Madam Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for his foray into the language of Molière and assure him it is always appreciated on this side of the House.
I do not think we can support the bill introduced by my colleague although we acknowledge the worthiness of the concerns he has shared with us today.
We think all Canadian parliamentarians are concerned about public safety and want us to live in a society where those who represent a threat to public safety or may be sexual offenders or may commit other types of offences punishable under the criminal code may be known to the police. We think that the means proposed by this bill do not go far enough.
Let us begin by saying that the sponsor of the bill spoke as if the bill was to apply just to sex offenders, when the bill clearly provides that it applies equally to people who have committed first or second degree murder.
It seems to me there are fairly significant distinctions to be made between the ability of someone who has committed second degree murder to be rehabilitated and that of someone known nationally as a sexual predator.
I think that in the bill, as section 727.1 appears, this difference is not very clear.
Second, the identity of the criminals covered by the bill cannot be sanctioned or the subject of interventions by this House, since the various civil registers are not under federal jurisdiction. It would be difficult, through a change to the criminal code, to ask the courts of justice to be responsible for this application.
In Quebec, for example, the provisions on name changes would be found in the civil code. It is hard to imagine how we could reconcile having a common law court apply the criminal code and a judge issue orders relating to the civil code.
What I find disturbing in a bill like this one is that, in a way—and the sponsor of the bill mentioned this several times—it is as if the rehabilitation of people who have been found guilty of criminal offences is simply not possible.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. In my riding office in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I met a 17 year old who comes from a dysfunctional family. His mother had remarried to a man who beat her up and who displayed extremely violent behaviour. This young man killed his stepfather.
I believe he had turned 18 when he committed that murder. This makes it first degree murder. He killed the man because he was living in a home where family violence prevailed. He claimed he did it to protect his mother.
Of course, there can be no excuse for such an action. But with a bill like this one, this young fellow citizen is in jail for 10 years. If he becomes eligible for parole after serving 10 years, he will then be 28. He will not even have lived one-third of his life and he may well want to reintegrate society.
The member who sponsored the bill would have us believe that people who are incarcerated are not required to undergo any sort of rehabilitation program. I believe that it is comments such as these that show that our Canadian Alliance colleagues lack the judgment we are entitled to expect from parliamentarians.
They must know—particularly with respect to Quebec, but I have been told that this is true in the case of other provinces—that those who are incarcerated are periodically evaluated. And programs exist to help them develop their social and behavioural skills.
The various federal penitentiaries offer a cognitive skills training program, a living skills program, and a sex offenders program. There are therefore a number of programs to help individuals try to improve.
Do these programs produce results in all cases? Of course not. Some people are offenders through and through. It is in their genes and they will never change. It is the role of the government and of legislators to ensure that these people do not come into contact with the public.
The bill, as drafted, is much too general. Interpreting it would pose quite a challenge for judges and it does not go into the detail we are entitled to expect.
If I follow the bill's logic, my constituent who, at the age of 18, killed his stepfather in the circumstances I recounted, would not be eligible to change his name. I do not think this would be desirable in his case. It is possible for someone to have made mistakes in one's life and to be rehabilitated. It is possible to have committed first or second degree murder and subsequently become a good citizen.
In this connection I am not sure that the right means are being taken to attain this most desirable objective. I do not, I repeat, want to see sexual predators or serial killers moving about freely in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve any more than the hon. member wants them in Ahuntsic. That is obvious.
It is a long jump from that to asking us as parliamentarians to pass a bill that would provide the courts with an interpretative framework that disregards the constitution. This creates difficulties. It is not possible for a court of justice, which has to reach a decision on an offence covered by the criminal code, to make interpretations relating to the identity of individuals since that involves provincial civil records.
Next month the Minister of Justice will be introducing a bill that will review the important provisions on organized crime and the criminal code. If I had one well-meaning criticism to make of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, it would be that they do not always differentiate between criminals in general and the worst type of criminals.
Take for example Mom Boucher, the leader of the Hell's Angels, whose stomping grounds were my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I have no hopes that he will be rehabilitated now that he is behind bars. I hope that we, as parliamentarians, will bring more severe provisions into the criminal code so that it will be unlawful to even be an ordinary member of any of the 38 motorcycle gangs known to the RCMP and to the criminal intelligence service.
I am not prepared to support a bill providing that a person found guilty of first degree murder, under the circumstances I have mentioned, is to automatically be denied an identity change.
In a debate on criminal law, rehabilitation and protection in society, there are nuances to be made. Unfortunately, things are not always as black or white as members of the Alliance would have us believe sometimes.
Once again, I am sure than our colleague, the sponsor of this bill, is motivated by the very noble reason of public safety, but I am not sure that the means and the route he advocates are the right ones.
I would like to quote statistics which, I think will illustrate my remarks once more. We know how the parole system works. Eligibility for parole does not come automatically. When sentencing provides for the possibility of parole, it comes after 25 years if a life sentence is involved, and after one-sixth of the sentence has been served in other cases.
Madam Speaker, I know that these concepts are familiar to you because you have served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
In conclusion, when we study our colleague's bill I hope we will find it contains harsher measures for criminals, but the possibility of rehabilitation for those who would seem to have the potential for it.