Karen Kraft Sloan

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians we come into the House and operate under certain parliamentary rules and procedures. One of the rules of the House is that we leave bigotry and narrow mindedness at the door before we come in.

I suggest to you that your-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to debate an issue that is of importance to all Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for Bill C-41.

In particular, I would like to address the sentencing provisions of crimes motivated by hate. There has been an incredible amount of misinformation surrounding these amendments. I appreciate this opportunity to relay the facts and clarify any misconceptions that may have arisen over the course of this debate.

Bill C-41 is a general bill that proposes amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. One of these amendments proposes harsher sentences for those already convicted of crimes motivated by hate on a number of grounds, including race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation of the victim.

Currently there are certain hate crimes that are not covered by Canada's anti-hate laws. These include Criminal Code offences motivated by hatred against a targeted group which do not involve hate propaganda such as physical attacks or murder. In the past the law has viewed synagogue desecration as simple mischief without acknowledging the intense pain and fear suffered by members of the entire targeted community. Therefore, it is imperative that hate motivated crimes be included in this bill.

Unfortunately hate crimes have become alarmingly prevalent in our society. Expressions of hate are numerous and range from attacks by skinheads on gays to the desecration of synagogues to the killing of a native Cree. These attacks target virtually all minority groups and most of the time are violent and malicious. This can no longer be tolerated.

Statistics have made it apparent that hate motivated crimes are drastically increasing in our country. B'nai Brith has identified over 40 hate groups in Canada. Crimes targeting specific populations are on the rise. Hate crimes make many Canadians feel vulnerable and afraid. We must not tolerate this any longer in Canadian society. It is time that Canada recognized hate crimes as a particularly serious category of crime which attacks our diverse society. Bill C-41 sends a clear message that these hate motivated offences will not be acceptable.

This rise in hate motivated crimes has also been recognized across the country by police. As a result hate crime units have been established to address the changing nature of crime. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police bias crime unit has already had an effect on hate motivated crimes in the national capital region. It has been credited with contributing to a significant decrease in all hate motivated crimes in Ottawa. As a first of its kind it will act as a model for other cities seeking to address this problem.

Canadian authorities have had their hands full trying to monitor and contain the hate movement. Bill C-41 is an important measure to help them protect innocent Canadians from persecution and harm. Section 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of Bill C-41 reform the sentencing provisions for hate crimes. These amendments are welcomed and endorsed by police units across the country.

In the past, court rulings have recognized the underlying principle that hate motivation should be taken into consideration in sentencing. These sections will ensure through legislative means this principle is applied uniformly across the country.

I firmly believe that specific legislation is required to address hate motivated crimes in Canada. These crimes are more serious than those committed against individuals and therefore should be treated more harshly under the Criminal Code.

For example, it is horrible that a young man walking home would be attacked because he was targeted as a member and therefore a representative of a specific group. This indicates that the crime is premeditated and committed with the specific intention of bringing deliberate harm and persecution to a targeted group.

Not only do hate motivated crimes make all members of a targeted group feel vulnerable or afraid, but unfortunately by their very nature they are often repeated crimes. Therefore, it is imperative that we punish these crimes more harshly.

Those committing the crimes must realize that their prejudice and hatred must not be tolerated by Canadian society and their sentence must reflect Canadians' collective condemnation of the crime. Only by recognizing the seriousness of these acts of aggression and punishing them accordingly under the Criminal Code can Canada combat this wave of hate propaganda.

Many of us assume that Canada is an open, tolerant and inclusive society. We must not take that for granted any longer. Canada has been changing over the past few decades. Unfortunately, some people do not like the changes and stubbornly resist them. That in turn creates more problems. People begin to scapegoat certain groups as instigating the problem. This is not right.

We must not blame groups for our problems in society. It is much easier to blame others than to seek solutions for our complex problems. We must not fall prey to this. We must work together to build consensus and effectively manage changes occurring in our society. However, we must also feel that it is crucial to protect individuals and groups from hate motivated crimes.

