Debates of June 13th, 1995

Firearms Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

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

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, an act to to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

We are now at report stage of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.

There are 25 motions in amendment in the Order Paper at the report stage of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are substantially similar to an amendment previously moved and defeated in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5) they have not been selected. The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 3 and 4.

Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5 to 17 inclusive.

Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 18 and 20.

Group No. 4, Motion No. 19.

Group No. 5, Motion No. 21.

Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 22, 23 and 25.

Group No. 7, Motion No. 24.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table in case members want to check them. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 1.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 42, on page 4, lines 1 to 45, on page 5, lines 1 to 45, on page 6 and lines 1 to 40, on page 7.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

moved

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the French version, by replacing line 42, on page 5, with the following:

"de la personne peut être conservé par le corps de".

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the first amendment of my caucus to Bill C-41. However, before I do so, I wish to point out that my colleagues and I listened very intently to all the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice. We made every attempt to reflect the opinions of these people in the amendments we introduced during clause by clause consideration of the bill. The amendments put forward today are based on the sentiments expressed to us from both the committee testimony and the thousands of letters we have received from all across Canada.

Reform members of the Standing Committee on Justice paid particular attention to the view of the Canadian Police Association on Bill C-41, an authority the justice minister often cites as one of the major supporters of his gun control legislation. In its brief to the committee the Canadian Police Association stated:

Bill C-41 with few exceptions is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and, what is worse in almost all of it, completely unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada.

It went on to say:

While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles eliminating this most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system. The common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial consequences for criminal actions.

Where sentencing reform calls for protection this bill offers platitudes. Where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand further still.

That is what the Canadian Police Association had to say about the bill. I could not have better summarized Bill C-41. We have to wonder why the Minister of Justice so readily embraced the support of the Canadian Police Association for Bill C-68 and totally ignored its opposition to Bill C-41.

Our first amendment is to delete section 717 of Bill C-41. Through this section the government has introduced a program of alternative measures to incarceration. This is the Liberal government's response to overcrowding in Canada's prisons. Rather than deal with the cause of crime, something Reform has been urging the government to do for some time, the Liberals choose to provide alternatives to putting criminals in prison.

We would not have objected so vehemently to this section of Bill C-41 if the government had specified which offences may be subject to alternative measures. We could support the use of alternative measures for specific non-violent offences to reduce expensive court procedures and incarceration. However no such specifications appear in Bill C-41.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Victims of Violence recommended section 717 be amended to "restrict the availability of the program to persons who have committed less serious offences and first time offenders". Specifically reflecting the opinions expressed by these witnesses, Reform introduced an amendment during clause by clause consideration to limit the use of alternative measures. Our amendment was defeated.

The government failed to describe in the bill what may or may not constitute an alternate measure but rather has left this discretion up to the provinces. This has effectively granted broad discretionary powers to an unnamed source that is to be variable from province to province. This will create an inconsistency in the justice system of the country, something we can ill afford.

Reform introduced an amendment proposing that a set of federal standards be established for the implementation of alternative measures programs by provinces to ensure justice is consistent in Canada. Our amendment was defeated.

The discretion given in the bill to the provinces responsible for the administration of justice is not reflected in Bill C-68. When Reform introduced amendments during clause by clause consideration of the bill to return to the provinces the authority to regulate gun clubs and gun shows our amendment was defeated.

The parliamentary secretary said there should be federal standards for the regulation of these businesses. The inconsistency in the government's justice legislation clearly demonstrates that the objective of justice to reduce crime is not the motivating factor behind Bill C-37, Bill C-68 or Bill C-41.

Under Bill C-41 alternative measures can only be used if the offender fully and freely consents to participate, with no consideration being given to the victim. Reform proposed the use of alternative measures only after due consideration has been given to any views expressed by the victim against whom the offence has been committed. The rights of victims should always come before those of the offender.

We also introduced an amendment stipulating that these measures could only be used for a person who has not been dealt with by alternative measures before or has been previously convicted of an offence. Both amendments were defeated.

As stipulated in Bill C-41 it is not mandatory for records concerning alternative measures to be retained. Nor do the records have to be transferred to a central repository. This means when someone commits another offence that a previous offence which was dealt with by an alternative measure will not be available for sentencing in the second case.

One has to wonder how serious the government is about doing background checks on applicants for a firearms licence as outlined in Bill C-68. Because of this provision in Bill C-41 pertinent information regarding an admission of guilt may not be discovered by chief firearms officers unless they conduct lengthy and expensive checks into the records of all local police forces. Again Reform introduced an amendment making it mandatory for the police to retain records and for those records to be placed in a central registry. Again that amendment was defeated.

