Geoff Regan

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some but certainly not all of the comments of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

We should look at what Bill C-301 does. First, it would apply when an accused has two previous convictions for any of the 15 offences listed in the bill. Bill C-301 eliminates discretion of the court in sentencing the offender for the commission of a serious indictable offence.

I understand that violence in our society is an important problem, and I do not disagree with the intent here, but let us look at this for a moment. This response has some attractiveness; it is certainly simple and seems to be a very clear response. Is it the right answer to this problem?

It is true that all human institutions have human failings, so our courts are not perfect. However, by and large, if I read through decisions and look into the depth of the cases, I and most people also would find the same things, that we agree with the sentences if we actually have all the facts before us. One problem is that very often we only have a few very simple and limited facts about the case and the decision. Sometimes it seems the simplest answer is sometimes also the wrong answer.

It is noteworthy that all the offences listed in this bill already carry the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In other words, the judge already has the power to impose life sentences for any one of these offences, let alone for three. Although he does not have to, he has the authority to do so, and to take into account various factors in deciding on the appropriate sentence. This reflects the basic principle of let the punishment fit the crime. And it should. It means the key decision maker in matching the penalty to the crime is the individual who was there to see the case and all the facts of the case, the judge.

I know we will hear the argument that a pattern of three serious offences is enough to prove that an automatic life sentence does fit the crime, or at least the pattern of crime. To make a life sentence mandatory for offences other than murder or treason is a significant and I think ill-advised departure from our criminal law.

The Criminal Code currently provides for a mandatory life sentence for first or second degree murder or for high treason. There are other mandatory minimum sentences, but they are the exception in our criminal law. Mandatory life sentences are extremely rare.

I refer my colleagues to the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, "Sentencing Reform in Canada: The Canadian Approach", chapter eight, in which the commission opposed mandatory minimum sentences on the grounds that they diminish the role of the judge and can therefore result in arbitrary punishment and other inequities.

As an alternative to mandatory minimum sentences, the commission set out a number of sentencing principles, including this statement at page 154 of its report:

The paramount principle governing the determination of a sentence is that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender for the offence.

It seems to me that is as it should be. From Bill C-41, the sentencing bill now before the House, I refer to section 718(1): "A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender". The government is already adding that provision to the law with Bill C-41.

The reason for not removing the court's discretion to determine the sentence length is both sound and straightforward. The court should have the ability to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors that will help the criminal justice process impose the punishment that fits the crime.

The sentencing commission report sets out a long list of such aggravating factors at page 320, including the use of violence in the crime, existence of previous convictions, a manifestation of excessive cruelty toward the victim and other factors. Bill C-41 similarly acknowledges the importance of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing.

It is apparent with respect to the offences listed in the bill the court already has the authority to consider past offences as aggravating factors and to impose a life sentence for any of the offences listed in this bill.

The hon. member has tried to confine his three strikes model to a limited number of indictable offences and thereby avoid some of the excesses of the American statutes. He has succeeded only in narrowing the focus of Criminal Code offences that already carry a maximum life sentence.

Supporters of the bill will argue it is the pattern of offending that makes the difference, that requires this drastic change in our approach to sentencing. Let us examine the objectives of sentencing. One of the purposes of criminal law is denunciation through punishment. Nothing is achieved from the point of view of punishment by making a life sentence mandatory for three offences as opposed to allowing the court to consider all relevant factors in imposing sentence which can be life for any of the 15 listed offences. It seems likely such a pattern of repeat offending would lead the court to consider a very long sentence for any of these serious crimes.

The other purposes of sentencing include deterrence and the long term protection of society against criminals likely to reoffend. From this perspective, Bill C-301 casts too wide a net in its indiscriminate approach to patterns of offending. Would it not be better to tailor a law to the actual conduct that shows a likelihood of reoffending violently? Can we not focus on the circumstances of the offence, on the offender's mental state, on the brutality of his actions, all factors that evidence a continuing threat to the community?

We have such a law found in part 24 of the Criminal Code, dangers offender sections. This part specifically allows the court to impose an indeterminate sentence for a pattern of serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 as follows:

An indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder, involving, (i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or

(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict psychological damage upon another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more.

A number of particular sexual offences are also included in the definition. This approach to patterns of offending allows the court to link past offences and violent conduct to a prediction that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons.

The court is also required to hear psychiatric evidence and dangerous offender hearings allow both the prosecution and the defence to introduce evidence about the potential threat posed by the offender to the community. Those are good opportunities to hear what threat there is and the reasons for a long sentence. This structured approach contrasts with the automatic life sentence this bill would impose.

I recommend we let the courts do their job. The Criminal Code already provides for life sentences for these 15 crimes and additionally sets out a dangerous offender procedure which targets patterns of violence and links such patterns to predictions of violent reoffending.

[Committees Of The House, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade concerning Bill C-87, an act to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.

The committee has considered this bill and presents it without amendment.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's comments in relation to the TAGS program in Atlantic Canada.

