Val Meredith

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than five days since the Solicitor General received SIRC's report on the Bristow affair. Despite the fact that SIRC insists that it wrote the report for

public consumption, the minister has withheld it not only from the public but from the members of the national security subcommittee.

Could the minister advise the House the nature of the problem that is causing the delay and provide us with a definite time for the release of the document?

[Justice, December 7th, 1994]

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

When I asked the minister on Friday why a murderer who was classified as being violent and an escape risk was serving his sentence at a halfway house, the minister replied that it was a serious matter.

Given the fact that the seriousness of the matter has been compounded by the non-notification of the escape, is the minister prepared to hold a public inquiry into the matter?

[Justice, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Solicitor General about the escape of Ian John Hutton from a halfway house in Vaughan, Ontario. It was apparent that the minister had not been informed of Hutton's unlawful absence.

Could the Solicitor General explain why a murderer, who is classified on CPIC as being violent and an escape risk, could be unlawfully at large for four days without the minister or the media being notified?

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, not knowing enough about it I cannot comment on whether or not I would support it. However, I would suggest that the Reform Party does support in many different ways, and I mentioned one through 10 per cent of our salaries being given to charitable organizations, that we do support charitable organizations such as transitional houses.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that as a member of the House of Commons my role is to make sure our laws take spousal abuse and abuse against women seriously. When an individual murders his spouse he should get more than five years for manslaughter or a 20-month sentence of incarceration. Until our laws seriously take into account violence against women and give a sentence appropriate for the act we will continue to need transitional houses of all kinds.

Many of my colleagues probably support these transitional houses through our 10 per cent donations to charity. I am not for a moment suggesting that bake sales are the way to raise money any more than I would suggest that bake sales are the way for anybody to raise money. However there are ways through education and promotion where the community can and does support transitional houses for battered and abused women and children.

That is where the emphasis has to be placed. It is the community's responsibility to take ownership of the problem and get involved. They must stop expecting government to do it for them.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would not support core funding from the federal level. I do support funding from the communities where these programs are located. I would also support funding from the private sector in the local community and from the provincial governments. The support of these centres for the delivery of these services should be closer to the location.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Certainly the Reform Party does support crime prevention but we cannot have crime prevention only and not deal with crime itself.

We believe the social programs should be directed to those most in need. In reality poor people commit crimes but so do rich people. Crime crosses all barriers. If the hon. member honestly thinks that to solve the problems of poverty is going to

remove crime, I would suggest that he take a better look at who is committing crimes.

A lot of crimes are committed by people who come from the most privileged situations. I could go on and name a number of them we are all familiar with, from Thatcher in Saskatchewan to Huenemann in B.C. who killed his mother and grandmother because he did not want to share a $4 million estate.

Crime crosses all barriers. We have to deal with those problems we see in society that need to be addressed, poverty, illiteracy, those kinds of situations. We must direct that support to those most in need. We must not make it universal so that people who do not need the help get the help and the help that goes to those most in need is insufficient to look after the problem.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, actually there have been a number of polls. I believe the first poll was taken in 1982-83 where about 80 per cent of Canadians supported the return of capital punishment. There was another poll done a couple of years ago where 76 per cent of Canadians wanted the return of capital punishment.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak before the House on this issue, however I feel that the fifth anniversary of a tragic event is not really a time for celebration but one for reflection. It is the fifth anniversary of the massacre at l'École polytechnique in Montreal. I think all Canadians feel a sense of horror that anything such as that should ever happen in our country.

It was a tragedy when 14 young women were slain simply because they were female. I do not think there is anybody who does not feel the sense of outrage that gender should have been a factor in why anyone, male or female, would decide to end the lives of 14 young women.

In my one year as a member of Parliament I have met with dozens of parents whose children were slain. Children were slain because their murderers did not like the way they were wearing their hats. Children were slain because the murderer was intoxicated. Children were slain because they were walking down a busy street in the middle of the afternoon and just happened to run into the wrong person.

Parents are unanimous that the justice system must be changed. They want to know how it can be called a justice system when it calls for Robert Latimer to receive a life sentence with no hope of parole for at least 10 years for killing his disabled daughter in what some perceive to be an act of mercy.

Compare that with a man named Glenn Williams from my constituency who murdered his wife, the mother of four young children, the youngest six months old and still nursing. This man not only murdered his wife, but proceeded to clean up the house, clean up the murder scene, clean up the body of his wife, put her back into bed and call attention to the fact six hours later.

The murder scene gave no indication of what really took place. All that we have is the version given by the murderer, by Mr. Glenn Williams. While he was originally charged with

second degree murder, he was instead convicted of manslaughter. He received a five-year sentence.

