Val Meredith

[Census, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians answering this question will have the option of stating whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, West Asian, or Southeast Asian. However, those who want to identify themselves as Canadians will have to select the category "other". In our own country we will have to be considered "other".

Can the minister explain why the government is so adverse to having respondents identify themselves as Canadians?

[Census, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, next year Canadians will be asked in the Statistics Canada census to identify themselves by race. Citizens will be required by law to answer this question. The question is there so that the government can calculate its racial targets for its employment equity program.

Will the Minister of Industry confirm that the government intends to prosecute Canadians who refuse to participate in the exercise of racial identification?

[Immigration Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-316 today. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Cambridge for his efforts in this regard.

The intent of the bill is simple: non-citizens convicted of serious criminal offences in Canada should be deported. There is nothing earth-shattering in this idea. In fact, it is currently the law of the land.

Bill C-316 attempts to bring some certainty to the process by having the deportation incorporated into the offender's sentence. I can see why the hon. member for Cambridge found it necessary to try to bring some certainty to the process. It is not there now.

Many who have spoken in opposition to the bill, including the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, have stated that what we have in place now is more than sufficient. The reality is that there are major deficiencies in our present legislation, even with Bill C-44. On occasion these deficiencies have outrageous and tragic consequences.

I would like to advise the House about a current case taking place in British Columbia. On September 23, 1993, Hector Lopez-Tello, a Guatemalan refugee claimant, was convicted of drug trafficking and ordered deported. He was allowed to remain in Canada while he appealed the deportation order. On April 28 of this year Francisco Castro, a refugee claimant from El Salvador, was also ordered deported after being convicted of drug trafficking. He was also allowed to remain in Canada while he appealed. On May 7 Lopez-Tello, Castro, and a third refugee claimant were arrested and charged with the second degree murder of 24-year-old Matthew McKay. The three murder suspects appear in court on October 16 of this year.

Meanwhile, McKay left behind a wife, a 16-month-old daughter, and a mother who wonders about Canada's justice system and immigration system. She should wonder. How does a man like Francisco Castro get to continue to walk the streets of Canada when, according to an IRB spokesperson, he had an extensive criminal record for trafficking in a narcotic?

We provide the man with refuge and instead of thanking us he involves himself in the drug trade. When he is ordered deported he takes advantage of the numerous appeals available to refugee claimants and walks the street a free man. Meanwhile, a young man is murdered and leaves behind a wife and child.

If ever the hon. member for Cambridge needed an example as to why his bill should succeed, this is it. If Lopez-Tello and Castro had been deported immediately after their drug trafficking convictions, maybe Matthew McKay would still be alive today.

Most Canadians think that we should be deporting these individuals. Less than a year ago I included the following question in one of my householders: Should immigrants or refugees convicted of serious offences be automatically deported? I received 2,829 responses to the survey, of which 2,744 people, or 97 per cent, said yes. Only 61 people, or 3 per cent, disagreed. That shows us the support that is out there for such legislation.

The Canadian people have traditionally been generous in welcoming new immigrants to this country. We welcome people from countries all over the world to come to Canada to start new lives. We welcome legitimate refugees fleeing war and oppression in their homelands. However, Canadians' hospitality does not extend to criminals. Those who enter Canada illegally, with criminal records, or those who commit serious criminal offences once they arrive in Canada should not expect an equally generous reception. Those with criminal records prior to their entry to Canada are inadmissible; thus, they should not even be in this country. However, those who commit serious criminal offences in Canada have violated the basic agreement of their welcome to Canada. In exchange for a safe haven or the opportunity to start a new life that Canada offers refugees or immigrants, we have every reason to expect these individuals to obey the laws of our land. If they do not, they have sent us a clear message that they are not prepared to live up to their end of the bargain. Why should we feel compelled to allow these individuals to remain in Canada when they are telling us that they are not going to play by our rules? The deportation of these individuals should be automatic-end of the argument.

This brings us back to Bill C-316. Many of those who have spoken before me have pointed out some of the technical flaws of the bill. Yes, there are problems, but nothing that cannot be corrected by amendments made at committee or report stage. The

intent of this bill is sound. It deserves the opportunity for further hearing.

It is important that this House send two important messages. The first message should be sent to immigrants or refugees intent on committing serious criminal offences: If you commit a serious crime, on top of the other penalty that you may receive, you will be deported. The second message needs to go to the Canadian people, and that is that this Parliament is intent on ridding Canada of foreign criminals. This is most important.