Hate crimes are almost invariably based upon these characteristics: race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation. Therefore, it is necessary to spell out these characteristics in order to ensure sentencing provisions in the legislation are upheld in court.

I have received letters from constituents regarding Bill C-41. In particular, they are concerned with the inclusion of the term sexual orientation. First, the bill does not confer any special rights, but rather protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender and a sexual orientation.

The bill will not grant special rights to homosexuals, nor will it in any way affect the traditional family. I have assured my constituents of these facts, but I will also take advantage of the chance to reiterate that this is a sentencing and crime bill which will protect all victims of hate crimes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the recognition of same sex marriages, nor will it destroy the traditional family.

I firmly believe that all Canadians should be protected from vicious, targeted acts of aggression. I certainly support the inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground for hate motivation in the legislation. The inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground for hate motivation recognizes the fact that criminal acts which are intended to terrorize the gay and lesbian community are on the rise and unfortunately have become a problem in Canadian society.

The term sexual orientation has been adequately defined. In fact, it has been used in a number of statutes in Canada, including the human rights legislation of eight Canadian provinces. This term has been consistently interpreted by the courts to include heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. It does not include pedophilia. As a matter of fact, pedophilia is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

I have also heard concerns from constituents that Bill C-41 will endanger freedom of speech. This legislation is applicable to offences indictable only under the Criminal Code. Bill C-41 is a sentencing bill and will be applicable once a person is found guilty of a crime. Church sermons are not crimes, nor is moral opposition to homosexuality. However, gay bashing is a crime. No one, regardless of their beliefs, will be affected by the legislation unless they commit and are convicted of an offence which is indictable under the Criminal Code. In addition, freedom of religious expression is guaranteed in the charter of rights.

We cannot ignore the fact that hate crimes are on the rise. We must not tolerate hate crimes in our society any longer. The Liberal commitment has been very clear from the beginning. Bill C-41 merely fulfils yet another of our promises outlined in the red book. I have always been opposed to hate crimes of any kind. I campaigned on this election promise and I fully support the bill at final reading.

I firmly believe that Bill C-41 is a crucial measure to send the strong message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canadian society. I strongly urge all parliamentarians to support the bill so that we may work together to protect all Canadians.

[Musicfest Canada, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the city of Calgary for hosting MusicFest Canada 95.

MusicFest Canada is the largest educational music festival in North America. With school choirs, jazz ensembles and concert bands from coast to coast, over 7,000 students were welcomed by the people of Calgary. Their warm hospitality was appreciated by all schools attending this event including Huron Heights Secondary School which is in my riding.

The Huron Jazz Ensembles conducted by Kevin Anderson represented Huron Heights with class in their role as ambassadors of the York-Simcoe region in this prestigious festival. Both c'est jazz, Huron's vocal jazz ensemble, and After Hours, the senior jazz band, were honoured with silver awards for their splendid performances.

In individual categories, Huron Heights again placed among the nation's best. Andrew Jones was named lead trombonist in the festival's Canadian All-Star Jazz Band. Andrew was also honoured with a prestigious General Motors award of excellence scholarship.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this fairy tale and I think there is a fairy tale within a fairy tale; some rather strange myths articulated by the member opposite.

I ask members present if they agree with the myth that perhaps the member is right about us interfering too much and that, following his logic, a person without food and shelter should be left without food and shelter.

The member is very much a proponent of the marketplace. I ask him if he believes that begging on the street is the marketplace's answer to helping people in vulnerable positions to find enough food and wherewithal to support themselves.

[Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand why rBST is needed in Canada, a country that produces dairy products of the highest international quality.

The National Dairy Council of Canada is strongly opposed to rBST. It refers to it as being an unneeded and unwanted intrusion into its business that offers no benefits whatsoever to consumers and processors.

Dairy cows injected with rBST are at greater risk of developing mastitis, a condition requiring the use of antibiotics. This will increase the dumping and waste of milk and potentially can lead to increased levels of antibiotic residues in milk for antibiotics that escape current detection methods.