The law says that Robert Latimer will serve a minimum of 10 years for his crime. The same law says that Glenn Williams will only have to serve 20 months. The system itself is flawed. For the last 20 years society has put the emphasis on the rights of the offender rather than the protection of society. This has to change.

The number one priority of the criminal justice system has to be the protection of society. We will never eliminate all the violent crime from our communities, from our society. Crimes of passion, fits of anger will always exist. Unfortunately a lot of crimes are committed by people who choose to abuse substances. That will always be with us unless we are willing to deal with the situation.

People are extremely upset when crimes are committed by previous offenders. How many opportunities must an individual get to continually violate, abuse and commit violent crimes against another person? How many people should an individual be allowed to hurt?

At the Reform Party's last assembly we passed a resolution that would call for criminals who have committed their second serious personal injury offence to be automatically designated as dangerous offenders. That means these people would be subjected to indefinite sentences. If the parole board believes these people are still dangerous they would continue to be incarcerated. If they are perceived to be a minimum risk or a good risk for parole, they could be paroled and let free. They would always be subject to some kind of supervision for the rest of their lives, considering what risk they pose to society.

Right away members from the Bloc will probably call such a measure draconian. The fact remains that a recent poll by Léger and Léger showed that 76 per cent of Quebecers agreed with this position. Only 16 per cent were opposed. I am confident that if a poll were taken across the country we would see similar results. Most Canadians agree that serious offences by dangerous offenders should be considered in that manner.

Canadians are sick and tired of criminals being allowed to commit serious crimes over and over again. Take the case of Wray Budreo. This man has over 35 convictions for sexual offences against children over a 30-year period. For his last conviction he received six years. Only a public outcry prevented him from receiving a statutory release and he was required to serve the entire sentence. The day his sentence expired people were outside the prison gates protesting his release, with just cause I would suggest. The law said that he had to be released even though many considered him still to be dangerous and a risk to society. When it was learned that he was residing in Peterborough many of the residents were concerned about his presence until he moved to Toronto.

Mr. Budreo was upset with the attention he was receiving. He says he is not a threat and that he just wants to get on with his life. I hope Mr. Budreo knows himself well enough to be making that kind of assurance to society. I hope that he never commits another criminal offence. I hope no other child becomes one of his victims. But the odds are not in his favour.

Paedophiles like Ray Budreo cannot be cured. At the very best they can only be controlled. But because of our justice system we cannot even see that Budreo is being controlled. The justice system says there is nothing it can do to protect society, to protect other children from becoming his victims. It infuriates Canadians to hear that their justice system cannot do anything to protect them from this kind of violent offender.

There is something that we as parliamentarians can do and that is to enact legislation that is necessary to protect society. Some legislation may infringe on the rights of criminals but incarceration in itself can be considered an infringement on the rights of criminals. We cannot abrogate our responsibilities as lawmakers just because we fear court challenges. The people of Canada have entrusted us to enact the necessary legislation to protect them. I would suggest that we have an obligation to Canadians to do just that.

This thought, this concern, was reiterated by Justice George Finlayson of the Ontario Court of Appeal this past Friday. In commenting on the appeal of Keith Léger, the justice made the following comment: "If society wants paedophiles more tightly controlled then it is up to the Government of Canada to legislate-but certainly not up to the court to stretch existing laws to the maximum". I think with Léger that is what this trial judge did. That is where we are at. It is up to us to make the laws.

When the justice minister introduced his gun control package last week he said that his package has the support of the majority of Canadians. I am pleased to see that the minister acknowledges the importance of the feelings of Canadians. I would like to take it for granted that the minister will soon be introducing a bill that would reintroduce capital punishment. After all a majority of Canadians favour the reintroduction of capital punishment into our justice system.

Unfortunately it would appear that is unlikely to occur. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Justice that he cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to invoke the spirit of public support with some legislation then he should be doing it with all legislation. If his gun control package is good legislation because he has the support of a majority of Canadians then reintroduction of capital punishment would be an equally good measure because it definitely has the support of the majority of Canadians.

This is a deciding factor in distinguishing the difference between the two parties. For the Reform Party the will of the majority of Canadians has priority whether it conforms with party policy or not. With the Liberal Party public support is only relevant to those issues where the majority of Canadians happen to agree with it.

Let us not make any mistake here. The public are demanding that tougher laws be enacted in our criminal justice system. Right now the justice committee is considering Bill C-37 which deals with amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Nothing seems to stir up citizens more than seeing young offenders being dealt with with kid gloves after they have committed serious and violent criminal offences. If we condone or minimize the violent acts of our young people against others how can we stand in the House denouncing violence against women? It is one thing to bring in the reverse onus clause for 16 and 17 year olds but Canadians believe they should be treated as adults, particularly when they commit serious violent offences against others.

