Val Meredith

[Petitions, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in two petitions the petitioners are praying that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have six petitions to present this morning, two of which are petitions where the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Justice, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a thousand law enforcement officers marched on Parliament Hill in the memorial for the 10 officers who were killed in the line of duty last year.

Today 51 names of prison guards, conservation officers and customs officials killed since 1967 were added.

Though all occupational deaths are tragic, the deaths of peace officers are even more so because they frequently come at the hands of someone else.

Many of these deaths could be prevented but they will only be prevented if we do our job in this House and pass the legislation necessary to get dangerous criminals off the streets of Canada.

We need an efficient removal system for our immigration department. We need gun control legislation that targets criminals and not the law-abiding Canadian public. We need to immediately revoke section 745 of the Criminal Code so that those individuals who murder police officers will have to serve the minimum 25 years that they were sentenced.

I join with the Solicitor General in calling for a memorial service next year when no new names are added to that list. Let us not forget that the decisions we make in this House may make a difference in attaining that goal.

[Petitions, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of my constituency urging Parliament not to 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 doctor assisted suicides.

[Petitions, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present to the House. The first one has 478 signatures. It is a request that Parliament review and amend the Young Offenders Act to save society from further harm committed by young offenders and to discourage young people from committing crimes by increasing penalties, releasing names for serious offenders and giving the police more investigative powers.

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the parliamentary secretary understood that this report has already been given. It is a section 54 report that went to the then Solicitor General, Doug Lewis.

Will the parliamentary secretary assure the House that unlike its predecessors, this government will advise legitimate political parties when CSIS learns that groups or individuals deemed to be a threat to national security attempt to infiltrate them?

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in July 1992 the Security Intelligence Review Committee issued a top secret section 54 report to the then Solicitor General, Doug Lewis. The report was entitled: "Domestic Terrorism Targets".

Has the ministry reviewed this report and if so, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House if there is any mention of the Reform Party within this report?

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am little concerned. I am hearing the government suggest the same crime may be considered more heinous simply because it has a bias or hate or prejudice attached to it. I would like to think the crime itself is heinous no matter what the motivation or no matter who the victim is.

One thing I would like to address is there are people who have killed. Perhaps they did not get murder one or murder two. Perhaps they got manslaughter for the convenience of the courts or whatever reason, but the point is there are people who have killed and have been sentenced for five or six years. With mandatory supervision or the legislated statutory release they will be out on the streets after two years.

Canadians do not like to see that. They want some sort of protection. Maybe this person made a mistake and did not mean to do it but surely to god there should be some supervision to make sure it is not going to happen again.

Canadians are concerned because there are people who do get out and are on the streets without any supervision. May I mention the name of Mr. Larry Fisher who is out wandering the streets without any supervision because the law does not allow that supervision. I would suggest that is what Canadians want this piece of legislation to do: make sure the streets are safer by protecting them from people like him.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be as generous as my colleague in commending the government for Bill C-41, but I find it is like many other pieces of legislation. It is a mere camouflage. It is a

life sentence tinkering instead of truly changing a system that needs to be changed.

I feel that Bill C-41 will not make those substantive changes that Canadians are expecting of this government. However, the true value of Bill C-41 will be and must be measured by whether it will provide safer streets for Canadians. I personally do not think that it will.

I would like to concentrate most of my talk this afternoon on one aspect of the proposed legislation and that is crimes that are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. I agree with everybody that we need to condemn that type of crime, but we should not be creating a hierarchy of victims in doing that.

Section 15(1) of the charter of rights states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection. I feel that Bill C-41 is going to change this. It will say that there are certain crimes against classes of victims that are worse than the same crime against other classes of victims. I would suggest that is against the fundamental principles of the charter of rights and that is that every Canadian has the same equal right to protection under the laws of Canada.

An example of how this could be applied happens more regularly than I would like to see. That is the home invasions which are occurring in the Vancouver area. Individuals, either alone or in a group are breaking into homes and terrorizing the occupants. They are not waiting until the homes are empty. They are breaking in when people are at home and they terrorize the homeowners and steal all the valuables. Many of these home invasions are committed by Asian youth gangs and they are targeting Asian members of the community. That is bias and it is victim selection. That would be considered an aggravating factor under Bill C-41.