Some researchers are concerned with the possible link between rBST and human health risks. I urge Health Canada to extend the moratorium on rBST. By waiting until conclusive independent studies have been completed Health Canada will have protected the health of Canadians.

[Fairy Lake Environmental Tour, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Day 1995 has passed. However the Sacred Heart graduating students of the environment and economic class have left a lasting legacy to the community of Newmarket, Ontario. I was pleased to attend the opening of the environmental tour of Fairy Lake.

The students enthusiastically worked on this class project to inventory and identify the natural and historical elements of the parkland surrounding Fairy Lake. They have also prepared a pamphlet and tour kit as well as a colouring book for children. In order to complete this project the students had to solicit support from the town of Newmarket and local businesses.

These enterprising students have now made it possible for individuals and families to enjoy and learn more about the natural and historical environment surrounding Fairy Lake.

Community involvement has always been a priority for the students of Sacred Heart. I would like to congratulate them on their efforts and wish them luck in their future endeavours.

[Sustainable Development, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the first session of the United Nations commission on sustainable development was held in New York. It was agreed at that time that members would report on activities undertaken to implement agenda 21, the global plan of action for sustainable development.

I am pleased to announce that Canada delivered its second report to the United Nations last week. This is a report to the United Nations from all Canadians. It reflects Canadians' efforts to embrace and promote sustainable development.

Canada has made progress this year in parks, agriculture, forests and in conserving Canada's plants and animals. We are developing Canada's resources and maintaining their health for the future.

Canada continues this week to share its own experiences with other United Nations members at the session, thereby helping to further promote sustainable development among all UN members and encouraging all member states to learn from each other.

[Hate Crimes, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, trickle down homophobia that results in hate crimes committed against homosexuals happens when political and social leaders trash gay people, when they equate gays with pedophiles, and when they state that granting gays rights enjoyed by other Canadians is granting them special privileges.

A Reform member opposite recently stated that gays are responsible for bashing gays and that gay bashing is simply one gang going against another gang. These actions give gay bashers encouragement and justification. These politicians are equally responsible for the violence that ensues.

In spite of what the Reform member opposite thinks, hate crimes against gay men and lesbians are a harsh reality. We must take these hate motivated crimes seriously so that our streets are safe for everyone to walk, so that gay bashing and homophobia will be relics of the past.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-41.

[Access To Information, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer for putting this motion forward.

At a time when Canadians are losing trust in their political institutions, all of us must be active in finding ways to promote more open and accountable government. However, in searching out these various ways to promote more open and accountable government, we must recognize that our institutions face a variety of other challenges equally important to Canadians.

People in my riding of York-Simcoe and Canadians from across the country want government to cost less, to be more efficient and to operate in a more businesslike manner. In some cases, it may be necessary to balance the value of openness with these other values. Although I find the objectives behind the motion laudable, I cannot support this motion for three reasons.

First, we must be concerned about the impact the motion will have on the competitive position of crown corporations. I do not say the impact is great or small, merely that before adopting this motion I would want to hear directly from those crown corporations on this issue.

Second, in these times of fiscal restraint we must stop and ask what this motion will cost the taxpayers and how those costs will be paid. Processing access requests requires an access to information bureaucracy and costs money.

The third reason I cannot support the motion is that it fails to distinguish between different kinds of crown agencies and different institutions of Parliament. The motion is too broadly worded. As such, it disagrees with the findings of the 1986 parliamentary committee report "Open and Shut" and with the most recent report of the information commissioner.

Returning to my first reason for opposing the motion, I am not convinced it has struck the proper balance between the compet-

ing values of open and accountable government on the one hand and the smaller, more efficient government on the other hand.

The motion asks that crown agencies be subject to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act. There are presently more than 130 crown agencies subject to the act. I assume the hon. member means by crown agencies, those crown agencies not yet subject to the act. I assume he is referring at least in part to crown corporations.

