GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CRIMINAL CODE

SPEAKER'S RULING

There are four motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-55. Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately. I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.

MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-55, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 3 with the following:

``752.1 (1) Where an offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence defined in section 752 and, on application by the prosecution, at any time during the time the offender is serving the sentence imposed for the offence, the court is of''

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-55, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 4 the following:

``(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence defined in section 752 and has previously been convicted of such an offence, the court shall find the offender to be a long-term offender without an application being made in that regard.''

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-55, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 28 on page 6 with the following:

``fend if the offender has been convicted of

(sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault);

(a.1) an offence under subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of or by child), section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity), 171 (householder permitting sexual activity by child) or 172 (corrupting children), subsection 212(2) (living off the avails of prostitution by a child) or 212(4) (obtaining sexual services of a child);

(a.2) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section 155 (incest) or 159 (anal intercourse) or subsections 160(1) and (2) (bestiality and compelling bestiality);

(a.3) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female) or 156 (indecent assault on male) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as they read immediately before January 4, 1983; or

(a.4) has engaged in serious conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of another offence of which the offender has been convicted; and''

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-55, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 12 with the following:

``fifteen years from the day on which that person''

There is no question we need some substantive changes in the sentencing procedures as well as in the area of incarceration.

(1015 )

In a way prisoners have it too good on one side and on the other the line is not clear, if they step over it, on what should happen to them or what could happen to them. As a result there is a certain arrogance that has developed within the prison population of those who are bent on committing a lot of crime. There is no punishment within the correctional system. It is obvious this attitude would manifest itself in the lives of so many offenders and so few have their attitudes corrected in the system as it exists.

That has been evident to me as my colleagues and I have travelled across the country and have stopped in at various prisons in Canada. Some of us have been to the United States and looked at some of those prison procedures and methods of incarceration, but we are talking about Canada and the attitude of prisoners in Canada.

Are the politicians of the day doing what is best not only for the country, for the community, for the innocent, but also for the prisoners themselves? For the most part I would have to say a resounding no, the politicians of the day and the government of the day, the Liberal Party, certainly are not doing what they should be doing to curb the attitude of the criminal.

In response to their view of what should be done and to the outcry from the public, the justice minister brings forward Bill C-55. When we look closely at the bill it appears to be doing the right thing. It is incremental in its scope as far as change is concerned but ultimately it is not really coming close to what has to be done when we look at the rate of victimization in the country from the hands of those who are constantly reoffending.

My first motion seeks to deal with the dangerous offender application and to bring about the provision that would allow the crown to give notice at the time of conviction of an application review. What we are seeking to do is have that review take place at any time during the offender's release.

I have had an opportunity to look through some of the more recent convictions of offenders who have been released. After they have served their sentence or a portion of their sentence they have been released. All the reports clearly point to the fact that they are going to reoffend. Yet because of the present provision the law does not allow for a dangerous offender application to go forward after they have been incarcerated. It has to be done at the time of sentencing.

That is an injustice because so many times offenders are released back into society they immediately reoffend and are put back into the system again. That is at a great cost to the taxpayer, but then an unnecessary victimization is taking place because the crown or the government, corrections Canada, has chosen not to make that application at the very front end. There should be a provision to make an application of dangerous offender at any time during the incarceration of that offender.

I looked at some offences that took place in my own riding. I am going to make mention of one in particular, a fellow by the name of James Tocher, a pedophile. As far as I am concerned a pedophile is a dangerous offender, but there is no provision for that classification in Bill C-55 presented by the justice minister.

The justice minister for one reason or another has failed to expand this whole area of dangerous offender.

(1020)

Mr. Tocher has been charged on numerous occasions with pedophilia. The last account was for three young boys he attacked in Calgary this year. He is subject to sentencing. He is a former hockey coach and he made these attacks, these manipulations, very carefully. Unfortunately pedophiles are very devious people in the sense that they manipulate their way so that they can get a hold of children almost at anytime.

Since 1984 Tocher has been in and out of prison. He would spend a few months in prison, be released for a few months more after reoffending and then be released and reoffend. He has been before the courts five or six times and all basically relating to the same thing.

After the second time I would suggest that this man should not walk the street, and yet this is the case. He has been in and out, in and out, and no application made. It is often the case that the crown will not proceed in that fashion because it costs too much. The cost of victimization and revictimization is much higher than what dollars and cents would be to hear the case and make an application for dangerous offender.

A man like Tocher should be classified as a dangerous offender right off the bat or at anytime during that first sentence served. Once he has served his sentence and it is clear that he is going to reoffend the application can be made again and his time extended and extended if necessary.

That is one of the other provisions that we had made in our review of this legislation, as an amendment, that after 15 years if it is clear that this person is a dangerous offender and is going to reoffend then at that time there would be an opportunity for review, not in the short order provisions that have been placed by the justice minister on Bill C-55 where he has extended it from three years to seven years. We would like to see the review take place after fifteen years of time served.

I have colleagues who are going to speak to this area to a much greater degree. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley will certainly do that.

A third point that we feel is very necessary and again dealing with dangerous offenders is the sentence served upon second conviction of a personal injury offence would be an indefinite one. The subject has not learned his lesson the first time. By being subjected to a second offence and through the court hearing it would be an automatic indefinite sentence and a minimum service of time of 15 years. We are designating that as two strikes and you are out. In California is a law where there is a three strike provision which has certainly targeted a small element of the criminal society. It has put them under a restraint that takes any violent offender out for life. This is one area that we would like to see extended into our provisions in the Criminal Code. Here is the opportunity for the Liberal government to do exactly that.

I want to quickly point out that when it comes to long term offenders we would like to see that list of offences include many of the sexual offences and especially sex crimes against children. Those are our four amendments. My colleagues are going to deal with each one of those in a broader context. I am trusting that the Liberal government and those in this House will take consideration of what has been provided for here and vote in favour of the amendments.

(1025 )

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the motions which have been put forward by the hon. member. I wish to address these amendments as a group. I believe that would be the appropriate way to deal with them. They are all amendments to the dangerous offender and long term offender components of Bill C-55.

A new long term offender procedure which targets sex offenders is central to Bill C-55. Equally important are the changes that Bill C-55 proposes to the existing dangerous offender procedure. I suggest that Bill C-55 significantly increases the ability of prosecutors to obtain very long sentences against sex offenders and of course gives the courts the authority they need to impose these long sentences.

Bill C-55, in its present form, has received widespread support from victims rights groups, from prosecutors and from the police community. Many of the witnesses before the standing committee said that Bill C-55 is a major improvement.

What the amendments which the hon. member proposed try to do is expand the dangerous offender and long term offender procedures, but they do so in a simplistic way and in a way which would distort these carefully crafted measures and potentially lessen their impact.

Let me give an example. One of the amendments would postpone the initial parole review of a dangerous offender until 15 years into the sentence. Bill C-55 sets the date at seven years. The current law is three years. In other words, the government has found a middle ground between the Reform Party amendment and the status quo. There is good reason for this.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a parole review is especially important when we lock someone up for an indeterminate period. What is a reasonable period to make the offender wait before the initial parole review? In fact, no one gets out after only three years. Not very many get parole after seven years either. This is comparable to the waiting period for parole eligibility of sentences for very serious violent offences. That is why the government chose to set parole ineligibility at seven years.

The courts would not allow a waiting period of 15 years. It would be struck down as conflicting with the charter of rights.

Let us examine another of the proposed amendments. It proposes that an offender convicted of a second serious personal injury offence or perhaps even a broader list of offences would automatically be found to be a long term offender, without any special application being made. In other words, it would be two strikes and you are automatically out.

The Reform Party has taken the well designed, long term offender procedure in Bill C-55 and undermined the entire structure of this measure in an effort to get its cherished two strikes and you are out law on the books.

Let us spend a moment on the long term offender concept so that we can all understand the importance of this amendment. First, the idea came from a report by a federal-provincial task force on high risk offenders which federal and provincial justice ministers endorsed. The long term offender concept is a way to get at serious repeat sex offenders. It allows the court to add up to ten years of intensive supervision to the sentences of sex offenders. Moreover, if the crown does not get them with a dangerous offender application, it would probably succeed in getting a long term offender designation. Indeed, Bill C-55 gives us a double barrelled weapon against sex offenders.

The long term offender concept has also been seen as involving a special process, a special application, a thorough assessment of risk and an intensive hearing that goes beyond the normal sentence hearing. We need this special process partly because there is the prospect of locking this offender up for a very long time.

We also need to have a detailed assessment of risk. The long term offender rules allow a 60 day assessment by a range of experts. We need to have this special hearing so that the pattern of offending can come out in court and so that the extent of the offender's criminality can become fully evident.

(1030)

The amendment in question does violence to the very nature of long term offender procedure by making everything automatic. Every offender would be subject to a long term offender designation without distinction. The pattern of past offending would not come out and the court would lack the information it needs to judge risk and impose the appropriate long term supervision period.

An automatic long term offender finding is so unselective as to be arbitrary in its use. It would encounter serious charter problems. The long term offender procedure as set out in Bill C-55 is structured to work hand in glove with the dangerous offender option.

If the criminal is not found to be a dangerous offender, in many cases he can easily be designated a long term offender in the alternative. I prefer a double barrelled effective option to the Reform's scatter gun ineffective approach.

Let us call the proposed amendment the son of Bill C-254. It would allow a dangerous offender application to be brought at any time during the sentence of an offender. This is very close to a recent private member's bill by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It was examined in parallel to Bill C-55 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

It is safe to say that Bill C-254 received absolutely no support from the two dozen witnesses who appeared before the committee. Unlike Bill C-55 it was defeated in committee for very good reason, I might add. Allowing a dangerous offender application to be brought years after the offender has been sentenced is unconstitutional.

Bill C-55 creates a six-month window of opportunity beyond sentence whereby the crown, having given notice to the convicted person, can reserve the right to seek a dangerous offender ruling within a few months of conviction. It can only do this when new evidence comes to light.

By contrast, the Reform Party amendment would wreak all kinds of unconstitutional havoc. Offenders would be sitting around for years wondering if the dangerous offender application might be brought against them, even though according to the charter of rights everyone has the right to know what the penalty will be for the crime.

The courts will not allow the criminal justice system to resentence offenders for the same conduct. The four amendments are not helpful. Together they seek to widen the net of dangerous and long term offender measures and in so doing weaken both.

If implemented, the amendments would catch small fish in the net and lessen our ability and our resources to deal with the most serious offenders. The government has taken an extensive and profound amount of time to get Bill C-55 right. I wish the Reform Party had done the same.

It is very typical of Reformers to bring forward amendments to legislation, to promote legislation in public which has no hope of meeting the tests of constitutionality. If they brought forward the amendments they talk about, there would be serious violent offenders and serious sexual offenders taking advantage of unconstitutional laws and wasting court time. There would be no effective measures to use against them in the end.

In contrast, the government is bringing forward measures that are effective, enforceable and constitutional as another part of the package to ensure safe homes and safe streets.

As has been said on many occasions, the government has acted forthrightly and sternly to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Code. More amendments or more changes to toughen up the criminal law have brought than in the history of the nation in the last 3.5 years.