In my spring householder I asked the following question: "Should the age limit in the Young Offenders Act be lowered from the current 12 to 17 year olds to cover only 10 to 15 year olds?" With almost 3,500 answers the response was 91 per cent in favour. Ninety-one per cent of my constituents thought that the age limit in the Young Offenders Act should be lowered. I am sure that if the Liberals asked the same questions in their householders they would get similar responses.

Does public opinion still matter to the government, or will it try and evoke that parochial attitude that "it knows better"? How can it use one tragic, heinous crime five years ago to justify an attack against all men as being violent against women in general? Canadians are demanding protection from all violent crimes; against men, against women and against children.

In the face of this concern experts keep telling us that violent crime is not really increasing. They point to a number of surveys to justify their claim. I do not feel like getting into a statistical war but I would like to present one statistic. According to Statistics Canada, in 1971 there were 204 crimes of violence for 100,000 persons; in 1991, just 20 years later, that rate had jumped to 1,099 crimes of violence for 100,000 persons. That is a 500 per cent increase in violent crimes in the last 20 years. That is what Canadians are concerned about.

Twenty years ago parents had no problem with young children playing with their friends outside. Today young children usually play under parental supervision. Twenty years ago high school students did not have any fears walking to school. Today young people are encouraged to walk in pairs or in groups, not just girls but also the boys.

The danger of walking alone really hit home in my community on October 4 of this year. Sixteen year old Pamela Cameron, a young girl who had just moved to our community, had just left school, had coffee and muffins with some friends of hers at a muffin shop and was walking along the busiest street in our community in the middle of the afternoon to visit her boyfriend. She did not make it.

Two blocks from my constituency office at four o'clock in the afternoon, Pamela Cameron was murdered. She was pulled off the busiest road in my community into some bushes and brutally murdered.

For the next week or so while the murderer was still at large, the community was in absolute distress. There was such fear in my community that parents would no longer let their children walk to school by themselves. They were driving their kids to school. They were driving their kids to their jobs. They were not allowing their daughters and their sons out of the house.

Ten days later when the individual gave himself up to authorities and was charged with the murder, there was a tremendous relief in our community. Finally they could finally feel a little more comfortable. Then the sense of relief over the tension of the capture of the accused turned to anger when they found out that this accused had a criminal record and was considered to be a violent and dangerous offender when he was released from prison.

To the credit of my constituents they turned that anger into something very positive. They formed community groups that would be available to search for missing youngsters immediately. They began a campaign to support my private member's bill which deals with being allowed to keep dangerous offenders in detention after the expiration of their warrant. In one day at a local shopping mall they were able to collect 1,000 letters each addressed to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Justice. They were able to come up with a petition with 6,700 names. In Milton, Ontario, where the young girl came from her older sister collected over 10,000 names on a similar petition, a community showing its support for a private member's bill that talked about dealing with dangerous offenders in a very serious way.

Something quite miraculous happened last week. Despite the fact that all members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc who spoke in debate were against the bill, last Thursday that bill miraculously passed second reading unanimously. I am not sure what happened but I would like to think it was the indication of the public that they were extremely concerned about violence in our society and they wanted this House to pass legislation to deal with the problem and to put the protection of society above and beyond the rights of the accused.

On this fifth anniversary of the massacre at l'École polytechnique we must pay special attention to violence against women. We as a society must clearly send a signal that domestic violence against women and children will not be tolerated any more than violence against strangers. Whether the violence originates with a spouse, another relative, a friend, a coworker, a boss or even a stranger it is a concern we have to deal with. Evolution has given males a physical strength, a superiority over females but our laws are supposed to level out the playing field.

Unfortunately for many years the law has been complacent with some forms of violence against women, especially spousal abuse. Even today while society publicly condemns the act, that the victim was the offender's partner appears to be a mitigating factor in these crimes.

We cannot continue to excuse violence against women or children. We must continue to address this problem. Whether it is through education, community intervention, treatment, or criminal sanction we have to repeat the message that violence is not an acceptable means of expression. It is not acceptable to abuse our spouses, our children or for that matter any other human being.

As the mother of four boys I find it difficult sometimes to encourage young boys who are rough and aggressive by nature to realize there are limits to that aggression. As parents it is our responsibility not only with our young boys but also with our young girls to get them to express their feelings of frustration and anger in non-violent ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I do hope we see a decided change in violence against all persons in our society over the next 20 years.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from persons all across the province of British Columbia containing 196 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament refuse to accept the hon. Minister of Justice's anti-firearms proposals and insist that he bring forth legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.