I understand her concerns, but it is important that she realize that the process of retraining people who have been working in the fishing industry, which has been so devastated in the last few years by the failure of the cod, for example, and other aspects of the fishery, and trying to institute a program whereby you help people retrain and build them toward the possibility of working in other areas is not an overnight process.

I am not at all surprised that there have been problems and that the training programs have not succeeded greatly in getting people into other industries. If there is someone who has perhaps worked always on fishing boats or in a fish plant and has maybe grade five or grade ten education, they cannot be turned overnight into someone who will to be prospering in the information age. It is a long process and it takes a lot of effort and a lot of investment. It cannot be done overnight.

There seems to be a theory in the Reform Party that says let us cut them off and they will find something else. That is an interesting theory. It may work if they are in British Columbia. There is enough happening in some parts of the country, to some degree at least, so that there are other opportunities. In Atlantic Canada there are some opportunities, but there are not the kinds of opportunities that are going to deal with that kind of situation.

If people who have been fishing all their lives or working in fish plants cutting fish are cut off instantly from all kinds of government support, from the TAGS program for example, then they will not instantly get into a situation where they are to be out there if they have no support. They do not have the money to go west to find a job. If they get out there, what job are they going to take? What would you retrain them for? How long would it take to train a person in that situation to get a prosperous, successful job in a modern economy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not familiar with my riding and its nature. There is very little agricultural activity in my riding.

The member mentions rural Saskatchewan and that I should have some understanding of these issues. My grandfather would agree because he, my mother's father, was the member of Parliament for Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan and spoke often of the concerns of agriculture in the House in the 1950s.

The budget is balanced. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that in last year's budget Atlantic Canada took quite a strong hit. We lost a lot of military bases. Close to my riding, the base in Shearwater was cut by 40 per cent. We lost the base in Cornwallis and have had other cuts across Atlantic Canada in the 1994 budget. It was gratifying and satisfying to see a greater balance in this budget.

The hon. member talks about the problem of diversification in agriculture. Canola, invented in western Canada, is one of the products being grown more and more in western Canada and is providing a real good cash crop for western farmers. The area is also seeing more development and work in terms of bio-fuels. Both of these commodities are the kinds of things that can provide for western diversification and allow farmers to keep operating in western Canada, which I think is very important.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I am pleased today to speak on third reading of Bill C-76. I begin by reading from page 16 of the Liberal red book which was the book we campaigned on during the election. It establishes in many ways the mandate of the government. It states:

A Liberal government will adopt a two-track fiscal policy, matching a drive for jobs and growth with a comprehensive approach to controlling debt and deficits. The two tracks run parallel: fiscal discipline will support economic growth, while growth and jobs will enhance government revenues.

That is the basis of our platform and of our budgets.

The 1995 budget pursues both the goals outlined in that statement. Infrastructure projects are creating jobs across the country. I am certainly pleased to have them creating jobs in Halifax West. This program is an excellent example of job creation activities as one side of the two track approach.

The other side is also very important. We are attacking the debt and deficit. This attack is an important step toward a healthy economy, toward job creation. It creates the best possible climate for job creation.

For instance, since the budget interest rates have come down a bit. We would like to see them come down a lot more. Everyone who has a Visa account, a mortgage or a loan would like to see interest rates come down. We hope they will. However it has to be remembered that if the cuts in the budget had not been as large as they were interest rates would probably have risen.

Last year over 430,000 new jobs were created. That is largely due to the fact that interest rates were lower than they had been at times in the past.

If interest rates had been raised right after the last budget a lot of jobs would have been lost. In my area of Halifax West there is some concern because of the large civil service presence in the Halifax area. People who are being affected by the reduction in the civil service are very concerned.

The number of civil servants being cut is 45,000 across the country. When we recognize how many jobs that were created last year, over 430,000 jobs, you can see how much you can lose by having interest rates rise. What we lose in civil service jobs we hope to make up for by keeping interest rates low. That is a very important point.

Keeping interest rates low is very important in terms of the disposable income that people have to spend on things. If they are paying more for their mortgage, paying more for their Visa account, paying more for all their loans they have less to spend on consumer items, less to keep the economy going.

As we all know, expenditure reduction is a key to reducing our deficit. We cannot reduce our deficit without reducing our expenditures. That is why the government will reduce cumulatively over the next three years $25.3 billion. We are doing this without increasing personal income taxes.

We are maintaining our assault on the deficit with fundamental changes to the structure of government. Government must still be active but we have to find ways to reduce duplication. We have to realize the things that are the most important, find the priorities for government and reduce activity in other areas. We cannot afford to be in all areas all the time.

We are making tough choices in the budget. There is no question about it. It was not an easy budget to work out. There have been difficult decisions made. Program review involves some of those decisions; it involves going through the whole government department by department and analysing which activities and programs of government we should maintain and which we should reduce or remove. We have to maintain the most important ones. It is all about sustaining the most important activities of government. Those are the reasons we have to do this in terms of government reduction.