We have seen the results. A reduction in the crime rate is one. It is also a result of taking a broad based approach to social justice and jobs, in addition to measures in the criminal law to bring about a decreased crime rate.

I urge the Reform Party to look at the results and to promote laws that are constitutional.

(1035)

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak at report stage of Bill C-55.

The members for Prince-Albert-Churchill River and Calgary Northeast have raised interesting arguments. We will be looking primarily at Motion No. 3, which warrants particular attention, because it aims at amending section 753.1 of the Criminal Code, and more specifically subsection 2.

The section concerns applications for declarations of long term offenders, that is, people presenting risks. I do not think that, in its bill as presently worded, the government goes far enough when it sets the criteria the court is to decide on to determine the risk of an individual's reoffending.

Thus the government says that the court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend, if:

-the offender has been convicted of an offence under section 151 (sexual interference), 152 (invitation to sexual touching), or 153 (sexual exploitation), subsection 173(2) (exposure) or section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault)-

-engaged in serious conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of another offence of which the offender has been convicted.

Thus Motion No. 3 would oblige the court to consider the behaviour of a sexual offender serious when the person has been convicted of an offence under

-section 151 (sexual interference), 152 (invitation to sexual touching) or 153 (sexual exploitation), subsection 173(2) (exposure) or section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault).

(a.1)-an offence under subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of or by child), section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity), 171 (householder permitting sexual activity by child), or 172 (corrupting children), subsection 212(2) (living of the avails of prostitution by a child) or 212(4) (obtaining sexual services of a child).

(a.2) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section 155 (incest) or 159 (anal intercourse) or subsections 160(1) and (2) bestiality and compelling bestiality).

(a.3) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female) or 156 (indecent assault on male)-

So, as we can see, the list proposed in Motion No. 3 is much more comprehensive than what constitutes a serious offence of a sexual nature, since the list is not limited to the three or four offences identified in Bill C-55 at the moment.

(1040)

Committing bestiality or compelling children to do so seems to me to be extremely serious conduct of which the court must take account, and the present wording could allow an argument to the effect that it was not so serious, since it is not so described in the bill's proposed wording of section 753.1.

The official opposition and I feel that Motion No. 3 greatly improves the guidelines that will be used by the courts to determine whether a person is an offender requiring supervision. In this sense, we must strive for precision in our criminal law, in our Criminal Code, in order to ensure uniform application of the law throughout Canada.

We do not have the time to wait for the Supreme Court to rule, in five, six, seven, eight or ten years' time, that such delinquent sexual conduct is highly unacceptable conduct that should normally be taken into account by a lower court.

We can determine right here in the House of Commons, the ideal forum in which to do so, what we consider to be serious delinquent conduct of a sexual nature that must be taken into account by the court. We can do this here, without leaving it up to the courts to decide, as the present wording of section 753.1 would have us do. The definitions of delinquent sexual conduct, as proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, are therefore a step in the right direction for counsel and also for the courts called upon to enforce these provisions following royal assent and passage of this bill. The official opposition will therefore be voting in favour of MotionNo. 3.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to speak to Bill C-55, although I feel the government's response to dangerous offender legislation falls far short of what it should be.

In my 3.5 years in this place I have concentrated a great deal of my time and energy in looking at dangerous offender legislation, its shortcomings, and ways we could improve upon it. I introduced a private member's bill to the House in the first session in April

1994. It passed unanimously at second reading and then was buried in committee by the Liberal government for over two years before it was dealt with when Bill C-55 came into play.

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River made some inaccurate statements in the House earlier when he said that none of the witnesses at the committee studying both Bill C-55 and Bill C-254, my private member's bill, supported my bill. He is correct in that the Liberal members of the committee did not support any element of it. They completely gutted it and refused to bring it back into the House for consideration.

There were witnesses that did support it. I would like to give representation from the committee that studied the two bills. I quote Chief Julien Fantino of the London Police Force who said that Bill C-55 and Bill C-254 were a significant steps in the right direction and that high risk offenders must be differentiated from the rest of the inmate population and handled accordingly.

He went on to say:

If a person is deemed to be so high risk, so dangerous and so likely to reoffend, I quite agree there ought to be some state imposed controls and conditions, some governance of such an individual, to the point where communities are absolutely guaranteed that person will not constitute a risk to anyone.

(1045)

Professor Hart went on to say: ``-psychopaths commit significantly more violence overall, but they actually commit very different kinds of violent offences as well-psychopaths tend to make decisions quite quickly to commit violent crimes that are instrumental for economic gain or other reasons. It's not simply a result of strong emotional arousal or things like that-you find they are actually much more violent and violent in a different way''.

Professor Hare goes on to say: ``Their violence is predatory, planned, premeditated, dispassionate and cold-blooded when compared with the intense emotional arousal that often leads to a violent act for the rest of the offenders''. They are speaking about the 15 to 20 per cent of the population that can easily be assessed as psychopaths.

I want to go on to what the victims of violence groups have to say. Mr. Sullivan stated: ``It is unfortunate that the committee could not have dealt with the bill sooner,'' speaking of Bill C-254. ``It would have been very valuable had the committee dealt with that two years ago rather than waiting for Bill C-55-Bill C-254 is not whether or not it is a good idea. I hope we can all agree that it is a good idea. Strictly on a public safety platform this bill would save lives. Make no doubt about it, this bill would save lives''. He is not talking about Bill C-55. He is talking about my private member's bill C-254.

He goes on to talk about the charter. He talks about who the charter is protecting, the victims or the offenders and took very great exception to the argument that Bill C-254 would not survive a charter challenge.

It was very clear from the testimony of many of the witnesses that they fully supported an attempt by this government or any other government to identify-and they can be easily identified-those 15 to 20 per cent high risk offenders who do not respond to treatment, who are not likely to be able to go back into society and lead meaningful lives. One of the experts in these matters said that you can detect with the same accuracy a psychopath as you can that treatment for a heart condition is going to relieve angina pain. I would suggest that heart patients are not going to refuse treatment, the angioplasty or whatever, if the high percentage of them know that it is going to help them.

The witnesses supported this government or another government taking a much stronger stand in keeping dangerous offenders, the 15 to 20 per cent who are a high risk of reoffending, off the streets; not long term offenders, not giving them an extra six months after the time of sentencing, but when they are identified right up to the last year of being released from prison, of being designated or of allowing the system to keep those high risk offenders off the street to protect our society from people who have been tested and who have been selected as individuals who cannot be treated, who cannot be trusted to not reoffend.

When questioned by the committee on how reliable was the test and when can we start using it, we were told that it is very easy. The success rate for juveniles age 13 and 14 is just as great as it is with adults. The testimony of the expert witnesses suggested that you have a much greater chance for treatment of a juvenile who has been assessed than you do with an adult and that rather than wasting the resources on trying to change the behaviour of an adult, where you are not going to succeed, those resources should be placed where they can do the most good.

There is no question in my mind that the government, as with many other pieces of legislation, has taken the easy road. The legislation is not prepared to do what it should to protect society.

(1050)

The government is fooling itself when it claims to be making all these substantive changes in the justice field, for example, in the Young Offenders Act and the areas of sentencing and high risk offenders. It is fooling itself if it thinks those changes will make a meaningful difference in society.

In the next few weeks and months people will have to make a decision. They will have to decide whether the government's weak approach to all these issues is what they want or whether they want a government that is solely committed to the protection of society. Unless I am naive, I thought that was what government was all about. I thought government was governing for the people, that it would make sure the majority of the people in society were being cared for and provided for and that their protection was being guaranteed to them.

I did not come to this place thinking we were here to make sure a few people were going to get preferential treatment, that the offenders were going to get better treatment than the victims, that high risk offenders were going to be put back out on the streets to reoffend, to cause more grief and heartache for innocent victims in society. I assure the House that is not why I came here. That is not why I have spent three and a half years trying to get the government to understand the concerns of Canadians.

Canadians want somebody to be concerned about them. They want a government that will look after them, their wives, their children, their families, not the 15 per cent to 20 per cent high risk offenders who have committed violent, vicious acts, sometimes murder, sometimes not. The emphasis of government should be on the protection of society.

This legislation needs to be amended. If the amendments we are presently dealing with at report stage will help in any way to add some weight and protection to society, then members should consider them. The government had an opportunity three years ago this month to deal with this issue but it chose to sit on it for over two years before it brought in other legislation. It did this in order to take credit for being concerned about the needs and the protection of society.

This is a joke, the government is a joke and the people will have a chance to change that in the next coming months.

Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning on Bill C-55 which deals with high risk offenders. In preparing to do so I was struck with the fact that if we had tougher laws and if we had dealt more seriously with violent offenders earlier, many of them would not be in the position they are in today.

While Bill C-55 has some improvements, it is really a half-hearted response to the demands of the Canadian people for tougher action on criminals. When I hear the response of the government about its concern for legislation that will pass the charter, it is saying there is more concern in that area than there is for the safety of Canadians.

I know the government has to be aware of the consequences of any legislation but nevertheless the message that is going out is that it is giving the benefit of the doubt to criminals rather than to law-abiding citizens. That is the environment or the thinking that is evident on the other side when it is preparing legislation to deal with changes to the criminal justice system.

This is a major concern of Canadians. Next to unemployment, Canadians are concerned about safety in their homes, in their streets and in their communities.

(1055)

I recall in my home city of Barrie during the 1993 election campaign that three residents in my community were murdered. The impact that it had back then was very significant. As a matter of fact, an accused is now just being brought to trial. That reinforced the fear that exists not only in my community but all across Ontario and Canada for the safety of law-abiding citizens.

The government is failing in what is a major responsibility to our people, that of protecting the life and property of law-abiding citizens. Should these citizens ever become victims they discover to their horror that they are failed again. They discover the difference between their rights and the victim's rights. I applaud my colleague from Fraser Valley West who has put forward his private member's bill dealing with the rights of victims, something that is long overdue.

Earlier I said that this bill was a half-hearted response by the government to deal severely with violent offenders. If we want to look at a half-hearted response I do not think there is any better example than Bill C-45. It dealt with violent people in our communities. The lack of commitment to deal with violence is shown in that bill, which is really the bill that introduced two-tier killers. If you are convicted of first degree murder of one person you are eligible for parole but if you kill more than one person you are not. That is not what Canadians are looking for. If you take a life, whether it is one life or more, you should do your full sentence of 25 years.

It raises the question: Who do we work for? Are we here in the House of Commons to represent our voters? Reformers are. We are here to represent our voters. We ask our voters questions and we listen to what our voters say.

I want to share the voice of my riding of Simcoe Centre. I want to share the responses to the householders I have sent out with questionnaires dealing specifically with the criminal justice system. The first was a survey dealing with section 745 of the Criminal Code, the faint hope clause. I did this survey in the spring of 1995. Section 745 of the Criminal Code allows convicted first degree murderers to apply for early release after serving only 15

years of their life sentence. I asked: Do you believe this section should be eliminated? Of the 1,645 who responded, 85 per cent said yes it should be removed, 9 per cent said no and 6 per cent were undecided.

On the question of capital punishment, in the fall of 1995 I asked: Do you support the holding of a binding national referendum on capital punishment? From almost 1,600 respondents, 78 per cent said yes, 15 per cent said no and 7 per cent were undecided.