Although those immigrants and refugees who commit serious crimes are a very small minority, they receive all the headlines. Canadians become outraged when they see the difficulty we have in deporting these criminals. It ends up bringing the entire immigration and refugee program into disrepute. Thus, we have to show Canadians that we are prepared to get rid of these few individuals who adversely affect the reputations of all immigrants and refugees.

Passing Bill C-316 will demonstrate that we are prepared to deal with the issue and deal with it quickly. It deserves a full and comprehensive hearing. Those in favour of the bill and those opposed should have the opportunity to appear before the committee and present their views. From there the committee can make whatever amendments necessary to make this a workable piece of legislation. After all, if the government made over 80 amendments to Bill C-68 at report stage, and that was its own legislation, we should have no problem in amending this bill. Those who are convinced that the final product is not acceptable can still vote against it at third reading. However, it deserves the opportunity to pass second reading and go to the committee.

I urge all members of this House to consider the bill carefully and to give it their support at second reading.

[Violent Crime, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for the third time in less than a year I rise in the House to comment on the murder of a young Surrey girl. In the early hours of September 6, 10-year old Melissa Deley was asleep in her bed, that is until Bret Neff decided to break into Melissa's house.

Neff left the house with the TV, the VCR, the family car and Melissa. Some time over the next few hours, Neff sexually assaulted and murdered Melissa.

Like Fernand Auger before him, Neff spared the Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money by taking his own life.

However we are still left with the legacy of three young Surrey girls, abducted at random by strangers from the street, the workplace and the home, sexually assaulted and murdered.

On this National Victims Day we remember those who fell prey to brutal and cowardly attacks. We must also commit ourselves in this House to ensure that Pamela, Melanie and Melissa did not die in vain.

[Criminal Code, September 21st, 1995]

Six months.

[Criminal Code, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I had not made any arrangements to split my time but several colleagues would like to speak on it in due course, given the rotation.

[Criminal Code, September 21st, 1995]

moved that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Criminal Code (replica firearms, theft, import or unlawful use of firearms) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved with the gun control issue for almost three years, since the Reform Party asked me to chair a subcommittee on the issue in January 1992. Prior to that date I was blissfully unaware of the topic, since I was not personally affected by the legislation. Since then I have found it to be one subject that evokes a great deal of passion whenever it is debated. Much of the argument is dominated by those who take extreme positions on either side of the argument. That is probably why I was asked to chair the Reform Party subcommittee on the gun control issue.

I do not now own nor have I ever owned a firearm. I do not hunt, target shoot or collect guns, nor would I allow one in my house. However, having spent 15 years living in northern Alberta, I recognize that for many people, especially those living in rural Canada, a firearm is a necessary tool in their daily lives.

With this background I set out with four colleagues to examine the question of gun control. I reviewed the legislation that is in place now. I received a number of briefs from organizations like the Gun Control Coalition and the National Firearms Association and countless groups in between. I spoke to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, pro and con. I learned very quickly there is little common ground and I admit that it is likely impossible to come up with a gun control bill that would satisfy everyone. The solution became a little more basic: to address the problems caused by firearms in our society.

With very few exceptions, the central concern everyone has about firearms is their criminal use. People are concerned about the number of crimes that are committed with guns. They are frightened about the apparent increased willingness of criminals to use guns, and they are terrified to hear about random drive-by shootings like the one that killed Nicholas Battersby here in Ottawa last year.

In other words, people wanted the government to enact legislation that would deter criminals from using firearms. In response to those concerns we heard the justice minister making statements last year that he believed only police officers and soldiers should have guns. One can imagine how legitimate gun owners felt when they heard comments like this from the new justice minister.

It was apparent that alternative legislation needed to be drafted. I approached the police and crown counsel and asked them what legislation they needed to assist them in combating the illegal use of firearms. I listened to the current shortcomings of section 85 of the Criminal Code and heard how these weaknesses had led to charges under section 5 frequently plea bargained away. I felt that with improved legislation in section 85 we would be taking a giant step in deterring the criminal use of firearms. On June 15, 1994 I introduced Bill C-260. I want to remind the House that the government's Bill C-68 was introduced eight months later on February 14, 1995.

Bill C-260 addresses the weaknesses in section 85 and creates new offences for the theft and possession of stolen firearms, the illegal importation of firearms for criminal purposes and makes an individual who illegally sells a firearm that is subsequently used in criminal offence a party to that office.

Under Bill C-260 anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence would receive a minimum five-year sentence consecutive to any sentence for the crime itself. For a second offence the penalty would increase to a minimum 10-years consecutive.