It is with respect to crown corporations that the balance between efficient, competitive businesslike crown agencies and open accountable enterprise becomes most important. The basic question is whether crown corporations which have mandates to operate in a businesslike fashion, sometimes in competition with the private sector, should have to work under different rules than their competitors.

If we believe that crown corporations should act like businesses then why would we impose a different set of rules on them? Of course, if we believe crown corporations should not be competing with the private sector at all, that is a completely different question. Subjecting the crown corporations to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act will not terminate the crown corporations, if that is the goal. It will simply make them less competitive, more expensive and less efficient.

I would not want to make a decision on the motion before the House until I know more about the implications. I am not prepared to support the motion at this time.

Also, I do not support this motion because we do not have enough information about what the potential costs to the taxpayers will be. Processing access requests costs taxpayers money. The most recent report of the information commissioner says that the annual costs of processing access requests is $20 million and that the current fees are not designed to recover costs but merely to deter trivial requests.

Adding institutions to be covered by the Access to Information Act is saying that the government needs to spend more money. Where will this money come from? How much will it cost? Whatever it costs, we know it is a cost that private business does not have to incur. Therefore it will make crown corporations less competitive, at least to the extent of the cost of processing access requests.

I do not say that the costs of processing access requests cannot be justified. The information commissioner says that the $20 million is a bargain for such an essential tool of public accountability and I think he is right. We should not adopt motions based on good intentions without first asking the basic questions of how much it will cost and who will pay.

As well, I am reluctant to support the motion is because of the report of the parliamentary committee that examined the Access to Information Act in 1986. Its report is called "Open and Shut". That committee considered a broad range of entities which might be made subject to the Access to Information Act.

The committee concluded it would not be appropriate for all crown agencies to be made subject to the act. It thought a definition of crown corporations should be developed and should be limited to corporations where the crown has a controlling interest and which provides goods or services to the public on a commercial basis.

The committee thought there should be special exemptions for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to program material.

With respect to Parliament, the parliamentary committee was of the view that the offices of senators and members of the House of Commons should be excluded from the scrutiny of the act. It said that the relationship between such elected and appointed officials and the electorate is sometimes described as akin to solicitor-client privilege. Parliamentary privilege is involved and therefore the committee suggested their continued exclusion from the scope of the act.

The committee thought that the Access to Information Act should not apply to the judicial branch of government and therefore not to the Federal Court, the Tax Court or the Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps surprisingly, the committee thought the act should apply to administrative tribunals which perform quasi-judicial functions.

The committee recognized that the federal government is involved in joint ventures with others, notably the provinces. In those cases it thought it would be best if there were negotiations with the provinces before making such joint ventures subject to the Access to Information Act.

Here we have a parliamentary committee that studied the issues very carefully. The committee's considered conclusion was that it would go too far to include all crown agencies. At least in the case of the CBC, it saw merit in examining the special circumstances of crown corporations that would become subject to the act. It saw merit in excluding courts, MPs' offices and federal-provincial joint organizations.

I am not prepared to say that the parliamentary committee was wrong in making these judgments. I think it goes too far to say in a sweeping statement that Parliament and all crown agencies should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

I support a comprehensive careful review of the Access to Information Act. I will support amendments aimed at improving access to government information. I may well support extending

the application of the Access to Information Act to crown agencies not yet covered by the act.

However, I cannot support a motion that fails to distinguish between various kinds of crown agencies that might make the correspondence I receive from my constituents automatically subject to the act and that is voted on without hearing from executives of the crown agencies not presently subject to the act.

The better approach is to take the Minister of Justice at his word that it is time for a review of the Access to Information Act. Let him draw upon all the expertise we can acquire and use the full parliamentary procedures, including committee hearings, to produce the best set of amendments possible.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party, in criticizing the budget and management of the economy, has been speculating that Canada will not be able to sustain the economic growth rate required to meet the deficit target.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance provide the doom and gloomers on the other side of the House with real facts and figures on Canada's economic growth?