In the spring of 1995 I asked my constituents about Bill C-68 and gun control. I asked: Where should the primary emphasis in new legislation be placed? The use of firearms in criminal acts and firearms smuggling or additional restrictions on legal gun owners? Of the responses to that survey 87 per cent said that the primary emphasis should be on firearms used in criminal acts and firearms smuggling and only 4 per cent said there should be additional restrictions on legal gun owners. There were 1,645 responses to that survey.

(1100)

The last question dealing with criminal justice was on the Young Offenders Act. That was in the fall of 1994. The question I asked was: ``Do you believe the Young Offenders Act should be changed to ensure more adequate punishment of young offenders?'' There were 2,200 responses to that survey. Ninety-seven per cent said yes, 2 per cent said no, and 1 per cent was undecided.

The responses to the four questions I just outlined clearly demonstrate the constituents of the riding of Simcoe Centre want us to get tougher with criminals, particularly violent criminals in society.

Let us take a look at each of the issues and the overwhelming support that is evident in my riding. Section 745 is the faint hope clause dealing with first degree murderers. There was a murder in my riding. A young father by the name of Kaplinski was murdered by Kinsella and Sales. I talked to the family. When we talk to the families of victims we understand how tragic it is when they have to relive the horror of the murder at a section 745 hearing.

My riding is very much in tune with what Canadians from coast to coast want when it comes to capital punishment. I understand that 76 per cent of Canadians support capital punishment. In Simcoe Centre it is 78 per cent.

With Bill C-55 Bernardo will still be eligible for a hearing.

We had the gun control bill. The problem with the bill is that it gave us a false sense of security. Many in society think it is the answer to making their homes and streets safer, but it is not.

Where are the government's priorities when it would spend up to $400 million for gun control to supposedly make society safer for women and only spend $4 million on breast cancer?

Then we have the Young Offenders Act. The grandmother of Sylvain Leduc visited Ottawa last week. He was murdered by young offenders who showed no remorse. There was no apology. There will be no deterrent and these young people will go on to a life of crime.

Whenever groups of school children from my riding visit Ottawa I meet with them. Many of these school children are victims of young offenders. I asked them for a show of hands on what they think about the changes we are proposing such as lowering the age and identifying the young offenders. The majority of them said we should be lowering the age and we should be identifying the violent young offenders in our communities. Even our young people feel that we should be getting tougher with young offenders.

We would like to see Bill C-55 strengthened with two strikes and you are out. We do not believe violent offenders should have an unlimited ability to reoffend. We should be able to designate someone as a dangerous offender at any time during the sentence. We should not be restricted to a six-month period. We should broaden the definition of dangerous offenders to include pedophiles and sexual predators.

Canadians will have an opportunity in a few weeks to voice their concerns about the government's lack of desire to deal in a serious way with what is a major problem for Canadians not just in my riding but right across Canada. They want violent offenders to be held responsible for their actions, particularly young offenders. If we dealt with them in a more responsible way they would not go on to a life of crime.

Their day is coming. It is only weeks away. It will be a major issue in the election campaign. I am looking forward to Canadians voicing their support for the only party that has a platform to get tough with violent criminals.

(1105)

Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-55.

We heard a lot about dangerous offenders and some offences that should be included in the dangerous offender category. I will try to explain to the government the need to categorize and identify why certain offences should be under the dangerous offender category.

Why is the public looking more and more to articulating why certain offences should be categorized and why there is a lack of trust the judiciary will actually call a spade a spade and give out a sentence in proportion to the crime committed? In doing so I will

try to explain why the judiciary is out of sync with society and why victims today have lost confidence.

For instance, during the sentencing of a man who broke into his estranged wife's home while on probation, Judge Louis Matheson said that: ``I don't know whether it is your own fault or you happen to have a very sensitive mate who is easily rattled''. Twelve days later the man's girlfriend was shot to death and he was charged with her murder. I raise this story to try to show why the system of justice is out of sync with victims and those who may become victims and their expectations.

During the sentencing of a man for sexual assault, Judge Louis Matheson said that if the victims had been women instead of girls he would have thrown it out of court. Can we imagine the logic behind that statement?

Frederick Metcalfe of Oshawa was given a two-year less a day prison term followed by three years of probation for grabbing a three-year old boy and kicking him in the stomach in the house Metcalfe shared with the boy's mother, his girlfriend. The blows ruptured the boy's liver and pancreas. He also suffered permanent brain damage that crippled him physically and mentally. He cannot walk or talk and has lost vision in one eye.

Although Metcalfe was charged with aggravated assault, Justice Sam Murphy was not convinced the brain damage the boy suffered that night resulted from the attack. After one doctor testified the boy could have suffered a brain aneurysm, Judge Murphy convicted Metcalfe of a lesser charge of assault causing bodily harm. He was given two years less a day for a savage attack on a child who is now crippled for life.

These decisions in our courts are happening all the time. People are sick and tired of them. People are apprehensive that there will be real justice applied in a courtroom today.

Some wonder why we are demanding in Bill C-55 that certain types of offences be included in the dangerous offender category. The reason is that we cannot any longer trust the decisions of those who should be making them.

Not too long ago in 1989, to show how consistent things are because I can give some very recent situations, Douglas Schwartz raped and maimed a 7-year old girl very close to my riding. He raped her so savagely that her vagina had to be surgically reconstructed. As a result of an appeal in 1991, not so very long ago, Judge Allan McEachern reduced Schwartz's prison sentence for that attack from nine to five years because he said there was no evidence that Schwartz was either sexually deviant or a risk to the community. These are facts I am talking about here.

(1110)

He concluded that Schwartz's thinking was impaired by drink when he assaulted the child. The magnitude of the chief justice's error of judgment became apparent when Douglas Schwartz was found guilty in the Supreme Court of British Columbia of sexually assaulting a woman six months after his early release from jail. That is what we are talking about, yet the House wonders why we are asking for these kinds of offences to be included in dangerous offender status.

They are not made up stories. They are errors in judgment. They are loopholes in the laws of the country. They are problems that can be resolved in the House of Commons, but they are not being resolved.

The folks over there can say that Reformers are some kind of group of extremists.

Mr. Fewchuk: You belong to the cult.

Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I hear the member. People who live in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and other places are getting ready to vote. I can assure Canadians that the members sitting here are very close to their communities. They see these kinds of situations day in and day out. These real horrors are happening without the government being accountable.

I heard the Minister of Justice say in the House: ``This person just got a conditional sentence. I know he raped and tortured this young lady, but it is going to an appeal court''. I say: ``You spineless creature''. It is in appeal court because he did not have the courage of his convictions in the first place to exclude serious offences from conditional sentencing. That is the problem.

We have debated this point until we are sick and tired of debating it. Now we are dealing with Bill C-55 and we are telling the government that included in the list of dangerous offences should be a whole bunch of other offences that have been left out.

What will the government do when we have a repeat of the Darren Ursel situation in British Columbia, when these same kinds of offenders offend women? What will the government do when we stand here and tell it to look at what it has done? The government will say that it should have gone to appeal court, that it should be appealed, that more money should be given to the lawyers to appeal it.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The member says: ``Hear, hear''. They agree with it.

The government will say that we should leave the decisions with the judges of the land who are well known to make abysmal decisions in some cases.

(1115)

I hear decisions like sexual assaults ``occur when the woman is drunk and has passed out, and the man comes along, sees a pair of hips and helps himself'' from a judge.

This country cannot afford to have a government in place that does not have the courage of its convictions and will not legislate law. It cannot afford to have the judiciary-

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the member's time has expired.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating yet another of the bills the justice minister is trying to rush through the House before an election call at the end of the month.

Suddenly the justice minister has decided that he should look like he is doing something to give justice to Canadians. That is good. One wonders why it has to happen just before an election, before the justice minister is going to the voters.

In any event, here we are debating the fourth or fifth justice bill that is supposed to go through the House in a very short period of time. Bill C-55 is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to high risk offenders.

If there is a high risk that a criminal or an offender, if released back into society, will harm or violently reoffend, then this bill is supposed to protect society from that person by ensuring that he or she is not released back into society until no longer a high risk offender.

The original Bill C-55 was not very effective in this, therefore the justice minister is trotting up once more to strengthen it. It would be good if he succeeded. Unfortunately, as usual, a timid half measure is being trotted out, is being aggressively sold and marketed as a substantial move forward to give Canadians the protection that our society needs and is not getting.

It is up to Reform, as usual, to point out how misleading and how ineffective these measures are. It becomes a marketing battle where the Liberals and the justice minister say ``we sure got tough on crime, you are a lot safer with us''.

It is up to the opposition to point out how ineffective and how unsubstantial these changes are that are being sold as the real goods. As a well known commercial says, where's the beef? There is precious little in so many of these measures.

Yet if we do not support them, the minister then turns around and in a very politically crass way writes letters to the newspapers saying Reform has voted against his wonderful measures to protect people, failing to mention that these are not wonderful measures at all and do not deserve anybody's support at least not most Canadians'.

Here we are with Bill C-55. It is very interesting because Bill C-55, as members know from some of the speeches and interventions of my colleagues, does not apply to a whole list of violent criminals and certain people who are dangerous to society.

Specifically, it does not apply to those who prey on our children, who are sexual predators and who are pedophiles. This is a very interesting omission because it could so easily not have been an omission and because our debate on this bill follows very closely on the heels of our debate yesterday on Bill C-27.

(1120 )

Bill C-27, as is so typical with Liberal bills, puts a lot of hearts and flowers into the preamble, which of course has no legal effect but always plays the violin as to how the Liberals are so concerned about the safety of Canadians. Then the measures that follow do little or nothing to really follow up substantively on that concern.

In the preamble to Bill C-27 the first two paragraphs provide a general context and affirm Parliament's concern about violence against women and children in the areas addressed by the bill, acknowledging children's heightened vulnerability to and greater need for protection from exploitation and abuse.

Paragraph 6 of the preamble recalls Canada's undertaking in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect children from and prevent their sexual exploitation and abuse.

Paragraph 8 of the preamble expresses Parliament's wish in the interest of promoting the life, liberty and security of women and other victims of criminal harassment to strongly denounce that offence by strengthening the law in relation to it.

Here we have some nice Liberal rhetoric about the need to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. What do we have the very next day? We have a bill concerning criminals who are known sexual predators, who are dangerous to the safety of our children, who could be kept indefinitely out of society to protect our children, and these people are totally missing from the list of offenders who can be designated dangerous offenders under Bill C-55.

We have to ask why that would be when there is a lot lip service paid to protecting our children. In the very next bill that could protect our children from sexual predators and from people who are very likely to reoffend, and since we know that individuals falling into this category are a danger to our children, why on earth does Bill C-55 fail to ensure that these individuals can be kept out of society and protect our children from them? I have been told, and I am sure Liberal members and the Liberal justice minister know, that there is no known cure for pedophilia.

Not only does the bill omit that category of offender, but we have introduced an amendment to correct this oversight. That is very kind of Reform, I would say. It is doing our job in a constructive way to make sure that the stated objectives of the Liberal justice minister and the Liberal government to protect society are actually carried out. We have done the responsible thing.