These minimum sentences would be a real deterrent for any criminal who chose to use a firearm. Not too many criminals would be prepared to risk that additional five-year minimum sentence.

Similarly, the new subsections created by Bill C-260 would also have had a deterrent effect. Today a break and enter conviction usually nets an offender probation or at most, a sentence of up to six months. However, if during that break and enter the offender happens to steal a firearm, that criminal would suddenly be facing a minimum three-year prison sentence, an effective deterrent, as is the minimum three-year sentence for those illegally importing firearms for criminal purposes or illegal resale in Canada. The last subsection of the bill would make those individuals who provide the guns illegally to criminals responsible for their illegal acts. These individuals play an integral role in the commission of these crimes so they should be made a party to those crimes.

Another issue that the bill addresses is the inclusion of replicas in section 85. One reason that section 85 charges seldom succeed is the existence of replica firearms. Currently the crown must prove that the weapon used in the commission of an offence meets the legal definition of a firearm. This is only possible in those instance where the accused is immediately arrested with the firearm still in his or her possession or if a shot is actually fired during the commission of the crime. If neither of those things happens, the crown cannot prove it is a firearm and therefore, no conviction under section 85.

Bill C-260 just requires that the object used in the offence appears to be a firearm. The bank teller who has a firearm shoved in her face during a robbery is just as terrorized by a replica as she would be by a real firearm.

That is the bill, a bill that addresses the problem of the criminal use of firearms, a bill that could be called gun control and crime control. It is not what the government wanted. It wants to control the firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens so the government gave us Bill C-68.

Only about 20 per cent of Bill C-68 deals with the criminal use of firearms, although the other 80 per cent of the bill will likely make criminals out of a lot of otherwise law-abiding firearm users.

While the section of Bill C-68 that deals with increasing the penalties for the criminal use of firearms has been loudly touted by the government as a get tough policy, it will in reality become a paper tiger.

In British Columbia today the average sentence for a criminal convicted of using a firearm during the course of a robbery is five years. Bill C-68 introduces a minimum sentence of four years. How is this going to deter anyone?

In addition, Bill C-68 introduces a new section to deal with replica firearms. The only problem is that it is now up to the crown to prove that the object used in a crime was either a firearm or a replica. In most cases it will be able to prove neither so the legislation will be used as infrequently as it is today.

I have no difficulty in defending my Bill C-260 compared to the Liberal Bill C-68. I targeted the criminal who uses a firearm during the commission of an offence. The government targeted the legitimate gun owner. This is an example of the basic philosophical difference between Reformers and Liberals. We get tough on criminals. The government gets tough on ordinary Canadians.

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share the time of my colleague from North Vancouver.

It is a pleasure to speak on the motion of my colleague from North Vancouver calling for a binding referendum on the question of capital punishment. The motion has two very important elements: the use of referenda and the issue of capital punishment. First I would like to discuss the issue of a binding referendum.

While the old line parties prefer a system where the average citizen of Canada is entitled to exercise his or her franchise only at election time, the Reform Party believes in a more participatory electorate.

Central to the Reform Party's policies on political reform, we believe that the citizens of Canada should have the ability to directly participate in the formulating of legislation on such moral issues as abortion and capital punishment.

The old line parties say that their constituents elected MPs to represent them in Ottawa. That is true, but seldom in the past have MPs from the old line parties ever faithfully represented the views of their constituents. Maybe, if they had, there would not have had to have been the Reform Party. Instead MPs used what they perceived as a moral superiority to disregard the sentiment of their constituents and voted as they saw fit.

The previous free votes on capital punishment are typical of this attitude. How many of those who voted against the reinstatement of capital punishment voted in accordance with the views of their constituents? Considering the fact that the polls over the last 10 years have consistently shown that support for capital punishment hovers around the 70 per cent mark, that means the last time there

was a free vote on the subject a number of MPs ignored their constituents.

It is this attitude that necessitates giving the electorate a direct vote on the issue of capital punishment. To object to a referendum is to say that the people cannot be trusted to make the right decision. If that is the case, these same people should not be trusted to elect their representatives or to vote on whether or not to separate from the rest of Canada. As the referendum on the Charlottetown accord showed, the average Canadian possesses a wisdom that frequently escapes those whom they elect.

I have no hesitancy in entrusting my constituents with the power to vote in a referendum. We put forth our position and we let the people decide whether they agree, like an election. Although it is extremely unlikely that the Liberal government will ever permit a referendum on capital punishment, I will nevertheless state my position for the record.