We therefore today move to delete the section dealing with alternative measures from Bill C-41. We have also introduced an amendment to delete section 718.2 from the bill which gives the courts the authority to increase or reduce a sentence for relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

Reform believes this section of the bill is totally unnecessary. The courts already take aggravating and mitigating circumstances into consideration when determining the length of a sentence to impose on an offender.

We do not believe this section serves any purpose except to advance the justice minister's position that sexual orientation should be a protected category in the charter. We object to the minister's back door attempt through the bill to keep his word to provide added protection for certain groups of people and thereby create a semblance of special status for those groups. Rather than amend the charter and thus draw widespread public opposition, he is appeasing this group of Canadians by including the term in the Criminal Code.

Reform believes all Canadians are equal before the law. We do not accept that anyone should be granted special protection or status before or under the law and therefore move to strike this section from the bill.

I am appalled the government has chosen to limit debate on this contentious bill. It had ample opportunity to bring the bill back to Parliament months ago when the committee reported it back to the House. The government obviously delayed report and third reading stages of the bill in anticipation of it being lost in the bottleneck of legislation the government is scrambling to pass before the summer recess.

It is quite obvious the government is afraid to allow Bill C-41 and Bill C-68 to sit over the summer, providing Liberal MPs an opportunity to discover how their constituents really feel about these bills. I have to question the confidence of the government with regard to these pieces of legislation. I therefore implore

members of the House to listen to Canadians and remove these sections from the bill.

Canada is faced with rising crime rates, escalating costs to administer justice and growing debt. The task of the federal justice minister is to deal with these problems in unison. That would be difficult but not insurmountable.

I place these considerations before the House.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am looking to your guidance on a question with respect to the voting patterns you have just issued on the various motions.

Is it appropriate for me to mention this point of order now or would you prefer that I see you privately? I am somewhat confused as to item (k) in Group No. 2. I am in your hands as to how you would like to handle it.

[The Speaker]

If the hon. member would come to the Chair perhaps I could at least give him an opinion on how I believe it will be worked out.

In the meantime I would propose to continue debate.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 4 is on the French language. You may think that this is a little different, but I did not think either that I would one day make a speech on the French language in this House. However, that was my only reason for putting forward this motion, as you will see.

The motion deals with the French version of Section 717.2(1), which, in my opinion, is not drafted in everyday, understandable French. Understandable it may be, but certainly not for the average person.

Since it is a very short paragraph, I will read it for you:

717.2(1) Le dossier relatif à une infraction imputée à une personne et comportant, notamment, l'original ou une reproduction des empreintes digitales ou de toute photographie de la personne peut être tenu par le corps de police qui a mené l'enquête à ce sujet ou qui a participé à cette enquête.

The French "qui a tenu" is obviously a literal translation of "hold". In French, "obtenu une photographie" means holding it in one's hands, although in this context it means keeping or holding it. That is why I moved my amendment aimed at substituting the word "conservé" for the word "tenu". A photograph or document may be kept but, as I understand it, it is held in one's hands. It is in that sense that, as I said, I was very surprised to realize that I now had to put forward a motion on the French language.

I should tell you that a number of my other motions are also related to the French language, as you will see a little later. I will not list them all at this time, but the French used here is often peculiar, as the Bar Association noted. In several appearances before the justice committee, the Barreau du Québec observed that the French used in the Criminal Code did not match reality.

I will now quote an excerpt from the Barreau's brief on another bill, but it could also apply to this one. The Barreau du Québec says that no one is deemed ignorant of the law. That, as we know, is true. They go on to say, "The law must, however, be intelligible. The genius of the language, although it has its own rules, does not rule out the Cartesian, concise approach that is essential to the proper understanding of statutory law".

As for Michel Sparer and Wallace Schwab, they recognize the fact that the implementation of these principles requires strong intellectual skills, for the writer must be able to move away from specifics and sometimes partisan views to take a broader, more global approach while at the same time being extremely succinct.

They add that the simpler subject-verb-complement structure which is preferred in French shows that this language emphasizes what English usually relegates to a position of secondary importance, hence the need to be careful not to translate literally and to rearrange in a logical sequence, as required, sentences that sound English.