I would like Canadians to watch very carefully when it comes time to vote on this amendment to include sexual predators and those who exploit our children in the list of people who can be kept indefinitely incarcerated under the dangerous offender provisions of Bill C-55. I am willing to bet that the Liberals will not put that in the bill. They will vote against the Reform amendment. But during the election they are going to play the violin and say ``boy, do we ever care about protecting children''. When push comes to shove and they could protect children, that is not in the bill and they will not even support an amendment to put it in.

I get pretty tired of seeing letters like the one printed in the Richmond News on March 23 where the justice minister has the gall to say: ``We're really trying to protect this society but Reform won't support us''. I guess not with this kind of hypocrisy and nonsense.

The hearts and flowers, the preamble, the nice stuff that is written at the beginning of these bills everyone would agree with. What Canadians need to do is look at the substance of these bills and see if there is any beef in them. Nine times out of ten there is none.

(1125 )

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55 and to speak specifically about the amendments we propose to bring this bill into line with reality.

This bill has generated a lot of interest for people in my riding. One of the reasons for this interest is a couple was murdered at Valleyview 10 years ago by a fellow who is serving some time in one of the penitentiaries. He is due to be released by May 1. I want to use that case to illustrate how badly this Liberal government has handled the whole criminal justice issue. It will also illustrate how our amendments to Bill C-55 will help to correct some of that imbalance.

In the last few weeks we have seen the justice minister scrambling to shore up support. He knows he will be in grave trouble during the next election campaign. The Liberal government is in grave trouble because it has mishandled the whole criminal justice issue during the past three and a half years of its mandate. This government should not be returned to office because it is not reflecting the concerns of Canadians.

Let me give this example of what has been happening. The case of Rod Martineau is a classic example of what is going on all across the country. it clearly illustrates the effects of this bill and the importance of change. Rod Martineau is the 27-year old man who assisted in the murders of two Valleyview, Alberta residents, Les and Ann McLean, on February 6, 1985.

On that day both he and Tremblay went to the McLean home with the intent to rob. Seventy-year old Les McLean was the only one home at the time. The men held him at gunpoint and waited for his wife Ann to return home. Patrick Tremblay, Martineau's partner, then shot both of them in the back of the head. The very day this happened, Rod Martineau had just been released from a young offender facility in Grand Prairie. One of the case workers had driven out to Valleyview to be released.

The two men murdered this couple because they were looking for some money from their business. Martineau was only 15 years old at the time. He had spent quite a bit of time in institutions. According to the son of Les and Ann, Rod Martineau could have fled the scene at any time of the impending crime while his partner perpetrated this crime. Instead he helped to hold the two people at gunpoint while he waited for the murder to take place, and he assisted.

Martineau first appeared in youth court but was then transferred to adult court. He was subsequently charged with second degree murder but this conviction was overturned by the supreme court, another example of our Liberal justice system. He was then sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter, robbery with violence and possession of a weapon. He was considered violent and an escape risk.

The son of the victims says that at no time has Martineau shown any remorse at all for his crimes. He has not accepted rehabilitation while serving his sentence, yet we are still letting him out on statutory release. I think he has had three releases to this point.

He was to be released the first time after serving only two-thirds of his sentence. How is this possible? We have our current justice minister to thank for this. Bill C-41, which the justice minister introduced a short time ago in this Parliament, allows for six types of conditional release. Martineau, a convicted killer, qualifies under the statutory release portion. This is an automatic release. The parole board has no say in it. All it can do it set conditions and return the individual to the penitentiary if, and in this case when, the conditions are violated.

As most people in the Peace River constituency expected, within a few short weeks of Martineau's being released under that statutory condition as given to him by the Minister of Justice, he was back in jail. That was no surprise. The correctional service says that half of all Canadian cons freed under the statutory release portion flunk out and are reincarcerated.

Although 30 per cent are rearrested on technical violations such as drug charges and abuse of alcohol, a full 20 per cent of those who are out on statutory release commit new crimes. Yet a spokesman for Correctional Service of Canada said that all it can do is its best to make the transition to the community as smooth as possible for those who are let out on statutory release. The law is the law, after all. Who do we have to thank for that law? The current justice minister and his Liberal justice system which is failing Canadians. Canadians are upset. They are angry. I hope

they will make a strong case in the next election to correct this problem.

(1130)

Since the first statutory release Martineau has been released twice. After all, the poor guy has to have a chance to get back into society. Even though he has a drug problem, has never shown any remorse for his actions and has never accepted any rehabilitation, the poor man has to have a chance. On October 3, 1996 and on February 21, 1997 he was released. Both times he violated the conditions of his release almost immediately and was returned to the slammer within days.

This man will be back on the streets on May 1. His sentence is up. He is the type of individual who should be held in prison because he is a danger to society. Although it is clear to the people working in the penitentiary that Martineau is likely to reoffend, he will be released. They have no say in it because the justice minister has converted his sentence to a conditional one and his time will be up.

Given the lack of remorse and his drug problems, surely he would qualify if Bill C-55 was amended to reflect the concerns I have addressed. Specifically Bill C-55 should state that any individual who can be determined to be a danger to society should not only be assessed during the first six months of the sentence but at any time during the sentence. If there is any belief that convicted killers or persons who committed a serious crime can be rehabilitated, surely the assessment should take place near the end of their sentence, within the last six months.

The current legislation states that we can only determine if a person is a dangerous offender within six months of sentencing. That does not make any sense. Our justice critic, the member for Calgary North, suggested an amendment to the legislation. As my colleagues who have spoken before me have stated, the chance of the Liberal government accepting an amendment to Bill C-55 to allow an assessment to be made at any time during a sentence is about nil.

We have to wonder what is the motive. We have seen a lot of window dressing in the House on criminal justice issues. The gun control bill is a perfect example. Bill C-68 was modelled on the handgun registration system that has been in place since 1935. It is a poor model to use. We have more crimes being committed with handguns now than we had before in spite of the fact that there is a registration system. Now farmers, ranchers and other law-abiding people who use guns in a responsible manner will have to register their rifles and shotguns.

Most people see the bill for what it is. It is window dressing, looking like something is being done about criminal justice. It is a disservice to Canadians who want some real action on law and order and a stronger criminal justice system. It does not mean harassing farmers, ranchers and hunters. It means attacking the real problem with the criminals.

On the other side the justice minister brought forward conditional sentencing in Bill C-41. He suggested that if people are to be designated violent offenders they can only be assessed during the first six months of their sentence.

Does that make any sense? Does the government believe in rehabilitation? Obviously that is not the time to do the assessment. The assessment should be done at any time during the sentence. It would make more sense if it were done closer to the end of their sentence when we could see whether or not they were still a danger to society, have shown remorse for their action or have accepted rehabilitation. Things that make common sense do not seem to be the way the justice minister proceeds.

(1135)

Members opposite will have a chance to vote on the amendment of my colleague from Calgary Northeast on Bill C-55 which states:

That Bill C-55, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 3 of the following:

752.1 (1) Where an offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence defined in section 752 and, on application by the prosecution, at any time during the time the offender is serving the sentence imposed for the offence, the court is of

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-55. I congratulate my colleague from Calgary Northeast on the work he has done on this important issue.

For 3.5 years members of my party have continually fought for the rights of Canadians to live in peace, free from being abused by criminals and free of criminal acts. The government has repeatedly watered down any solutions put forward. In the view of many Canadians and many members of the House it has not done the job it should have done in trying to protect Canadians. It should have made the protection of innocent civilians the number one priority of the justice department. The government continually pursues the theory that the most important aspect is the protection of the rights of criminals instead of the rights of innocent civilians.

I will deal with a few issues in Bill C-55 and some of the things suggested by members of my party. One of the most egregious occurrences throughout the tenure of this Parliament is that criminals who have been proven to be dangerous to Canadians, pedophiles, sexual predators and people who simply cannot control their violent tendencies, go into the cycle of crime, punishment, incarceration and release. The real victims are Canadians who are subjected to their violence.

I remember working in a jail some years ago. I was called to the jail one Sunday night to visit an individual who was to be released. I was the doctor on duty at that time. When I started to examine the individual he attacked me and the guards who were with me.

When I looked at his rap sheet of violent behaviour that was longer than my arm. He had a psychiatric problem. It was not his fault. He was to be released into the public the following Monday. As sure as the sun rises in the east, he will commit another violent offence and hurt another innocent civilian.

I spoke to the head of the jail. In my naivety I asked how an individual who both he and I knew would hurt somebody else could be released. His response was that it was the law and he could nothing about it.

It is one of the reasons I am sure many of my colleagues and I got involved. We have seen examples of situations where patently violent people are being released into the public. A person who has committed a violent offence may have a psychiatric problem, may be paranoid or a paranoid schizophrenic and may need medication and an environment where he can be treated. It is not fair for him to be released. Certainly it is not fair to the public that will be subjected to his behaviour.

Once again the government had three years of ideal opportunity to do something about the matter but it has done nothing. Furthermore it has done nothing to address the precursors to crime.

(1140)

Another tragedy occurring throughout the country is the movement of psychiatric patients into the community at any cost. Some of them ought to be moved into the community and will function very well there. Some however do not.

We need not look any further than at the streets in the downtown core of large urban centres to see many patients who are living in conditions of squalor and abuse because some bright light in some ivory tower decided they were better off in the community than in an environment where they can be taken care of, medicated and live safe and productive lives.

A silent epidemic is occurring in our communities across the country. Unfortunately the government has again chosen not to work with its provincial counterparts to try to deal with the issue.

All of us in this room know of individuals who have psychiatric problems. Some of them function very well in society but a small segment of them do not. It is high time we realized that some of them need to be in a care giver environment where they can be medicated appropriately and taken care of. This subgroup of individuals cannot take care of themselves. They do not deserve to be wandering around the streets, living in squalor and not being medicated.

I put forward a private member's bill 2.5 years ago, the three strikes and you are out bill. It said that any individual who commits three violent offences should be put in jail. People who have demonstrated that they are a danger to society should be put in jail for 25 years. The government refused to make it votable and hence it died on the Order Paper.

My colleague from Calgary North repeatedly fought for the same issue. Again it was stonewalled by the government. Why has it stonewalled the Reform Party? Why has it repeatedly stonewalled my colleagues from putting forth constructive, sensible solutions to keep individuals who are dangerous offenders, a harm to society and a harm to innocent civilians off the streets?

My colleagues have made reasonable suggestions. They asked that the dangerous offender designation be expanded. I ask the public to listen to members of my party who wish to expand the designation. We wish to extend the dangerous offender designation to individuals who commit sexual interference crimes, people who obtain sexual services from a child, people who corrupt children, people who commit sexual exploitation of children and sexual acts against children under the age of 18 such as incest, sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

How could the government argue with a party that wants to protect children from being subjected to individuals who find it acceptable to rape children and commit sexual assaults on them?

Furthermore my colleagues raised solutions that would make it an offence for anybody to commit rape, attempted rape or indecent assault on a male or female under the age of 18 years. They are not misdemeanours. They are serious offences and acts of violence. These solutions have been put forward by them in an attempt to protect innocent civilians from violent offences and assaults.

