seeing more development and work in terms of bio-fuels. Both of these commodities are the kinds of things that can provide for western diversification and allow farmers to keep operating in western Canada, which I think is very important.