I believe the death penalty should be an option for the jury to decide after convicting an individual of first degree murder. Once again I am putting my faith and my confidence in the common sense of the common people. If we can entrust them to decide whether or not we should reinstate capital punishment, we should also provide them with the responsibility to determine if it is an appropriate sentence in a particular case. I am confident that jurors would use this power wisely.

One need only look at the Susan Smith trial held in South Carolina earlier this year. Smith was charged with murdering her two young sons by strapping them into her car and rolling it into a lake. At her trial it did not take a jury long to convict her. Then the jury was tasked with deciding if Susan Smith would be executed or would receive a life sentence.

Despite the horrific nature of her crime it did not take the jury long to reject the death penalty and impose the life sentence. This is a prime example of how the people when given the responsibility to make life or death decisions will exercise that responsibility judiciously.

It is my opinion that the 12 men and women who sat on the Bernardo trial jury should have been entrusted with that same responsibility. Who better than those 12 individuals, the people who sat through the videotapes, who listened to the testimony of both Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, should have determined his fate? If they had had that responsibility I am not sure what they would have decided but I am convinced they should have had that option.

However, I have little doubt about how a jury would have decided 14 years ago when Clifford Olson had his trial. Instead we have punished him by giving him a life sentence, one that is costing Canadians close to $100,000 a year to maintain. Thanks to a recent court ban, Canadians no longer are subjected to Olson's ramblings to the media. We no longer have to listen to his complaints about the quality of the popcorn he gets to eat while watching movies on his personal television.

Unfortunately next year Clifford Olson gets the spotlight once again. Thanks to section 745 of the Criminal Code, Olson gets to have a jury trial next year to see if his 25-year parole eligibility should be reduced. Although I doubt that anyone would ever consider releasing this monster the mere fact that Olson gets such a platform is an outrage.

Before commenting on arguments about whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, I would like to state that the death penalty would serve a useful purpose if for no other reason than to dispatch the occasional monster like Clifford Olson.

With regard to the deterrence value of capital punishment, many opponents point to the United States as an example of where it has not been a deterrent. First, look at the numbers closely. Between 1977, the year the United States started to reapply the death penalty, and 1992 there were 188 executions carried out in the United States. During that same period there were 338,480 murders which means that a murderer in the U.S.A. has a 1 in 1,800 chance of being executed. With odds like that, how can there possibly be a deterrent?

No matter which argument is used we know the Liberals are not prepared to reintroduce capital punishment. The residents of Surrey have just suffered the third tragic murder of a young girl within the past year. When 10-year old Melissa Deley was abducted from her bedroom, sexually assaulted and murdered the citizens of Surrey said enough is enough.

I have received hundreds of calls from individuals telling me that if the federal government is not prepared to enact the laws to protect them then they will take whatever measures necessary to protect themselves. While I do not condone any form of vigilantism such acts are likely to occur because of inaction by this Liberal government.

My constituents elected me to ensure their voices would be heard in Parliament so they would be able to participate in the democratic process. To that end I ask for the unanimous consent of the members present that this motion be deemed votable for Thursday, September 28.

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak this afternoon if for no other reason than the temperature in the Chamber is bearable.

It is an honour to speak on third reading of Bill C-87, an act to implement the prohibition of the production and use of chemical weapons. I join most members of the world community in abhorring the use of chemical weapons.

This proposed legislation takes into account many concerns and tries to establish a compromising balance between these concerns. It acknowledges the devastation caused by the horrendous use of chemical weaponry as well as the ongoing studies and testing of these substances for future development.

The convention modernizes the 1925 Geneva protocol which was an international attempt to limit the use of chemical weapons after the first world war. This protocol was brought to present day standards by having observed past experiences and having learned from them. We now realize that putting a ban solely on the use of chemical weapons left many areas open and

allowed the stockpiling of such weapons but closed the doors for use and further study.

Bill C-87 is the act to implement the more recent convention of 1993 and realizes there are many uses of chemicals and outlines both the positive and negative aspects. The 1993 convention ensured states would not stockpile chemical weaponry for retaliation against future attacks or to instigate war. If they did they would face the condemnation of the world and sanctions as well.

Canada has always been among the first to initiate peace. In 1983 Canada made large contributions to the committee that developed and outlined a treaty on disarmament leading to the conclusion of discussions in 1992 when Canada was urging a ban on all warfare to be accepted internationally. There is now such a ban on the use of chemical weapons which caused such brutality. It is this ban we are discussing in the House today.

The convention involves not only those who engage in war but also those industries using chemical substances in their production and testing. This is where Canada assumes its role in the convention.