Can we imagine a woman, a man, a child or a teenager being subjected to these offences? Can we imagine the people who committed the offences being free to go wherever they wish? Can we imagine the sheer, stark terror in their minds? They are innocent. They do not deserve to live like that. All members of the House have constituents who have written to them detailing very poignantly and passionately the fear in their lives after being subjected to these atrocities and what comes after. They are the victims who pay the penalty and will for decades to come. Most of them never, ever get over it.

(1145)

With respect to the issue of prevention, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Justice need to address the precursors to crime. There is a need to tap into some of the very good ideas in our country to address the precursors to crime. It does not involve counselling when a person

is 20 or 30 years of age. It involves dealing with children at the ages of four and five and their families.

Only by addressing family circumstances and some of the terrible violence, sexual abuse, neglect and assault that some children endure, will we be able to truly stop the growing tide of youth crime later on. Only by dealing with these children and their families will there ever be a possibility to stem the tide of crime, particularly violent crime in our society.

In closing, we have laid down our gloves and have challenged the government. My colleagues have put forward constructive solutions. We now challenge the government to amend the bill to make it more fair and to protect Canadians from coast to coast.

Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 is an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding high risk offenders, to amend the Correctional and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act. It takes in a lot.

I ask the question: Does the Reform Party believe in tightening up our laws concerning criminal justice? The answer is absolutely.

Then the question comes from across the way: ``Then why does Reform not support specific bills such as C-55 which is before us today?'' The answer to that is because such bills are inadequate and the Minister of Justice will not listen adequately and make the changes that are needed.

In fact, Minister Rock has gone on a bit of a counteroffensive-

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask all members not to refer to their colleagues by their surnames, but by their constituency or ministerial title.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Minister of Justice, who has launched a bit of a counterattack which really tries to finger Reform.

He says in the excerpt which I will read from this column: ``Rather than working constructively with the government, Reform has repeatedly voted against key government initiatives designed to protect victims rights''. The reason we do that is to try to get the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation that is meaningful to Canadians as well as to criminals who we should be attacking.

I guess the perfect rebuttal to the Minister of Justice has to come from some of the victims of crime. I have in front of me a statement from Gary Rosenfeldt, the parent of one of Clifford Olson's victims.

(1150 )

Mr. Rosenfeldt writes:

As a parent of one of Clifford Olson's victims, I am shocked and dismayed that Justice Minister Allan Rock and the government of Canada would state that members of the Reform Party are exploiting us in giving Clifford Olson a platform''.

This victim's father, who is a victim himself, goes on to say:

The exact opposite is true. John Nunziata's bill to repeal section 745 passed second reading in the House in December, 1994, despite active opposition by the Liberal cabinet. I know, I was in the House that night and I watched the proceedings. The government then stalled the bill in committee and failed to introduce its own legislation until the last moment in June of 1996, immediately before the summer recess. The bill was not able to be passed because the government did not give it a high enough priority and thus required all party consent.

Mr. Rosenfeldt goes on to say:

It is unconscionable to suggest that a government with a 50-seat majority should have to rely on the consent of the opposition to get its legislation passed. The bill failed to pass because the Government of Canada and its justice minister failed victims' families and all Canadians in its priorities. At that time, Mr. Rock tried to blame the Bloc. Today he tries to blame the Reform Party. If Mr. Rock is looking for responsibility for the Olson hearing proceeding, he need only look in the mirror. We are confident that all Canadians will remember that Clifford Olson's platform was built and maintained by the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Canadian Police Association has taken the unusual step of taking out a full page ad in yesterday's Hill Times, the paper of April 14. In it, the Canadian Police Association is taking issue with DNA legislation that the minister is perhaps going to bring forward.

What they say in this full page ad open letter to all members of Parliament is that although they want this DNA legislation, and they want it as bad as the Reform Party wants it, they have reservations about it.

They say: ``It is difficult for us as the association which has initially and vigorously promoted the need for an effective DNA data bank system to write to you now urging rejection of this bill as currently drafted''.

No doubt, the Minister of Justice will counterattack the Canadian Police Association for doing this. However, the Canadian Police Association is talking, as the Reform Party is talking, saying: ``For goodness sakes, you have had three years and more to wrestle with these things. Why have you not put in the amendments that we and others have suggested?''

The Canadian Police Association goes on to say: ``In the press conference held last week to introduce the bill, Justice Minister Rock reflected that it is important that we get the DNA data bank correct the first time. We could not agree more. We think, all of us, especially Canadians and you as their elected representatives,

deserve better than what has been thrown together in these dying days before an election lest we suffer under it for years to come''.

(1155 )

That association has put quite clearly what are the issues. The issues are inadequate legislation and the attitude of the Minister of Justice toward legislation that he proposes which is counter proposed by members in this House. I am afraid the minister has far too liberal a view of what we think is needed.

Let us look quickly at the four motions that this party is proposing as amendments to Bill C-55. The first motion is an attempt to strengthen the bill, to make it effective legislation. Will the government listen? That is the question. Motion No. 1 proposed by the member for Calgary North would allow the crown the right to seek dangerous offender status for persons convicted of crimes causing serious personal injury at any time during that offender's penitentiary sentence. That is the nub of it. Bill C-55 as currently proposed is inadequate. Reformers are saying we should be able to seek dangerous offender status at any time during a sentence.

The next motion that we have moved to amend Bill C-55 would, on conviction for two or more violent offences causing serious personal injury, would automatically make any offender a long term offender. It is easy to see why the Minister of Justice opposes that. It is a little too strong. It is a little too hard hitting.

Motion No. 3 proposed by the Reform member for Calgary North amends certain things. We believe that this list of Criminal Code provisions does not go far enough in the legislation for the purpose of assigning long term offender status to certain criminals. This amendment would expand the list of offences used for designating criminals as long term offenders to include a wider variety of sexual offences, especially sex crimes against children. Surely we need tough legislation in those areas, but we are not getting it.

The final amendment proposed by Reform is Motion No. 4. Under the current provisions of Bill C-55 there would be a review of indeterminate sentences after seven years of custody rather than three. That is going in the right direction. We propose that it would be after 15 years. I see my time is up.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-55 dealing with high risk offenders.

In a couple of words, this legislation is not enough. The categories need to be expanded. My colleagues have given numerous examples of the areas that need to be addressed.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is the 15 to 20 per cent of high risk offenders, those who cannot be trusted not to reoffend, are the ones who need to be dealt with and are not dealt with in this bill.

Once again we see the Liberals tinkering with the problem and not really addressing it. We have seen that in the three and half years that we have been in this House. I would like to go through a number of these bills and show where the government has played around on the edges and has not addressed the issue.

I will start with Bill C-68, gun control. Canadians want crime control, not gun control. I have been a hunter for 25 years and I wonder why I am the target of the Liberal legislation when the criminals will not register their guns.

(1200 )

In my mind it is very much a tax grab. It is a $100 million registration. It is more money into the coffers of this government and the bottom line is that it will not solve crime. We would have been behind Bill C-68 100 per cent if it solved crime but it does not do that.

The government was very short in its thinking. About 25 per cent of Canadians are gun owners. These people have long memories. It is a rural versus an urban issue. It is not a party issue. As we saw when the government was voting, a number of government members who were largely from rural areas voted against this bill. They represented their constituents and they were punished. That is what happens to a Liberal member who votes for his constituents against poor legislation. Reform will repeal this bill because we want to deal with the crime aspects of guns, not implement a registration system that does not work.

Another issue is victims rights. Over a year ago my colleague from Fraser Valley West brought the victims rights issue to this House. It was voted on and passed at second reading by this House and then it sat for over a year in committee. All of a sudden we are getting into an election, so what does this government do? It is trying to rush through the victims right issue which will not pass because there is not enough time. The government is trying to gain ownership on an issue. It must have done some polling and recognized that Canadians are fed up with a system that gives rights to the criminal that are over and above the rights of the victim.

My colleague was just commenting on the issue of the DNA data bank. DNA is like a fingerprint. Every individual has a different DNA imprint. Whether it is a bit of saliva, a drop of blood, a hair or a drop of semen, the DNA imprint can be taken and placed in a data bank. The government is now bringing this through at the last hour knowing that it will not pass as full legislation. For the life of me I cannot understand why a tool like DNA testing is not at the top of the justice minister's agenda.

Consider Bill C-41, conditional sentencing. My colleagues have brought up many examples to illustrate that conditional sentencing simply does not work. They are letting people out on the streets who are reoffending. People are committing horrendous crimes and they are not spending a day in prison. The judges are letting them off. Conditional sentencing is not working.

On section 745 of the Criminal Code two words sum up the Liberal justice program: Clifford Olson. The government had the opportunity with section 745 to keep Clifford Olson behind bars but it did not do that. In my mind the government is going to pay for that come election day. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing an individual who murdered at least 11 children playing and tinkering with the justice system. He is using it and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. He is laughing at each and every one of us, which is absolutely wrong.

Reform would hold a binding national referendum on capital punishment. Let Canadians decide. This is far too important an issue for politicians. During the Mulroney era, 80 per cent of Canadians said that they wanted the return of capital punishment. What was the Tory answer? Canadians do not really know, they do not really understand the issue. The Tories would not bring it in. Let Canadians decide. Hold a binding national referendum on the return of capital punishment for first degree murder.

This is a long list of legislation the government has brought in. The Young Offenders Act is another example of where the government has tinkered with the edges but has not dealt with the problem. There must be accountability in our youth. Young people who commit crimes must be accountable, as must their parents. That is not happening. Their names have to be disclosed. The community should know what these young people have done. They are laughing at the system. They know exactly how far they can go.

My 17-year old son will tell me exactly what goes on in school. The kids sit and talk about it. They know where the limits are. The ones who want to break the law play the system.

(1205)

The justice system is in a mess, from the Young Offenders Act to the judges to the parole system to plea bargaining. The government is not addressing the issue.

Canadians are tired of seeing offenders walk free, victims being abused and a government that does not deal with this issues. These will be election issues. Gun control and the Young Offenders Act will come back. The government will have to account on election day for its poor performance.

Bill C-55 concerns high risk offenders. It is another example of the government not going far enough. We need to go further.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 deals with serious offences and the consequences that should be the result of engaging in behaviour which can be described adequately by two adjectives, heinous and repulsive. We find these offences difficult to express and difficult to define.

The proposals which have been made by my colleague would add at least ten to those which I am prepared to read into the record this morning. They have been listed, but I want to review briefly the things that are being discussed.

Serious offences should include sexual exploitation of others, bestiality in the presence of children or insisting that a child commit bestiality, a parent or a guardian who procures sexual activity from a child, living off the prostitution of a child, obtaining sexual services from a child, incest, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, and rape.

Any one of those is extremely serious. Not only are they a violation of the person, the consequences to the victim are automatic, immediate and very often permanent. Yes, the individual may learn to adjust. Yes, the individual may go on with their life. Yes, the individual may draw a line and say they will forget the incident and move on. Inevitably and invariably the victim of these kinds of behaviour says that it does not go away. The healing process which is essential in order to carry on normal activities and have a normal lifestyle is very difficult. Very often we do not deal with these offences with the sincerity and seriousness which which they ought to be dealt.