Understandably, in view of how complex regulatory activity is, legal instruments cannot always be drafted in accordance with these guidelines nowadays. According to the Barreau du Québec, clarity must nevertheless remain one of the primary goals of the legislator, hence the value of drafting the French and English texts separately, a rule that the Barreau suspects was broken in this case.

That is a common complaint from the association. That is why I moved several amendments to Bill C-41 designed to make the French version truly consistent with what we call the genius of the French language. I hope that our linguists are listening in this evening, so that someday we can have French instruments that are understandable and intelligible.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motions brought forward in this first grouping.

Motion No. 4 was brought forward by the member for Saint-Hubert. I realize what the member is intending and has the suggested wording that would reduce the scope of the terms of the bill. The Department of Justice looked at this and felt the recommendation would be inconsistent with the use of the verb tenir elsewhere in the text. Therefore if we changed it here we would run the risk of putting other parts of the legislation in a tenuous position.

With respect to Motion No. 3, I am very surprised when the member for Crowfoot talks about cost cutting in conjunction with the Canadian Police Association and wanting to save money by doing away with alternate measures. The inmate population is exploding. The years between 1989-90 and 1993-94, four years, the federal inmate population increased by 17 per cent, with total expenditures in 1993-94 at $880 million for federal corrections and $990 million for provincial corrections.

The annual cost of holding an inmate on average in medium and maximum security was $39,000 per inmate per year for federal institutions and $35,000 per inmate per year for provincial institutions.

That indicates the dramatic increase in the actual cost of incarceration. The member for Crowfoot says we should not have alternative measures. If we do not start working toward alternative measures what we will have is people in incarceration costing an extremely large sum of money.

Many are in incarceration. One-third of the people in incarceration are there for non-payment of debt. We want to get away from that. Who is being punished in a case like that when we have people in incarceration for non-payment of debt?

In many cases they cannot afford to pay. It is of no purpose to put them in incarceration. The alternate measures have been in federal legislation for many years in the Young Offenders Act. The experience of the provinces in administering alternative measures programs has been sufficiently positive that they have asked us in the Department of Justice, the Minister of Justice in particular, to include similar measures within the Criminal Code for adults.

Deleting those provisions would go against a perfectly reasonable request being made by the provinces. The availability of alternative measures exercised under the programs authorized by the provincial attorney general within enabling federal legislation respects the division of powers between the Government of Canada and the provincial government and recognizes provinces are in the best position to develop and administer programs related to the offenders targeted by those measures.

The availability of alternative measures will better enable provinces to manage their costs in respect to court time and the use of correctional facilities and resources. It seems inconsistent that the Reform Party, which has focused much of its attention on bringing costs under control, would deny provinces the tool to better manage cases appearing before their courts.

Deterring and deleting alternative measures would reduce the scope of action available to the courts and to the provinces as they administer criminal justice and would not strengthen either this bill or the criminal justice system in general.

The member for Crowfoot, on behalf of the Reform Party, said he put forward federal standards. We want to have some kind of standards but alternative measures are looked at in different ways in different provinces.

The problem with the program is some areas do not have the facilities to provide the alternative measures. That is a severe problem and it means in some areas of the country alternative measures provisions or possibilities are either non-existent or severely curtailed.

We could say because of that we will scrap alternative measures altogether so they are not put in place anywhere in the country but that really does not achieve anything. It denies the people in the areas that have the alternative measures possibilities from utilizing these possibilities.

Also, we could say if one has created a certain seriousness of offence that person is not eligible. When we are dealing with cases, with human concerns and with human considerations, who is to say that where somebody who has been flaunted and taunted in incarceration would be better put back in incarceration than into a program where he would have to spend some time working in the community or for the benefit of the victims?

Also we want to be able to offer the program in a positive nature and to improve on it. We heard in committee that one problem with the alternative measures was that when young people were involved in this they were not being supervised. That is the case in some instances. We have to strengthen these programs. I think there are various ways of doing that.

It has also been stated by the Reform Party that we should have a central registry because there is no record of those who are put on alternate measures and we do not know if they have been before the courts before or if they have been on alternative measures. If there is no record the next time they appear it would be considered a first offence and they would be on alternative measures again.

That is not the case. It is not CPIC, it is not on a national computer but it is in local court files. There is a general record on alternate measures programs.

Alternate measures programs work in different ways in various provinces. It is used as a diversion program in Nova Scotia. Offenders are put on the diversion program before they come to court and a record of this is kept in the police files. In other provinces they appear before the court and instead of being sentenced after the case is heard they are put on the alternative measures program. The programs are working. Young people have been rehabilitated to prove it.