In another instance there is gang activity. They indiscriminately invade homes, again harassing the victims and stealing all of their valuables. There is no aggravating factor yet that crime is just as serious and just as damaging to the victims.

They are two equally deplorable crimes. But one gang would get stiffer sentences because they were more selective in their choice of crime.

Judge the act. Judge the criminal activity, not the motivation. By judging the motivation we are delving into a risky proposition and it smacks of Orwellian thought policing. We are treading on very dangerous ground when we start to invade what we think are people's thoughts.

I would like to know whether this is there for the profit of lawyers and self-styled psychologists and psychiatrists who will soon become legal experts on this subject. Why should senseless assault be viewed as any less serious than one that is biased, based on bias, prejudice or hate?

We would have fewer problems with considering crimes where offenders abuse the position of trust with the victim to be considered aggravated. The Minister of Justice used adults and children, doctors and patients as examples. I would hope that he would also consider lawyers who abuse their position of trust with clients and politicians who abuse their position of trust with the electorate as other examples of breach of trust that should be considered aggravating circumstances.

Not only special mention of classes of victims but special consideration of aboriginal offenders also concerns me. This seems to offend the equality section of the charter. I am not suggesting there is an over-representation of the native population in our prisons, but I do not think this is the way to deal with it.

I spent 15 years in northern Alberta living in a native community. I have more experience than most on the inequalities and injustices that our aboriginal people face. They would be the first to agree that the problem is not solved in legislation. The problem is solved in the administration of justice.

I would like to give another example to consider. Suppose two individuals with identical criminal records participate equally in a crime, but one is aboriginal and the other is not. Does this legislation mean that the aboriginal offender would be given a lesser sentence even though he participated equally in committing the crime? What about an aboriginal offender who commits a hate crime? Does the mitigating factor of being aboriginal cancel out the aggravating factor of it being a hate crime?

We should not even be asking those questions. It is not for us to question the motivation of a crime. We must judge it on the act itself and make sure that every Canadian is treated equally under the law, that the law is not looking at race, colour or gender.

Generally I agree with incarceration being the last resort. I am well aware of the potential overcrowding in our prisons and the ongoing concern of what that will mean, but to suggest that we only want violent criminals in our jails only addresses part of the problem.

However, this bill does not in any way deal with white collar crimes. In those cases financial penalties may not be enough in themselves to deter fraudulent behaviour by corporations or people who ought to know better. Those people can easily pay a fine and need a more substantive deterrent than just paying some money.

I had hoped for more in the sentencing package. I had hoped for a greater recognition of the concern of Canadians that we need to have more control over violent offenders, that we need to

have some measure of deterrent, and that we need to consider that all Canadians should be treated equally.

The prime purpose of sentencing should not only be to have a penalty for the act but there should also be a deterrence factor. We cannot omit the deterrence factor in our sentencing legislation.

Sentences, like probation and prison terms are effective in the short term but long term supervision is needed. When a person is given a prison term of two years as the appropriate sentence for the committed crime, they should serve two years and an additional sentence of community supervision should be added on to that.

One might say that is similar to what parole is now. However there would be a greater acceptance and understanding by Canadians if they knew the courts deemed the penalty for a crime was x number of years and then deemed that the criminal would be assisted in getting back into the community under a period of supervision to be determined by the courts. If that happened there would be much greater acceptance for some of the sentencing that is handed down.

Serious violent offenders should have a lifetime of supervision. People who have committed murder or vicious assaults against another person should be under lifetime supervision in addition to their sentence. If Canadians were assured that long term supervision was being provided they would be a little bit more willing to allow offenders back on to their streets.

Although Bill C-41 is giving direction, it certainly does not go far enough. I wish this government would have a little bit more strength and a little bit more courage in making the tough decisions that have to be made.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year SIRC tried to convince the justice committee that the fact that Canada was a world leader in the petroleum industry was a national secret.

Will the minister assure the House that he will provide a broader interpretation of what national security is?