There is a provision in clause 15 which gives me cause for grave concern: ``If the long term offender expresses the interest in being supervised in an aboriginal community, that community must receive notice of the supervision order and have the opportunity to propose a plan for the release and integration into the community''. That is a very good provision. However, it would appear to be an example of the Liberal government's decision to treat some Canadians differently than others and bring about inequality.

(1210 )

Aboriginal communities will have the right to a notice of the release of a high risk offender into their community and the right to become involved in planning for their release. Other Canadians do not receive this notice or opportunity. That is a very difficult situation.

We need to know that this kind of provision ought not to exist. The offender is as dangerous in one community as in any other community. The issue has to be laid to rest once and for all. We have enough distinction and separation among Canadians. The time has come to build a united country, a country in which individuals are equal, where provinces are equal and where we can look forward to equality before and under the law, before and under the

Constitution and under every piece of legislation in this country. Notwithstanding the comments that are being made from across the way, every one of us should be equal and we should all be treated equally before and under the law.

The time has come for us to recognize that we have to do that. I would suggest that the hon. member who is making some comments should check his facts to see that we do subscribe to and recognize the equality of individuals before and under the law. We need to be factual and honest in our situation.

I want to go on to another thing here, victims. There are two kinds of victims. I talked about the first set of victims, the ones against whom rape is committed and against whom all kinds of influences are brought to bear. Those are the direct victims. There are indirect victims as well. These indirect victims are the families, associates and friends of the victims who suffered directly.

The mother of a child who has been raped suffers seriously, not in the same way her daughter or her son did, but suffers nevertheless. We identify with our children and our partners. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine what kind of an impact it would have if your wife were raped. If the Minister of Justice would have that kind of experience in his family he would not treat this in quite the same way as it is being treated at the present time.

Those are not the only indirect victims. The other set of indirect victims are members of society.

Not too long ago Mindy Tran was killed in Kelowna. Still today young children on their way to kindergarten are saying to their parents ``mommy, should we not stop that person over there, she is walking alone?'' They are afraid. This young person who is going to kindergarten and who said this did not know Mindy Tran and the anguish and agony that was created in the family, but she did understand that there is danger out there. If that kind of danger is allowed to go on unhampered and unhindered by the kinds of things we do to serious offenders, we as a society are in trouble.

There are the direct victims but there are also the indirect victims. There are some who would argue that this whole business of punishment really does not deter anyone. In a sense that is true. I remember having a bit of a discussion not too long with a young fellow who said that fines deter. He said when he drives he slows down when he sees a policeman. I said ``After you have passed the policeman you speed up again, right? Are you breaking the law? You broke the law before and you broke the law again after so you paid the fine. Have you sped since you last paid your fine?'' He said yes. Fines do not deter.

In some cases where people are a threat to reoffend in a similar way, we have to make sure that society is protected to the degree possible so that the offence does not again take place in that society. Something has to be done that will protect the rest of us.

(1215)

I want to go beyond this point and indicate that we need to get into the business of preventing crime in the first place. It starts at home with an individual sense of what is right and what is wrong. Actions begin with thoughts. If we think right we act right. If we think wrong we act wrong. If we do not have a good governor of what is right and what is wrong in our conscience we will do what is wrong.

If we want to engender in our communities, our people or our citizens a sense of justice and fairness, we must also build in a clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong. That means strong families where values can be transferred from one generation to another and where the parents exemplify and demonstrate in their day to day operations how they can actually live in a just, fair and upright society.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all morning. It is passing strange that Reform members are the ones who seem to be concerned mainly with justice issues. It is very strange we are the only ones who are critiquing the bill. There are other opposition parties in the House. Why are they not addressing it?

I attended the NDP national convention in Regina this week. It did not convert me. I am still a Reformer. In fact I am probably a much stronger Reformer than before I went there. It was interesting a party that claims to be a national party did not mention justice issues at its convention. Somehow they were forgotten. There was no mention of unity issue other than a mention that social programs would keep Quebec in Canada and democratic issues were not important to Canadians. I beg to differ.

The NDP claims to be a grassroots party. It neglected the important element of making sure its constituents were represented. To omit that subject in a national convention was a gross oversight.

Members of the NDP did not talk about the Young Offenders Act. In the province of Saskatchewan crime is a major problem. People will commit crimes, wreck vehicles, do all kinds of things and write on the windshield of vehicles: ``Thank God for the Young Offenders Act''. We have a huge problem. They openly hide behind the legislation. That should have been mentioned at the NDP convention.

They forgot to talk about capital punishment, something that 80 per cent of the people would like to see come back. Of all things they omitted discussion on gun control. I wonder why. I guess there is a big split between the national NDP and the provincial NDP on the issue so they do not want to talk about those things. The forgot to talk about consecutive sentencing.

Many issues need to be discussed, but let me come to my primary point this morning. What is the primary purpose of government? We should be dealing with that fundamental issue. Everyone in the House will agree the primary purpose of government is to provide for law and order in society, to protect citizens,

to protect the weak and vulnerable and to protect those at risk from the criminal element taking advantage of them. That is fundamental. That is foundational. That is what we should be doing.

The purpose of government is to restrain evil within society so that we can continue to enjoy freedom, move about freely and pursue various things in our lives that we think are important. The government must provide for that and it is not happening the way it should. Bill C-55 is a very good example of a Liberal government half measure to control crime.

(1220)

I have no illusions about the limits of government. To some extent we can pass the best laws in the country and it may not change people. We can pass laws. We can enforce them. We can control evil to some extent. However we cannot make people good.

Reformers recognize the need for strong families in society to allow for the transmission of values, for cohesion and stability. Families are the basic building block. Without strong families all the best laws in the world will not do any good.

That is why the third part of our election platform deals with that important aspect. We need that balance. Much of what government is doing is eroding the emphasis on the value of family in society. We need that.

How important is the issue of justice? Let me give an example from my experience in my own town. My children have all attended the local high school. They describe to me what it is like to sit and listen to young offenders who return to school the next morning and boast about what they did the night before, the exploits for which they received no punishment. They mock the justice system. They laugh at it. They openly ridicule it.

How serious is that? It affects good children in the school. People who respect the law and are trying to do their best begin to say that it does not matter what they do. They ask why they should try to do their best, study or do well at their jobs. They see justice not being enforced and the law being openly disregarded and mocked. That is why government has to do its job. That is why I am addressing this issue.

Let us look at some of the problems. I have a whole series of articles on problems within the system that directly relate to Bill C-55, the half measure the Liberals are trying to push through in the dying moments of Parliament. It is a piece of legislation that needs to be fixed.

One headline ``Deviant Justice: He raped, served his time and is coming to a neighbourhood near you''. Violent sexual offenders are being set free in society. No wonder people are questioning what is going on. No wonder they are asking why the government does not do more to control crime? We need to do more. Bill C-55 is a half measure. Criminals still have more rights than their victims. That is a serious problem.

I sat beside Marie King Forest during the parole hearings of Darrell Crook a couple of months ago. She could not understand why the justice minister allowed the man who had murdered her husband to continue to torture his victims by coming before a jury and appealing his sentence to reduce it to 15 years. She could not understand the pain and agony that the justice system puts the victims through. It is not acceptable.

(1225 )

Mr. Crook was able to talk to the jury openly and to explain what a wonderful person he had become. The victims could not speak openly to the jury. What they had to say was censored. They had statements they wanted to read and those statements were censored. Why? It was because criminals have more rights than victims. Mrs. King Forest's son could not read his statement because the judge said it might influence the jury in its decision.

For Heaven's sake why do we have these hearings? I cannot understand. There is something seriously wrong with our justice system when criminals have more rights than their victims. It tears my heart out to see the pain and agony the victims of murderers have to go through when they attend parole hearings and listen every couple of years. There is something seriously wrong and we need to correct it.

Many more topics need to be dealt with. The fundamental problem is that government is not doing its job. It is not protecting the citizens. It is allowing violent rapists and murderers to be on the street. I hope at some point we address this matter further.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

[English]

At the request of the chief government whip the vote on the motions before the House will be deferred until 12.30 p.m.

In light of the time, I wonder if members would agree to calling it 12.30 p.m. Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 12.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the various deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of this bill and any others that may come up.

Call in the members.

[Translation]

The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:

(Division No. 296)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fucas
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-172

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

[Translation]

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to the motion now before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's note: See list under Division No. 296.]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

(1300)

The next question is on Motion No. 5.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will vote yea on this motion.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 297)

YEAS

Members

Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)

NAYS

Members

Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-168

PAIRED MEMBERS

Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas: 40; Nays: 168

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 5 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote nay on this motion.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats present vote yes on this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 296.]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. The next question is on Motions Nos. 4 and 6.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might ask the consent of the House to apply the result of the previous vote to the motion now before the House and the one that would follow. In other words, apply the vote on Motion No. 2 to report stage MotionsNos. 4 and 6.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motions Nos. 4 and 6 defeated.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 296.]

[Translation]

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that Bill C-82 be concurred in at report stage.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote no.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote no.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I say yea.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 298)

YEAS

Members

Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-136

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read the third time?

[English]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, April 10, 1997, later this day.

The next recorded division is on the Senate amendments to Bill C-5.

* * *

[Translation]

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote no.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I say yea, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 299)

YEAS

Members

Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-168

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.

* * *

CRIMINAL CODE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next recorded division is on the third reading stage of Bill C-17.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will also vote yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present vote no on this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I say yea, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 300)

YEAS

Members

Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-204

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.)

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay.

[English]

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next recorded division is on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-93.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Yea, Mr. Speaker.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 298.]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: The members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 298.]

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.)

* * *

CRIMINAL CODE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Bill C-55. The question is on Motion No. 1.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 301)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-171

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members vote yes.

(1310)

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Motion No. 2.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote no.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 302)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-175

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 2 lost.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the consent of the House to apply the result of the previous vote to report stage Motion No. 4.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 2 to Motion No. 4?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 302.]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 3.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will vote in favour of Motion No. 3.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes on this motion.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, the member for Beauce votes nay.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 303)

YEAS

Members

Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -72

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

[English]

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Translation]

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, new Democrats vote yes.

(1315)

[Translation]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 304)

YEAS

Members

Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-176

NAYS

Members

Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-32

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House.

* * *

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN LAWS RELATING TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present Bill C-82 for third and final reading. The legislation before us has three main objectives: to strengthen protection for consumers of financial services, to ease the regulatory burden on financial institutions, and to fine tune certain provisions of the financial institutions statutes.

This bill is the product of extensive consultations. We started our review of the financial institutions legislation in 1995 by consulting with a range of stakeholders, including consumer groups, industry representatives and other interested parties.

In June 1996 we released a consultation paper entitled ``A 1997 Review of Financial Sector Legislation Proposals for Changes''. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the Senate standing committee on banking, trade and commerce held hearings on this paper last fall. Their views and the views of other stakeholders are reflected in the measures in the bill before us today.

Since we tabled Bill C-82 on February 14, we have received comments from interested parties imposing some modifications. In addition, the House of Commons finance committee has conducted a clause by clause study of the bill and passed amendments. As a result, there have been several modifications to the bill since second reading. They are largely technical, mostly helping to clarify the language contained in provisions. As a result of the review, the legislation we have before us will ensure that the best interests of consumers in the financial sector are served.