We are not saying we will have the same success rate with adults because the older a person becomes the less the possibility of rehabilitation, but we do feel there will be success. Quite often incarcerating these people costs the Canadian public up to

$100,000 per person in some instances, which is the case in some young offenders facilities.

The average cost of keeping someone incarcerated in a federal institution for one year is $39,000. If we can get better results or even if we can get the same results in alternative measures we should examine them.

We should leave the possibility with the provinces that want these programs for adults. We should give the learned judges and justices the ability to place people on these programs if it is deemed the best course to take.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic on correctional issues, I take a particular interest in this bill. In spite of all the controversy surrounding this issue, the time has come to update and adapt our criminal justice system to the modern reality.

The efforts made to reform the sentencing process in Canada span a number of years and have required enormous human and financial resources. For the first time, we have an opportunity to give concrete expression to these efforts and to implement recommendations made by numerous commissions in their reports. Such a reform requires an objective review of the current situation, as well as the development of an original model for the future.

Several recent studies come to conclusions which confirm the need to reform Canada's criminal justice system. Let me mention a few. First, it is fairly safe to say that Canada puts too many people in jail for periods which are too long. Second, contrary to popular belief and to what some may claim, the crime rate, particularly for violent crimes, has not increased in Canada. Studies covering the period between 1988 and 1993 show that these rates remained essentially the same throughout that period. In fact, the rate for violent crimes has dropped slightly since 1991.

Bill C-41 is a true reform of the sentencing process, and only such a reform will solve some of the crucial problems which have been surfacing in recent years. Instinctively, and also because of fear, society has always been in favour of imposing long terms of imprisonment on criminals. Yet, it is established that such long periods of incarceration increase the risk of recidivism.

Consequently, public safety is not at all increased, quite the contrary. If we put offenders in jail for long periods of time, the problem will not be solved once they get back on the street.

Almost sixty years later, we finally have a chance to make amends and act responsibly, fifty years after the famousArchambault report, published in 1938, stated that we had a collective responsibility, and we have that chance in the form of Bill C-41 and, more specifically, the new section 717 of the Criminal Code.

Of course we could save a lot of public money by using probation instead of incarceration as part of the rehabilitation process. In Great Britain, where alternative measures have been used for years and are used frequently, this did not lead to an increase in the crime rate, on the contrary, since Great Britain has one of the lowest repeater rates in the world.

The government has spent millions of dollars in recent years on the construction and maintenance of prisons that in the end do not do what they are supposed to do. Incarceration has failed to meet its two main objectives: to punish the offender and to protect society on a permanent basis.

Overcrowding and double occupancy of cells have reached a critical level in federal penitentiaries, as the hon. member from Kingston pointed out a few minutes ago. If Canada were to build new prisons, they would fill up immediately. However, if we could find alternatives to incarceration, in the case of offenders who are not dangerous-the majority of the prison population-we would solve the problem of overcrowding in prison institutions. We are talking about more than 80 per cent of the prison population, in this case.

So before getting into construction programs that will cost many more millions, we should develop alternatives that are less costly, more cost effective and therefore more effective overall.

The average annual cost of community supervision for all provinces is about $1,500 per person on probation or parole, while it costs $80,000 annually to keep an inmate in prison.

Quite frankly, using prison sentences as the principal punishment for all kinds of offences is no longer a defensible option nowadays. Most offenders are neither violent nor dangerous. It is unlikely their behaviour will improve as a result of going to prison. Consequently, alternatives to incarceration and alternate forms of punishment are increasingly considered a necessary option.

Alternatives to incarceration are not a recent development. The principle has been discussed for half a century. And for half a century we have been marking time. I think it time we tuned into today's reality and for once took a step forward by adopting provisions that would enable us to develop alternatives to incarceration, as clause 6 of Bill C-41 proposes.

We are forever hearing that imprisonment is expensive and that the courts are too slow. Well, by adopting alternative measures we also resolve the problem of congestion in the courts. With these measures, minor offences may be handled by means other than formal and costly legal proceedings. There are two main objectives: to prevent subsequent criminal behaviour

and to attenuate any prejudice minor offenders may suffer in legal proceedings.

These measures also get the community involved and put greater focus on reconciliation between victim and offender. Alternative measures are already used successfully in certain provinces for young offenders. They may now be used for adults. There are many alternative solutions.