For those in my area and for those people who are affected by the cuts to government programs and the civil service, it is very difficult to accept and to receive those cuts. That is why it is so important we achieve our reduction in the civil service in a humane way. I spoke to the President of the Treasury Board when he was in Halifax some weeks ago about this matter, trying to maximize the flexibility so civil servants could move between the departments where there were possibilities of openings.

We are also merging and commercializing many programs of government in order to reduce our costs. We are also doing some other things I think are very positive. Most people recognize it as part of the balancing act that happened in this and the very important balance provided in the budget. We have cut business subsidies by I believe $60 million; that is important in terms of balance.

We are trying to achieve better management of government. We have also made changes in the new Canada health and social transfer. The Reform Party is telling us we have not made enough cuts. I do not think it has a real understanding of what the

effect of those cuts are on regions like mine. There will definitely be a real challenge in places like Halifax and throughout the Atlantic because of some of these reductions, especially in the metro area of Halifax-Dartmouth. We will rise to meet that challenge. We can do it and we know we have to. At the same time, to say we should go much further right now makes no sense to me at all. It fails to realize the impact these reductions will have in regions like Atlantic Canada.

The people in my riding of Halifax West have told me in their view the budget struck a good balance between the two tracks of our approach. There are enough cuts to get us on track regarding the deficit, to get it down where it should be quickly. At the same time we are maintaining the important principles of our government, the important Liberal principles of maintaining social programs.

I mentioned there is no hike in the budget in personal income taxes. There are new measures to ensure that taxes owed are collected. That is very important in terms of improving fairness in our tax system. There are also tighter rules for tax deferrals and for foreign and family trusts. It is certainly time the tax holiday for family trusts came to an end.

The red book platform focused in many ways on small and medium size businesses. The 1995 budget contains many continued efforts to support small business which we all know is the engine of our economy and which provides so many jobs. So many of the new jobs in our economy are being created by small business and so it is very important to continue to support small business activities.

The government looked to members of Parliament for input in terms of what we should be doing to help small business, which is why last October the industry committee came out with its report "Taking Care of Small Business". In November, 1994 the small business working committee came out with its report "Breaking Through Barriers". Many of the recommendations in those reports were adopted by the Minister of Industry when he gave response entitled "Building a More Innovative Economy" which contained among others key initiatives measures to reduce the paper burden for business. We all hear about the red tape and the number of forms people have to file and deal with when they are in small business. It is overwhelming for them.

I was talking recently to a friend who operates a small engineering business in my riding. He was talking about how he is always filling out an endless array of forms. It is important to reduce some of these forms. Also in those initiatives I mentioned there was a strategic procurement initiative which is very important to see that some of our government procurement comes more and more from small business across the country.

We are seeing the expansion of the Canada business service centres across the country to provide more services to help small businesses getting started or that need help with advice in terms of expansion. We are seeing the reform of the regulatory systems which will help to reduce red tape. We are also seeing new export financing initiatives targeted toward small business. The Export Development Corporation has been instructed very strongly to not only help the big companies but to focus its attention toward helping small business.

That is very important. Small business told us the most important obstacles to growth and jobs and to its growth, which means growth and jobs, is the debt and deficit. That is why we attack those obstacles. The budget reaffirms our commitment to small business as the engine of growth and job creation.

I am pleased that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is assisting in those efforts and doing important work. It is one of the most important financing tools in Atlantic Canada.

The OECD has advised countries that if they want to provide for a strong future they should support the development of self-employment skills in our populations. I am pleased to recommend support of this bill.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by over 3,000 people from Halifax West and other areas of Nova Scotia. The petitioners believe that all those who commit crimes of a serious nature regardless of age should be tried before the adult court system.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition signed by 144 petitioners, calling on the government to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[National Defence, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence.

It was recently reported that two members of the Maisonneuve Regiment in Montreal were associating with racist organizations. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what is being done about racism in the armed forces? What is the minister doing to prevent racists from joining?

[Earth Day, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Day is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate the successes we have had in the environment which reminds us of the great work that remains.

This past Saturday was the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. The students, parents and teachers of Harry R. Hamilton Elementary School in upper Sackville in my riding of Halifax West marked Earth Day in a very fitting way. With federal government support, they have initiated a number of very important environmental projects.

I had the pleasure of joining them last Saturday morning for an outdoor spring cleaning. Working in rubber gloves and rubber boots, we removed garbage, tires, and even an old car from the pond behind the school. That pond will now be an excellent setting for those kids to learn about science and nature.

I want to congratulate all those involved for showing the kind of environmental responsibility we all need to exercise.

[Rail Strike, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Atlantic Canadians are worried about the impact of the rail strike in our economy. We are frustrated with the attempts of the Bloc and the NDP to delay an end to the rail strike.

Small manufacturers, employees and exporters in Halifax West want the trains moving again and now. Can the minister please make it crystal clear to the opposition what the cost is, what the impact of the strike is on our exporters and what it is costing our country?