I would like to elaborate on key measures in the bill. I will begin with a subject of tremendous importance to all of us and that is consumer protection measures. There are several.

First, consumers have made it clear they want better privacy protection in their dealings with financial institutions. Accordingly, the bill before us provides authority to require that financial institutions establish procedures governing the collection, retention, use and disclosure of customer information, implement complaints handling procedures and report annually on complaints. Once the legislation is passed, regulations will be introduced to implement these requirements.

Following up on the recent federal-provincial agreement to harmonize the cost of credit disclosure regulations, the bill enhances the disclosure provisions of the financial institution statutes. As a result of these changes in similar amendments to provincial statutes, disclosure practices will be improved and made uniform throughout the country.

Hon. members on all sides of the House are aware of the concerns about the potential for financial institutions to exert undue pressure on consumers when selling financial products. The government takes these concerns very seriously and is taking preventive action. Bill C-82 includes an amendment to the Bank Act to prohibit coercive tied selling. The government intends to bring the amendment into force on September 30, 1998. But before that date, the government wants to see two things achieved. First, it wants all financial institutions to adopt a policy on tied selling.

(1320 )

Under the policy, financial institutions will be expected to ensure that their staff clearly understand and do not engage in unacceptable sales practices. The policy would seek to maintain high customer and staff awareness of procedures for reviewing tied selling complaints. These procedures must be transparent, timely and fair if they are to be effective. In the case of the major banks, they have internal ombudsmen, all of whom will deal with and report on tied selling complaints.

Second, the government will be seeking guidance from the House finance committee. That committee has been asked to review tied selling concerns across the sector and the progress of financial institutions in addressing concerns through their policies. The committee will also consider how to differentiate between beneficial and anti-competitive forms of tied selling. The government has also asked the Senate banking committee to undertake a similar review of the tied selling matter. This process should enable the government to assess how the self-regulatory procedures have been working.

In the consultation paper, the government resolved to work with financial institutions and consumer representatives to improve access to basic financial services for low income Canadians and information about fees for all Canadians.

While the government is not proposing legislative changes in these areas, the major banks have made a number of commitments to address consumer concerns. For example, to improve access they have agreed to ensure that only two pieces of signed identification will be required to open accounts or cash cheques. This is decreased from the current requirement of three.

Also, employment will not be a requirement for opening a bank account and staff will be trained to follow these policies and be sensitive to the needs of low income people. The banks will also ensure that clear and understandable information about products and services, including low cost banking options and ways of minimizing service fees, is readily available in publicly accessible areas in branches.

Moreover, the banks are working with Industry Canada using Industry Canada's Internet site to provide information to help Canadians choose the right financial services for them, minimizing costs.

During the consultation process we heard convincing testimony about regulatory burden. We want to act on what we heard. Bill C-82 contains important changes for foreign banks, changes that will lower costs and improve operational efficiency which will benefit many Canadians. In particular, regulated foreign banks which own a schedule II bank will no longer be required to hold other financial institution subsidiaries through a schedule II bank.

The bill also proposes changes to ease regulatory requirements for near banks. Near banks are those entities which do not generally take deposits, that are not regulated as banks in their home jurisdiction, but do provide one or more banking type services.

The approval requirement for near banks will be reduced. Once they receive an initial approval to enter the market, they will not need further approvals. The condition is that their unrelated activities not include taking retail deposits.

In addition, the government plans to develop a new framework for the entry foreign banks, including a new branching regime. This regime will encourage new banks to enter the Canadian marketplace and allow existing foreign banks greater opportunity to compete. It should be noted, however, that this latter initiative will continue on a separate track from the legislation before us today.

Until the new entry framework is developed, foreign companies offering a limited range of financial services and now operating unregulated in Canada as well as new entrants that meet certain criteria will be allowed to continue operations as unregulated financial institutions.

Another element of the bill recognizes that banks are not all the same. Some do not need the retail deposit insurance offered by the CDIC. This is the case for banks which deal mostly in the wholesale market. The government will permit banks that do not take retail deposits to opt out of CDIC coverage, provided they are not affiliated with another CDIC member. This will reduce their costs and streamline regulatory requirements.

The bill extends the in house powers of financial institutions. Currently financial institutions can engage in certain types of businesses only through subsidiaries. After reviewing the types of business that must be carried out through subsidiaries, the government has decided to permit financial institutions, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to carry on both information processing and specialized financing activities in house. These changes will reduce the operating costs associated with those activities by promoting effective management. Furthermore, the increased flexibility for specialized financing activities will improve access to venture capital for Canadian small businesses.

A number of changes are proposed to streamline the self-dealing regime. This regime implements control over transactions between financial institutions and persons who are in positions of influence over or control of the institution.

(1325 )

While the government believes that the basic framework remains sound, certain provisions of the regime impose unnecessary costs. Bill C-82 therefore streamlines the operations but the conduct review committee narrows the range of related parties and allows subsidiaries of the federal financial institution to transact with each other.

These are all important initiatives aimed to cut down regulatory burden. The initiative before us does not stop there. We are proposing to fine tune legislation.

Changes have been introduced in the area of corporate governance to encourage financial institutions to adopt appropriate processes to manage risks. For instance, the duties of the audit committee will be clarified. The rights of policy holders of insurance companies will be enhanced. For example, the bill proposes to reduce the number of policy holders' signatures needed to allow for a proposal nominating directors to be circulated in advance of the meeting.

Regulatory adjustments will be made to provide more flexibility to financial institutions seeking to enter into joint ventures. These adjustments will enhance the ability of financial institutions to make alliances, enter new markets and compete more effectively at home and abroad.

The legislation also includes a number of amendments to enhance access to capital for mutual insurance companies. First, such companies will be permitted to issue participating shares and second, flexibility will be added to the demutualization regime and it will be extended to apply to all mutual life companies, not just

the small ones. It should be noted, however, that a large mutual insurance company will be required to remain widely held once it is converted into a stock company.

[Translation]

A few days ago, the opposition raised the issue of transferring policies. This is an important issue and I would like to say a few words about it.

A solution to this problem will require more studies and consultations. The mechanisms of supervision and the contractual rights of those insured must both be taken into account. Consultations are already under way between representatives of the federal government and of the Province of Quebec. Following these consultations with the provinces concerned, we will be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution in the near future.

But I must add that Bill C-82 contains a great number of favourable measures. All major stakeholders and myself want to see this bill passed as quickly as possible.

[English]

There you have it, Mr. Speaker, a pretty significant package of changes, important to the well-being of consumers of financial services and that is just about all of us. It is important to the financial sector and this too is significant for all of us because this vital sector underpins the whole economy.

I urge the House to move quickly to pass this important legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I debate this bill at third reading. I am also very disappointed by the results of the vote held a few minutes ago in the House.

Let us begin with the few positive notes to be found in Bill C-82. The official opposition is happy to have helped remove two important sectors from this revision of the financial institutions act.

The first of these sectors is the sale of insurance through chartered banks. You will recall that about two years ago the banks asked the federal government, specifically the Minister of Finance and the secretary of state responsible for financial institutions, to allow insurance products to be sold by chartered banks, thus creating undue, not to say unfair, competition with insurance brokers and underwriters in Quebec and in Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois fought very hard to have this provision dropped from the bill before us, and we won. It is, in our view, one of the great victories of the official opposition and of the Bloc Quebecois since the beginning of this term of office.

The second sector of Bill C-82 where there is some cause for satisfaction is the leasing sector.

(1330)

Once again, the Canadian chartered banks claimed, a few years ago, to be accredited to offer car leasing arrangements to consumers. Car dealerships in Quebec, as in Canada, rose up in opposition to this. The Bloc Quebecois took up arms over this both in the House and in the finance committee on their behalf, and we won the day.

Why did we share the dealers' opposition to the banks' offering car leasing? Purely and simply, because the dealerships did not have the guarantee of the financial institutions, nor of the federal government and the Minister of Finance, that the banks would be prevented from owning fleets of automobiles.

The second major reason for our opposition, and that of the dealers of Quebec and Canada, was competition-related. Let me explain. The banks lend money to dealerships, and if they were also involved in selling car leasing services, the free play of competition would be somewhat distorted.

The banks would have had a major lever for unfair competition with dealers; for instance, they could have cut back on their lines of credit. We had no guarantee on this, and that is why we did not hesitate in the least, right from the first weeks, to support the car dealerships in Quebec and in Canada that were calling for these guarantees, before the banks could be allowed to offer leasing. So those are the two good things about Bill C-82.

On the down side, I have just referred to the vote taken in this House a few minutes ago at the report stage, when the three amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were defeated by the Liberal majority-by the Reformers as well, but that is less important. The Liberal majority defeated our three amendments.

And what were those amendments? The first one objected to a provision in Bill C-82 under which financial planning, which is strictly a provincial matter, will be regulated by federal legislation through the chartered banks.

In other words, the banks may offer financial and financial planning services, which come under provincial jurisdiction, and those which offer these services will not be subject to Quebec law or Ontario law or any other provincial legislation. However, those which offer financial planning services through bank branches will be subject to federal legislation.

This is the kind of intrusion we always felt was entirely unacceptable. In our amendment, which was defeated unanimously by the Liberals, we suggested a form of opting out.

When provincial laws to that effect exist in a province, the provincial legislation applies to financial planning services offered through banks and other institutions. Where such legislation does not exist, the federal legislation applies.

From the outset, the intent of our amendment was to provide for opting out, so that provincial jurisdictions would be respected. The Liberals turned down a reasonable proposal. They said no and preferred to add to the regulatory burden.

From now on, in Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces, there will be not one legislation to regulate financial planning services but two. We have become accustomed to this tendency which, instead of removing or relieving the burden on the financial sector, favours adding more regulations, resources and all manner of things which, in the final instance, merely increase inefficiency and create uncertainty, which includes passing this kind of legislation and turning down reasonable amendments that allow for opting out in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

(1335)

The second amendment we proposed concerns tied selling, in other words, putting pressure on the consumer to buy services in addition to those he is seeking from a financial institution. In fact, the issue of tied selling comes under the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act is provincial and covers an area under provincial jurisdiction.

Once again, the Liberals preferred to drop our amendment which suggested opting out as a possibility where the provincial legislation provides adequate protection for the consumer.

I think our colleagues opposite and this government generally do not know the meaning of exclusive. Exclusive jurisdiction means there is only one player, not two or three. Instead of abiding by the definition given in the dictionary, they prefer to add more bureaucracy. They go overboard on regulating, protecting and developing the system, wrapping it in the Canadian federalist flag.

Federalism, according to members opposite, is supposed to be synonymous with greater efficiency, certainty and stable markets. When we talk about the financial sector, stability is important. Instead, in the past two years, and especially in the case of this bill, the government has proved the very opposite is true by trespassing on provincial jurisdictions and adding new levels of regulations.

The federal regime is synonymous with overlap, inefficiency, duplication, over regulation, uncertainty and instability. So much so that the players in the financial sector-and, as finance critic for the past two years I have met people in the financial sector in both Quebec and Canada-do not know whether they are coming or going. They sometimes wonder what sort of crazy world they are in, since everywhere else there are two watchwords: deregulation and performance.