They do not involve just victim compensation, for example, the number of day-fines, compensatory work for non-payment of fines, and so on. There is a whole list of them, if you want to be more specific.

There are many examples of sentences aimed at the social reintegration of offenders. Therefore, first offenders or minor offenders will be taken out of the legal system. These measures will ensure public protection by reducing the negative effects of incarceration. The courts will have more time for more important matters.

It should be pointed out that this diversion process is only for those who admit liability for their acts of commission or omission when it is considered that alternative measures do not interfere with public safety and the interests of the victim, while at the same time meeting the needs of the offender.

Such alternative measures must be part of a program approved by the attorney general, his deputy or a person designated by the lieutenant governor in council. The Crown must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and the person charged must be informed of his or her right to counsel, on top of having fully agreed to participate in this program.

Imprisonment and detention should only be a last resort, when everything else has failed. Alternative penalties are a good example of a different approach to conflict resolution in that they attempt to minimize the negative impact on individuals, judicial red tape and the economic and human cost to society of many needless incarcerations.

To conclude, I will therefore support this bill, which makes it possible to take a step forward, and I am pleased that by passing these provisions on alternative measures we can show that we are able to be innovative in devising sentences which are more sensible and therefore more in line with what is needed at present in the correctional service.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to Bill C-41.

Once again we have a piece of legislation that simply does not do anything in terms of justice, punishment or dealing with the problems facing the country. When I look at the last two years, there have not been any bills passed in the House as far as I am concerned that do anything in terms of making the country safer, better for those individuals called victims who need the protection of our system. It just is not happening.

I am thinking of certain bills such as the one the member across the way put forth to eliminate section 745 which died and we do not bring it back. I could mention a dozen others. I am really upset that we are not getting good legislation that will give the effect the famous red ink book says it would do.

There is no measure in this legislation that causes me more grief than the government's attempt to deal with violent young offenders. We passed Bill C-37 which says that 16 and 17-year olds will go to adult court. Then we come out with a bill that is going to make the sentencing the same as if they were in youth court. It does not make sense.

Picture the family of a young mother standing by her graveside hearing words from the minister telling all who gathered how much this woman will be missed. Picture the tears sliding down the many cheeks of Canadians present and listen to their voices repeat over and over again: "Why did this happen?"

This picture is happening far too often to too many Canadians to be passed over by the government's attempt at social engineering which does little to prevent violent youth from believing that to kill someone they will be punished by this government. This government is using crybaby tactics to soothe the intellectuals who continually state that 16 and 17-year old murderers are too young, too poor and too abused to know the difference between right and wrong.

What does this government say the penalty should be for such sadness, hurt and brutality to victims, families and friends? According to the justice minister, if the murderer is a 16 or 17-year old, a slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again is penalty enough. Remember, this is the same government that publicly stated it was going to get tough with ultraviolent young offenders. Remember, this is the justice minister who told Canadians that his government would not tolerate those youth who carry knives and hold no regard for human life or the feelings of those who care.

What did this minister and the government do to punish and deter 16 and 17-year old hooligans with no regard for others? In Bill C-41 the government proposed to punish 16 and 17-year old murderers by transferring them to adult court with a five year jail sentence. Maybe if the youthful killer was particularly violent and gruesome, he possibly could be removed from society for 10 years.

This sentence is ironically considered just as serious to the justice minister as his original punishment for law-abiding citizens whose only crime is hiding a firearm from the minister's scrutiny. The fact that this minister and this government

equated taking a human life with the heinous crime of refusing to file the proper paperwork with the bureaucracy is ridiculous.

This minister made fine grandstanding speeches on how violent, killing youth would be held accountable for their actions. This same minister and his government told heart wrenching stories of poverty, dysfunctional families and their effect on juvenile crime. Whatever the reason, there is no excuse for coldly and cruelly taking another life.

Let me remind those opposite that not all youth raised in poverty turn to crime, deciding a human life is a worthless commodity that can be snuffed out at a whim. Let me remind those opposite that many youth are not raised in ideal conditions but go on to work hard day after day, save their money, meet someone, marry, have children and do all the normal things. Yet this bill makes folly of those hard working youth who do understand they have a role in society and that they can achieve a better life by following the minimum expectations of society.

What does this tell the people of Canada who have day in and day out raised their voices in loud cries that they have had enough of 16 and 17-year old butchers being treated like victims of some social order-

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like some clarification from the Chair. It is my understanding that at this stage we are debating report stage Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I have been listening with care to the remarks of the member for Wild Rose and have yet to understand what relationship they bear to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. It may be that there is some confusion as to the stage of the debate. I wonder if the Speaker might provide some guidance.