Canada will primarily be enforcing the legislation when it comes to the importing and exporting of chemicals listed in the three schedules. Canada does not own chemical weapons nor do we contain any manufacturing facilities that do so. Therefore our role in implementing the convention is fortunately not very complex.

In 1915 Canadian soldiers were victims of the first gas attack during World War I. The 1925 Geneva protocol had a certain amount of control on the use of these weapons but was not able to completely rid their usage.

Recently we have seen chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war, in Japan and by Iraq against its own civilian Kurdish peoples, among others. This convention, which will be headed by the organization for the prohibition of conventional weapons, will enforce legislation in all the signatory countries prohibiting chemical weapon usage and will hopefully have the international support and pressure to impose greater sanctions against those contravening these policies.

Areas of legislation included in today's convention include verification policies, creation of an organization to implement them, specific guidelines with regard to levels of chemical ability as well as processes for destroying weapons and their plants.

The verification regime, which is global, is to ensure these weapons of mass destruction will never be developed again. The international monitoring system will safeguard against weapon production by inspecting all facilities which are or were used for these purposes. This system does not affect Canada as there are no facilities here. This verification process will also be extended into other chemical industries.

Three schedules are to be used in ensuring no chemical weapons are or can be manufactured. Industries using such chemicals will be required to report annually and each government of the signatory countries will be required to report to the international organization, the OPCW.

In Canada the Minister of Foreign Affairs will designate officials who will act as Canada's national authorities. Canadian officials will collect information from Canadian industries and transmit it to the OPCW for inspecting purposes. However international inspection teams have the right to conduct inspections without warrant in accordance with the provisions of this convention. It contains appropriate provisions for inspection and keeps them in accordance with the need to protect privacy.

As will be a requirement of other countries, Canada will enact legislation in the Criminal Code providing penalties, fines and imprisonment for warlike use or production of chemicals. Legislation will protect but keep a close eye on usage of these chemicals for medicinal purposes as well as for pesticides, fertilizers, paints, textiles and lubricants.

The convention will also require state organizations to enforce restrictions on the export and import of schedule chemicals with states that have not signed the convention. All chemicals on the list will therefore be subject to the Import and Export Permits Act. Although there are restrictions which will be imposed on exports to suspect states, the legislation has balanced these restrictions with the desire to liberalize trade for industries and medicinal purposes.

The schedules which will be used in identifying chemical legality are in three groups. The first contains chemicals such as mustard gas. Some other chemicals in this same group are used in pharmaceuticals and in cancer research. Schedule 2 consists of chemicals which are precursors to schedule 1, chemical weapons. Schedule 3 contains the least powerful of the three groups, often used in industry but can also be used as weapons when in large quantities.

Each group will be under scrutiny, whether it be checks and balances, limited amounts permissible or whether they must obtain a licence and pay a fee to use them.

Under international supervision all stockpiles and producing facilities of chemical weapons will be destroyed within a given time frame. Given this, the legislation will have to consider economic implications. There will be a 10-year limit for states to destroy their stockpiles and facilities. However a 10-year extension is also allowed which has stricter controls. I have a problem with this 10-year extension because if we continue to allow extensions on the destruction of these facilities we are allowing them to remain for greater use.

The Reform Party supports Bill C-87 and would like to see it implemented immediately. Canada has always been a strong supporter of multilateral efforts to promote peace and restrict arms proliferation.

By accepting the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and eventually on their destruction Canada is promoting common norms and values with like minded countries.

Reform acknowledges the government has consulted for many years on this topic but still does not know how much it will cost to implement nor the exact size of the bureaucracy to be created. Foreign affairs has speculated a full time staff of five as a national authority plus one staffer at foreign affairs might be needed. We would like to make sure the bureaucracy does not expand beyond this.

Section 15(3) states exigent circumstances would make it unnecessary to obtain a search warrant when an inspector is refused entry. This should be clarified. The wording in section 20 also seems too broad. Section 23 states:

Where a person has been convicted of an offence under this act, any thing seized by means of which or in respect of which the offence was committed is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and shall be disposed of as the minister directs.

Exactly what could be confiscated under this provision is unclear. The powers of inspection should not be allowed to get out of control. Reform does support this legislation and hopes there will be some accountability in its enforcement to see it is not used unnecessarily.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick.

They already have the flexibility, not looking just at a list but looking at all factors, whether they fall under a list of enumeration or not. The list of six or seven items is not just bias, hate, and prejudice. There are far more areas. This is an exclusionary list that is being put into law that will give lawyers more and more opportunities to suck money out of the economy.