Myron Thompson

[Petitions, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this petition containing 2,541 signatures on behalf of the constituents of Wild Rose.

These petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal of Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, apparently we are running into the same problem we always run into with these people. When your head is in the sand and your eyes and your ears are buried you do not hear or see what is going on. When you get a petition with 2.5 million names and you cannot hear the message, you should get your head out of the sand.

I do not have to defend zero tolerance. Canadians will do that.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this past week I attended a conference in Hamilton sponsored by Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination otherwise known as CAVEAT.

There were 185 delegates present, Canadians from all across Canada representing all walks of life including victims, police, educators, law societies, politicians, members from the other side of the House. Numerous others were present at this conference.

At the conclusion of the conference many recommendations will be forwarded to the government, recommendations that I fully support-that must frighten some of them on the other side of the House-and believe would create an atmosphere that would make Canada a safe place for its citizens.

In comparison, I look at the various proposals put forward by the government from the justice department, proposals like Bill C-41, Bill C-42, Bill C-44, Bill C-45, Bill C-37. While they are all small steps, and I emphasize small, in the right direction, all of them are a far cry from what Canadians are calling for and what these recommendations are going to represent.

In my final analysis, I believe these proposals, including Bill C-41, will not produce the means to reduce violent crimes in this country to any significant degree. I listened to speeches from members of the Liberal caucus who say these bills are nothing more than a small step in the right direction. I am also aware of petitions put forward in the House calling for serious amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, amendments to the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act, petitions I might add with over two million signatures from all across Canada.

The only result that all the proposals for change that this government is producing will be an attempt to convince people all across the country that another promise by the red ink book has been fulfilled when in fact these proposals will do little or nothing to improve the safety of Canadians regarding violent crimes.

Now is the time and the opportunity for the government to bring forward legislation that announces zero tolerance for all acts of violence, and this is a far cry from that. What is wrong with zero tolerance? Why do we want to continue to live in a country where we have to be afraid for our children and grandchildren? What is the point? Let us continue to work hard in the area of prevention, but for heaven's sake draw the line in the sand and let all violent offenders know immediately that crossing that line will result in harsh meaningful punishment that they would regret.

The Minister of Justice is anxious to introduce new gun laws to make Canada safer. Why has one of these bills not been legislation that deems the use of a weapon in any crime will result in immediate incarceration to be served consecutively with any other sentence to a crime? Is the justice minister saving the gun issue to bring in legislation that will create a burden on law-abiding people? That is exactly what it will do when you start presenting legislation like I have seen. The criminal element will look at this legislation, they will laugh, make a joke and enjoy life.

What is wrong with legislation that says life means life and repealing such sections as 745 of the Criminal Code? Remember the victims. You seem to forget the word victims. Remember that victims of all violent crimes are affected for life by these crimes so why should punishment for the criminals be any less?

I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that we need to reduce the population in our prisons. There are better ways to deal with some non-violent offenders. But to suggest that violent offenders should be considered for release from a life sentence in 15 years is totally ridiculous. I shudder to think that Clifford Olson and his type may be on the street again some day.

That is why we have to ensure that sentencing guidelines are clear and consistent with the feeling of Canadians as represented by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states in section 15 that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Bill C-41, clause 718.2, subclause (1) states that: "When a court imposes a sentence it shall take into consideration the following: That the evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability" and

now they want to include sexual orientation "of the victim shall be taken into consideration".

I cannot understand what is the difference between murdering a white man, a black man, a heterosexual or a homosexual. Violence is violence. Why do we want to make it tougher because they happen to believe something different than the rest? There is no way in the world that inclusion of sexual orientation, for example, in this legislation should make one iota of difference as to how severely the criminal should be treated.

I personally believe that this clause conflicts with section 15 of the charter. There is no reason to say that a sentence should be tougher because of violence or hate. Violence is violence and hate is hate. There should be no exclusion when it comes to sentencing. The whole point of sentencing is protection of the victim and punishment for criminals based on severity of the crime.

In summary I would like to say this. This country is alarmed, people are alarmed. If we think that 2.5 million signatures to this government can be ignored then we had better think again. I can promise that from what I have seen from the recommendations of those petitioners, that is exactly what this government has done. It has ignored their recommendations. The government better open its eyes, read them when they are received and adhere to them or one day we will truly regret it.

[Dangerous Offenders, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is good talk and I would like to see something really happen. However from what I have seen from the proposals and the talk I have heard their policies are going to be as useless as the immigration policies.

I will give another example. A convicted sexual predator, a pedophile named Galienne, will be released in October. Experts say he is not rehabilitated and will prey on young children again.

Washington State has successfully enacted legislation that locks up perverts indefinitely. Will the justice minister implement an immediate moratorium on the release of all dangerous offenders until such time as new effective legislation is in place?

[Dangerous Offenders, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that Keith Legere is a reported pedophile just released from prison for the killing of a six-year old boy. His psychiatric assessment shows he is a pedophile with psychopathic tendencies. The protection of society has to be our number one priority yet there is no mechanism in our system to protect society against people like Keith Legere.

Will the minister take immediate steps to bring in legislation that will indefinitely incarcerate dangerous offenders?

[Justice, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree it is troubling and Larry Fisher is not an isolated case.

For example, there are convicted paedophiles in our prisons who the experts say can never be healed. Mr. Galienne is one of the examples of this type of prisoner. He is due to be released in October. The Solicitor General's proposals will have zero influence on Galienne's case.

Regardless of all the ridiculous remarks it is very important that the safety of Canadians is considered. Will the Solicitor General admit that the proposals he has brought forward will not affect people like Galienne one bit?

[Justice, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Early today the Solicitor General released his legislative proposals to keep child sex offenders in custody until the end of their sentences. I applaud that.

Unfortunately these proposals do not go nearly far enough. For example, a convicted serial rapist like Larry Fisher could still complete his sentence and be eligible for release even though experts say it is likely he will reoffend.

Can the Solicitor General please explain how his proposed amendments to the parole act will protect society from a person like Larry Fisher?

[Justice, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated a number of times in the House that the justice system in Canada is working fine. These statements made by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are not, I repeat are not, the same feelings of the rank and file Canadians throughout the country.

This government's efforts to being in change and make Canada safer are mediocre at the very best. This government

claims the answer to a lot of our problems is to bring in gun control because that is what Canadians want.

If this government is truly listening to what Canadians want then surely it is hearing the majority cry out for such things as consecutive sentencing, non-release of violent offenders, and the return of capital punishment. Or, is it only hearing the bleeding heart segment of our society? With the tinkering of legislation which is presently going on I would suggest the bleeding hearts are the only ones who are being heard.

As more policemen die, violent crime continues to rise and young offenders get bolder and bolder, very soon the voice of the majority will be heard. What will the minister do then?

[Translation]

[Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to me how this material got into the hands of 10, 11 and 12 year olds in schools across the country? Will the people over there laugh when their grandchildren bring that kind of garbage home?

[Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is about the most ridiculous answer I have ever heard when I look at pamphlets like this one. Oral sex, anal sex-