[The Speaker]

Yes, the hon. member is correct. We are debating Motions Nos. 3 and 4. Many times members use a few minutes to set up their argument. I would presume that is what the hon. member for Wild Rose is doing.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I sum this all up at the end.

There are several things I know this government would like to do in regard to alternative measures, even with the violent people it is talking about and it certainly applies to the youth just as much as anyone else. I am talking about those alternative measures that may be applied to youth where we were going to get tough in Bill C-37. We were going to take 16 and 17-year olds to adult court, yet the sentencing and alternative measures the government is trying to propose in this bill do not seem to fall into line with what was proposed in Bill C-37.

Why should 16 and 17 year olds be excused for the most serious of crimes? If they are only one or two years older, what difference does it make when it gets that serious? Canadians are saying this is enough of this namby-pamby justice spouted by a bleeding heart government. Canadians say that the quality of mercy must be chosen when the right circumstances prevail, and murder is not one of those circumstances.

How dare we suggest alternative measures for a killer? How dare we even think that might be a good solution? Canadians are saying that if a 16 or 17 year old chooses to kill, he or she must also know that society will choose not to show mercy, that society will demand a grievous penalty to match the heinous crime.

Canadians are growing weary of a government that says one thing to a majority but follows the directions dictated by a small minority of ivory tower individuals who barricade themselves behind security systems and isolate themselves from the real world and reality and then say that young murderers cannot be blamed for their crimes and should be put on alternative measures.

I have had enough of this say everything but do nothing government. This has been going on for far too long. We see other clauses that come up in this particular bill and we have been trying to figure out exactly what we are trying to prove in our society. Consider 718.2. We would like to get rid of this section. We have made a list of people who are going to be treated differently than others because of their race, colour, creed, and now we want to add sexual orientation.

Mr. Speaker, while we are at it let us add fat people. I will tell you what happened in this House just a month ago. Someone sitting right over there said "Come on, fatso, let's go outside and fight". Rather than speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, about that kind of language, I decided I would meet him face to face and see if I could tell him not to do that. I am sure he will not do it again. It is a shame that I as a fat person would be left off this list. If we check, there are lawsuits throughout the country of people who did not get jobs because they were not built right or maybe because their IQ was a little too low. Why would that affect anything? Maybe some do not look right.

So let us take the section and get rid of it. For heaven's sake, do not add sexual orientation. That is the last thing we need in this country.

[The Speaker]

We are still debating Motions Nos. 3 and 4, and I give the floor to the hon. member for Bellechasse.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and will probably succeed in this endeavour.

In response to the motion introduced earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys did not appear convinced of the need to amend section 717. Therefore, I took the liberty of consulting a dictionary while I was waiting for my turn to speak.

In fact, subsection 717.2(1) of the French version says the following:

717.2(1) Le dossier relatif à une infraction imputée à une personne et comportant, notamment, l'original ou une reproduction des empreintes digitales ou de toute photographie de la personne peut être tenu par le corps de police qui a mené l'enquête à ce sujet ou qui a participé à cette enquête.

The controversy centres on the meaning of the word "tenu". On page 849 of the general Larousse English-French dictionary, the verb "to hold" is translated by "contrôler et avoir la responsabilité de". The hon. member for Saint-Hubert in fact proposes translating the English word "hold" by the most correct French equivalent. I can very well hold the bill in my hands; but that does not necessarily mean that I will keep it for 10 years.

The aim of clause 717.2 is to enable police officials to keep records on offences. If they are to be kept, there must be some control. So, if I take the bill and put it in my desk, I am controlling it. It is archived, and I control it. I do not have it in my hands.

I understand that the English verb "hold" can include a number of things, but there is a specific term, which does not have a negative effect on other legislation. In using the French verb "tenir" in its strictest sense, we talk about holding something in our hands and having immediate and brief control, but we will hold on to it.

The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys may very well hold his wife in his arms, but that does not mean he controls her. There is a difference between the two.

[An hon. member]

He wants to keep her.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

He would do well to hold her from time to time, if I may be permitted a little humour. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will agree that the magic of the French language and one of its beauties as well would enable us to bring the English and the French closer together. This is why I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to see if this error cannot simply be corrected.

Excuse me for having taken my seat before I had finished speaking.