Val Meredith

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has publicly stated that the Solicitor General will have sole discretion in determining the openness of the SIRC report on the CSIS-Bristow affair.

Will the minister assure the House that he will make the entire report public, excluding the identification of confidential CSIS sources, other than Grant Bristow?

[Young Offenders Act, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to address Bill C-37 respecting the Young Offenders Act. Although I believe the government is perhaps considering changing the Young Offenders Act, I do not feel Bill C-37 really addresses the issues.

I have two main concerns with the bill. One of them is the reverse onus that everybody seems to think is a real change, something that is going to make a real difference, sort of the meat and potatoes of the bill. I would argue that the reverse onus, which means that the youth courts will put the onus on the

16 and 17 year olds to prove that they should be heard and dealt with in youth court, is really going to solve the problem.

My concern is that the people presently in the youth court system are the ones who make a decision on whether or not youths 14 years old and up will be tried in adult court. These same people are the ones who will hear the cases of 16 and 17 year olds and make the decision on whether they will stay in youth court.

The past will show us that judges in the youth court division are very reluctant to place 16 and 17 year olds into an adult court to face the serious charges of murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. They seem to be very reluctant to have the younger people move up to adult court.

I do not see that the bill will make any change. I do not see where these same people will force young people to be tried in adult court. What we will see is that the people who make these decisions will continue to allow 16 and 17 year olds to be tried in youth court.

One of the cases that comes to my mind is the young person who was convicted of killing Jessie Cadman. He was a young offender at the time of the murder. The youth court judge determined that he would be tried in youth court. It was only because of the pressure put on by the community that that youth judge was forced to consider adult court. Isaac Deas was eventually tried in adult court and was convicted of murdering Jessie Cadman.

I suggest to this House that the same thing is going to happen where the youth court judges are going to act in favour of the young people and keep them in youth court as opposed to moving them into adult court. I do not feel that this change in the bill is going to make any bit of difference to the way that 16 and 17 year old serious offenders are going to be treated. I have great concerns about that. I think it would have been a much stronger message for the government to automatically lower the ages so 16 and 17 year olds are tried in adult court without any kind of dilly-dallying around in the youth court system.

The other concern that I have is in lowering the ages. It concerns me when I hear some colleague from the Bloc suggesting that the only reason this government introduced Bill C-37 was because of complaining and hysterical comments from the west, that people in the west want to throw their young people in jail and throw away the key. I think they are misrepresenting what the people in the west are saying.

Westerners are very concerned about the direction in which young people are headed and the way our justice system is not treating them. We suggest that young people and adults have to be responsible for their actions. For every action there is a reaction. If the action is serious, the reaction should be duly serious. If we have young people out there creating physical harm to other young people, young people who are murdering

with intent or without intent other young people or adults, they should take the responsibility for their actions.

We are suggesting that 16 and 17-years olds are old enough to take that responsibility in an adult court situation. We are also suggesting that we cannot just forget about young people, 10 and 11 year olds, who have made a decision to commit crime, things that they know are wrong. We have to bring them into the system so that we can deal with the problem at that early age. If the problem is showing itself at 10 and 11 years it is very important that the system deal with that problem.

I suggest that when my colleagues from the Bloc say that people out west just want to lock away their kids and not deal with the problem, to ignore the problem, that perhaps they are ignoring the problem. Not too many weeks ago there was a 15-year old boy who was stabbed to death in Hull. Last week or perhaps the week before a 10-year old boy took two loaded handguns to school and threatened his classmates.

I suggest by not dealing with those problems, my colleagues are ignoring the problem in their province. If they really think that people in their province are not concerned about safety in their homes and on the streets and that young people bear the responsibility for their actions, they are fooling themselves. I do not think this problem only concerns western Canadians. I think it is a problem all Canadians are concerned about.

The results of various polls show that people in my constituency, representing all different classes of people and economic situations, feel that we have to lower the ages to 10 and 15 years old, and to let 16 and 17 year olds be dealt with in adult court. I received 3,500 replies to the poll included in my householder. Of those 3,500 replies over 90 per cent of the respondents were in favour of lowering the age.

This is not an insignificant number. Over 90 per cent of the respondents of 3,500 replies feel that the age limit should be lowered.

In a poll separate to mine taken by the community newspaper only 12.7 per cent of the readers who responded felt that the age limit should be kept the same. Over 80 per cent wanted either to eliminate the age restrictions with the Young Offenders Act or to lower them. I would suggest that I am in a position of representing my constituency. It may be in western Canada, but it is telling me loud and clear that my constituency feels one of the major changes the government should have considered in its amendment to the Young Offenders Act was to lower the ages.

