Debates of June 13th, 1995

Criminal Code

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, is there still an opportunity to speak to Motions 3 and 4, which I understand are grouped together?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Yes, there is. The hon. member for York South-Weston.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not in the House because I was trying to seek some clarification with respect to this concept of alternative measures. I would like to address my comments for the moment to this particular provision in Bill C-41.

As I understand it, a person can commit a murder, a person can commit a rape, a person can commit an aggravated assault, and under this provision that person may never in fact be prosecuted in a court of law.

The section reads: "Alternative measures may be used to deal with a person alleged to have committed an offence only if it is not inconsistent with the protection of society and the following conditions are met: (a) the measures are part of a program of alternative measures authorized by the Attorney General or the Attorney General's delegate".

That means that we in this Parliament dealing with federal law are saying that there are crimes, any crime in the Criminal Code, if the attorney general for any of the provinces in Canada decides that for example we are not going to prosecute rapists any longer-you may say this is far-fetched and it will never happen, but the fact is that this amendment would allow that to happen. A provincial government somewhere in this country might decide for whatever reason they are not going to prosecute rapes any more and instead rapists will heretofore be subject to alternative measures.

What are those alternative measures? We do not in this legislation describe what those alternative measures are, what crimes will be subject to those alternative measures. In fact it says any crime. We do not know. Does that mean that a rapist, someone who is alleged to have committed a rape, can for example be diverted out of the criminal justice system and into some alternative measures? What can those alternative measures be? We do not know. This bill does not define what alternative measures are. This bill leaves it up to the attorneys general of the provinces.

I am sorry, but I do not have faith in attorneys general in this province to prosecute or to deal with serious offenders. They could very well say, using my scenario, that alleged rapists will have to do some community work, will have to cut grass instead of serving time in prison, or they might have to work at a day care centre. That might sound outrageous, but this section is outrageous. It is inconsistent with the desire of Canadians from one coast to the other to have strict laws to deal with violent offenders.

I can understand if we used alternative measures for non-violent offences such as fraud, robbery, someone who steals food, milk or bread, someone who is not a threat to my children or to

my neighbour's children. However this is totally openended. Any offence is eligible for alternative measures.

In effect what this bill would do is have a checkerboard system of criminal law in this country. If the attorney general for the province of Alberta decides no to alternative measures, there are no alternative measures in the province of Alberta. Everyone will be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. If the province of Quebec decides yes, we love alternative measures, we are going to divert everyone to the alternative measures scenario, then all of a sudden someone who commits a serious crime in Alberta will serve time in a penitentiary but if someone commits a serious crime in the province of Quebec he will be cutting grass somewhere and sleeping at the local Howard Johnson.

Members might laugh, but let me tell them that under section 745 of the Criminal Code there there is some discretion to the various provinces. In the province of Quebec, almost all those applicants, all those convicted killers who were convicted of first degree murder and applied for their parole ineligibility to be reduced, almost all of them have been successful. The going rate for murder in the province of Quebec is closer to 15 years. In the province of Alberta, where the attorney general takes a different view of these matters, the going rate for first degree murder is 25 years.

Criminal law should be applicable and evenly applied across the country. Section 745 is a clear example of what happens when one allows provincial attorneys general discretion in prosecuting in a particular fashion. There is no doubt in my mind that if this section is passed without amendment there will be a checkerboard system of criminal law.

If the government is serious about alternative measures they will restrict it to non-indictable offences. The hon. parliamentary secretary laughs and shrugs it off. I can understand-

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is utter nonsense.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I can understand that there are a lot of prisons in the member's riding and he might be somewhat sympathetic to that element in society.

There is a danger in this section passing an inconsistent system of criminal law. At the very least, the government should agree that any violent offence cannot be diverted out of the criminal justice system. That is discretion that this Parliament should not give to anybody. If one is alleged to have committed a violent offence, whether it is murder, rape, aggravated assault, that person should be prosecuted in a criminal court.

I do not want someone who assaults my children or rapes my neighbour's wife to be given the opportunity not to be prosecuted. That is unconstitutional. Every Canadian under the Constitution is entitled to the equal benefit and equal protection of the law.

I would submit that this section is unconstitutional. It is not in keeping with what I have been hearing for 11 years as a member of Parliament. We need effective laws in this country. What this does is further tip the balance in favour of those who choose a criminal lifestyle. That is wrong.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I should like to put one observation on the record about Group No. 1 that has to do with sentencing circles for aboriginal Canadians.

I do not really have a problem with the whole notion of sentencing circles, but there seems to be a grave anomaly between how we handle and treat young offenders in the system in an aboriginal sentencing circle and young Canadians who are not aboriginal in a similar circumstance.

As the House well knows, in a sentencing circle one of the primary motivators to change behaviour is identification of the perpetrator by his or her peers, aunts, uncles and other people who live in the community. In a sentencing circle the perpetrator is expected to make good to the community at large because he or she may have broken trust with the community. It is his or her obligation to make good to the community.

Why is it an important part of rehabilitation in the aboriginal community to identify young offenders to the community when in the non-aboriginal community anonymity is the very foundation of the Young Offenders Act? It just does not make sense to me that in the aboriginal community identification is a large part of the rehabilitation process and on the other side of the same coin in non-aboriginal communities which do not have the benefit of sentencing circles anonymity is a large part of it. In my estimation it makes no sense whatsoever to have anonymity as a part of the Young Offenders Act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The 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 (Mrs. Maheu)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were two motions in that grouping.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Motions Nos. 3 and 4 are in Group No. 1. We have deferred the division and Motions Nos. 3 and 4 will be dealt with at that time.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent of the House to consider that Motions Nos. 5 to 17 have been put to the House without you having to read them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 39, on page 8 and lines 1 to 15, on page 9.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 39, on page 8, with the following:

"limiting the generality of the foregoing, evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance;".

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34, on page 8, with the following:

"vated by prejudice, or".

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34, on page 8, with the following:

"vated by bias, prejudice or hate, or".