What we have seen in the financial sector for two years is over regulation, administrative sluggishness and reduced ability to compete among the businesses in the various sectors, including finance. Speaking of competition, and the competitive strength of businesses operating in the financial sector, this was the focus of our third amendment, which was roundly defeated by the government for no apparent reason.

I have so much to say, and since you are giving me the time to say it, I must be able to get out my arguments. I was saying that there is a third amendment concerning competitiveness, the ability of a company operating in the financial sector to compete. Under Bill C-82 and federal legislation on insurance companies, which we thought this bill was amending, a provincially chartered insurance company cannot acquire either all or part of an insurance company that is federally chartered.

I will give the example of Quebec, because we have a blatant example of companies being blocked from becoming fully competitive. A Quebec insurance company operating in the Quebec insurance market cannot acquire blocks of insurance policies from another company that is also operating in the Quebec market, if the latter company is federally chartered.

(1340)

On the brink of the 21st century, when we should be talking about unrestricted competition, free markets and efficiency, this provision in Bill C-82, uncorrected in federal legislation on insurance companies, is incongruous to say the least. I would say it runs counter to the spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which talks of unrestricted competition and economic and financial integration.

It is also contrary to the spirit of the last treaty, in 1993, of the World Trade Organization, which already contained provisions to liberalize the financial sector internationally and which is continuing-starting a few days ago in Geneva-to talk about greater liberalization, a more permissive environment if you like, with respect to international financial transactions, regardless of their nature or the country of origin of businesses operating in the financial sector.

We have here an obvious case of barriers that are not commensurable with the effective operation of the insurance market. It is something that is a bit strange and that has the effect of making it easier for foreign companies-French, Brazilian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Finnish, you name it-to buy operations, in whole or in part, from Canadian insurance companies, something that provincially chartered insurance companies in Quebec are not allowed to do. It is complete craziness.

Like most branches of insurance companies operating in Canada, branches of foreign companies are federally chartered. Federal legislation therefore makes it easier for them to do business in Canada and in Quebec than for Quebec entrepreneurs. This state of affairs is quite simply unacceptable.

I will take the example of L'Entraide. This is a company whose head office is located in Quebec City. It is average in size. It hopes to take advantage of the development of the insurance market and the great rationalization now taking place. It wants to grow and improve its performance and its presence, and it has the chance to do so by buying up a block of insurance policies from a federally chartered company, whose clientele is located entirely in Quebec, for $1.3 million.

This may sound like a huge amount to taxpayers listening today, but in the field of insurance, where certain transactions run in the billions of dollars every week, it is not all that much. Compared to the transaction we saw last weekend in Les Affaires, this is not going to shake up the insurance sector. We will come back to the other acquisition I mentioned, which appeared in Les Affaires.

So the insurance company L'Entraide, a Quebec company with a provincial charter, wants to acquire a block of $1.3 million of insurance in order to expand, to enhance its efficiency and competitiveness in the broadened North American and international markets. The federal government says it is not allowed to do so. It is not allowed to do so because it is a provincially chartered company, and a provincially chartered insurance company is not allowed to purchase, in whole or in part, the activities of a federally chartered insurance company. Even if this federally chartered company is involved in the Quebec market, has Quebec insurance policies, the provincially chartered company it is not entitled to acquire those $1.3 million in insurance blocks. That is utterly unacceptable. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

(1345)

This is all the more discriminatory in that most insurance companies, which are Quebec subsidiaries of foreign companies, are federally chartered. The four major Canadian insurance companies, with head offices in Toronto, are federally chartered.

So, by continuing this discrimination and rejecting the amendment we proposed at the report stage, the government is offering the insurance companies and subsidiaries of foreign companies an opportunity on a silver platter to expand in the Quebec and Canadian market, to increase their profits, and their shareholders' dividends, through policy holders in Quebec and Canada.

Moreover, the four major Toronto-based federally chartered insurance companies are allowed to expand in Quebec by acquiring blocks of insurance, and they are entitled to do so because of their federal charters. Yet a Quebec insurance company operating within Quebec cannot do the same. If being ridiculous were fatal, there would be no one alive on the other side of the House. It is a mental aberration to maintain such discriminatory treatment toward Quebec insurance companies.

We heard all manner of things during the debate on continuation of this restriction. One of the arguments presented by the government-I was going to say the opposition, since they are the opposition as far as our amendment is concerned, you understand what I mean-one of the major arguments presented by the Minister of Finance, by the Secretary of State responsible for financial institutions, by the assistant to the Minister of Finance as well, was that consumer protection came first and foremost.

Consumers would not be sufficiently protected if provincially chartered insurance companies were allowed to acquire blocks of insurance from federally chartered companies. They are more protected when the one acquiring such insurance holds a federal charter, even if it is a subsidiary of a foreign company with its head offices way off in God knows what country. In that case, the consumers are properly protected.

On the other hand, if the acquiring company is a Quebec insurance company, regardless of how good the consumer protection is, no way. But the Minister of Finance, the secretary of state and senior officials go into a blue funk when you mention anything that would promote the expansion of the Quebec insurance sector.

Whether they operate under a provincial or federal charter, insurance companies in Quebec must apply annually for a licence to the inspector general of financial institutions of Quebec. Every year, the inspector checks the solvency of all insurance companies operating on Quebec soil before issuing a licence that must be renewed every year. federal body.

Second, the inspector general of financial institutions requires all insurance companies, under provincial or federal charter, to be members of the Société d'indemnisation d'assurance de personne, which is also involved in providing maximum protection for the consumer.

When we have a situation like this where we are watertight as far as solvency is concerned, whether the charter is provincial or federal, and where plenty of checks and balances are provided by the inspector general of financial institutions and the Société d'indemnisation d'assurance de personne, using consumer protection as an argument no longer makes any sense.

If that is the main objection, it no longer exists because whatever their charter and whether they operate in Quebec or Canada, insurance companies cannot be faulted on consumer protection.

(1350)

Consumers can depend on the system, and policy holders are protected on the Quebec market by the inspector general of financial institutions and within the Canadian context by the Société d'indemnisation des assurances de personne. So what is the problem? Why are they so reluctant to move? They are in such a funk that a golden opportunity was missed for a company like L'Entraide d'assurance-vie du Québec to acquire a block of insurance worth $1.3 million.

They are so reluctant to move, although they have run out of arguments to prevent this kind of company from expanding, from becoming more efficient and a bigger player in a very competitive insurance market and even more so with the liberalization of the financial sector throughout the world.

On the weekend, I read an article I mentioned earlier, in Les Affaires, which said that Royal Life Canada had acquired an interest in Gerling Global. For your information, Mr. Speaker, Royal Life is a branch of a British insurance company. Gerling Global, which sold the blocks of insurance, is a branch of a German company. On the weekend, these two branches of foreign companies operating on Canadian soil, both under a federal charter, concluded a transaction in which Royal Life acquired part of the life insurance portfolio of Gerling Global for $12 billion. Twelve billion dollars, Mr. Speaker.

Two companies, subsidiaries of foreign insurance companies, one British and the other German, were allowed to acquire a block, to carry out a transaction involving a transfer of $12 billion worth of insurance business. Federal legislation permitted this, but it does not permit Entraide, a Quebec insurance company, to buy a $1.3 million block of insurance policies from a federally chartered Canadian company. That is ridiculous.

On the other hand, we keep hearing that we must look out, that there are consumer protection problems. My eye, Mr. Speaker. On April 8, I wrote the Minister of Finance to remind him that there was a problem here. The Quebec minister of finance has also said there was a big problem in this area. I think the government's inertia is hiding something.

It is not that this is a complex issue. It is straightforward. The government had only to accept our amendment today instead of rejecting it, and the matter would have been resolved. The problem is one of pure discrimination against Quebec insurance companies. It is so discriminatory that the Quebec minister of finance even offered to amend the Quebec law on trusts and savings companies, which discriminates to some extent against federally chartered trust companies. But he was turned down.

Mr. Landry said he was prepared to amend the Quebec law on trust companies so long as the federal government were quick to do the same thing to legislation on financial institutions to enable provincially chartered insurance companies to acquire blocks of insurance from federally chartered companies. The Minister of Finance turned up his nose at this attractive proposal, made in the spirit of free trade and aspirations for the future of the financial sector in Quebec and Canada. He preferred to continue to discriminate against Quebec insurance companies.

(1355)

Two questions arise: First, is this not a way of eliminating provincially chartered companies? Second, is this not a way for the federal government to say: ``It is true that insurance comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, but we want to change that''.

And the backhanded way to change things is perhaps to make it increasingly less profitable to have provincially chartered companies. Insurance companies will need federal charters in order to benefit from globalization, in order to achieve a more competitive position in the insurance market.

Is that it? If so, let the federal government tell us they want to restrict us in a field that supposedly comes under our exclusive jurisdiction, according to the Canadian Constitution that the members opposite say they respect and that they ignore every day. If they want to take this field of jurisdiction away, let them come right out and say so, because that is what it looks like.

But if that is not the case, what is behind this sullen attitude of the government and of the Minister of Finance toward an amendment that is and should have been logical, if the members opposite had indeed been logical?

We think there is perhaps another explanation. I was speaking earlier about the four or five Toronto-based Canadian insurance companies that dominate the market. I would remind members that these companies all have federal charters. The top four companies are being left lots of room so that when another insurance company wants to cease operations they can buy up insurance policies and continue to grow, to make profits and to pay dividends to their shareholders, while our provincially chartered insurance companies in Quebec cannot do what they wish in their own market with respect to Quebec policy holders.

We sometimes wonder if it is not these very companies, Canada Life, London Life, Sun Life Insurance Company of Canada and Manulife Financial, all great contributors to the coffers of your charming Liberal Party to the tune of $50,000-not bad as contributions go-that the government wants to help in future and for which it wishes to maintain privileges that are unjustified and

discriminate against Quebec's provincially chartered insurance companies.

The opposition is sorely disappointed with the government's attitude on this matter, but is, in a way, pleased that the Minister of Finance has, at least, agreed to meet the key shareholder of L'Entraide, the official opposition critic-myself-and a representative of the Government of Quebec, next Thursday in his office for a discussion of this matter.

It is most unfortunate, however, that our amendment, which would have settled this question for once and for all, has not been accepted. Our expectations of the meeting with the Minister of Finance this week, after the rejection of the official opposition amendment, encompass two possibilities.

The first is that he will assure us that he will be prompt in introducing a private member's bill from his department to remedy the injustice and discrimination being experienced by Quebec insurance companies. The second is that he will announce that he will be shortly tabling a notice of a ways and means motion clearly setting out his intention to move quickly, when we are back after the coming election, to pass a bill amending Bill C-82, to ensure that this discrimination toward provincially chartered insurance companies no longer exists, as it does in the current legislation on insurance and the current bill.

The Speaker: My dear colleague, it being nearly 2 p.m., I wonder if you would consider resuming your speech after oral question period, when you would again have the floor.

Mr. Loubier: I was just winding up, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Very well. You have about 15 seconds.

Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that it is a sad thing to have to face the music, but I hope that the government will listen to common sense and that, starting Thursday, provincially chartered insurance companies will be allowed to do exactly the same as other insurance companies, that is to have a certain latitude in their areas of jurisdiction and to be able to hold their own in an increasingly competitive field.

_____________________________________________