I mentioned earlier that another concern of mine was reverse onus. It will not make any difference at all. I do not think we will see any changes in the numbers of young people who are raised to adult court. It certainly will not deal with offenders who are under 16. The present act as it stands right now allows 14-year-

olds and older to be raised to adult court. I do not see the same kind of conditions in this piece of legislation.

In summation, the only feeling of hope is that this is the first of two stages. The bill is only the first stage in amending the Young Offenders Act. The second stage, which is a 10-year review of the act, will allow the kinds of changes I feel Canadians are demanding, Canadians all across the country and not just in western Canada.

[Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm with the hon. member across the floor that the committee did look at it clause by clause and that the Reform Party is very comfortable in supporting the recommendation to take this through all stages today.

[Gun Control, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is also for the Minister of Justice.

In a recent joint sting operation by a number of Ontario police departments, 17 handguns were purchased illegally. Sixteen of these guns were illegally smuggled into Canada from the United States.

How would a total ban on handguns prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns?

[Gun Control, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In the wake of the tragic murder of Constable Todd Baylis, the Solicitor General stated that the killing pointed out the need for tighter gun control. Yet information released in the wake of the shooting indicates that the man who apparently shot Constable Baylis was already in illegal possession of the gun.

Could the minister advise the House how tighter gun control would have prevented the shooting?

[Justice, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have indicated that they believe the criminal justice system is working well and requires only minor changes.

Members of the government and the media have referred to a recent Statistics Canada poll that indicated the level of crime had not increased over the past five years. However nobody in the government or in the media seems horrified that the poll also showed that one out of every four Canadians is a victim of crime every year.

It is because of this fact that so many Canadians are afraid to walk the streets. It is because of this fact that so many Canadians have their homes and cars wired with alarms. It is because of this fact that our insurance rates and deductibles are going up every year.

If the criminal justice system is indeed working, why are there so many examples of it having gone wrong? Unfortunately flaws in the criminal justice system are all too often fatal flaws.

Canadians do not agree with the ministers. They believe the justice system is crumbling and they are demanding change.

[Petitions, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 39 constituents.

The petition calls for the government to not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993, to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.

It is my pleasure to present this petition to the House today.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, particularly today when I introduced my private member's bill, to present a petition from 103 constituents.

The petitioners feel that the government's attempt on gun control against legitimate gun users is not the route to go. They ask that Parliament not accept that proposal but to bring forward legislation that would deal with the criminal use of firearms.

It is my pleasure to present this petition to the House.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Criminal Code (replica firearms, theft, import or unlawful sale of firearms).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yorkton-Melville for seconding my private member's bill.

There has been a great deal of concern expressed in the House, in the media and by ordinary Canadians about the criminal use of firearms. There is only one effective way to combat the criminal use of firearms and that is to go after the criminals who use them.

I was pleased to hear in the House today that the Minister of Justice is considering changes to the Criminal Code to deal with this issue. I would suggest that this private member's bill gives the government the option of dealing with the matter immediately.

The purpose of this bill is to amend section 85 of the Criminal Code. The bill would remove the difficult onus on the crown of having to prove that the object used in the commission of a criminal offence meets the legal definition of a firearm. This is accomplished by adding replica firearms to the section. In addition, the minimum sentence for a first offence is increased from one year to five years and for subsequent offences the minimum is increased from three years to ten years.

This bill also creates two new offences. The first is theft of a firearm, which will carry a minimum sentence of three years. The second new offence is the unlawful importation of a firearm for the purpose of using it in the commission of a criminal offence or to be illegally sold. This offence will also carry a minimum sentence of three years.

The last part of this bill would go after those individuals who sell firearms illegally. They will now be deemed to be a party to any offence that the buyer commits with that illegally purchased firearm.

The bill sends a clear message to criminals. If they use a firearm in their criminal activity they are going to go to jail for a long time.

If the House is serious about going after the criminal use of firearms, let us put the right target in our sight; the criminal who uses firearms.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Justice, June 14th, 1994]

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

On Friday, June 10 the Minister of Justice advised that the Solicitor General would be likely inquiring into the accusations of Kim Werbecky. Ms. Werbecky has stated that after being raped and beaten by serial killer Clifford Olson she reported the incident to the RCMP and Olson was arrested, but charges did not proceed. Last week an RCMP officer who investigated the complaint confirmed the story, stating that the crown refused to proceed with charges because the victim was not believable, a liar and a tramp.

I would like to know if the minister would confirm that the statement is correct and whether a full inquiry is going to be held.