Patrick Gagnon

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-45, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16, on page 19, with the following:

"41. Subsections 128(2) and (3) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(2) Except to the extent required by the conditions of any day parole, an offender who is released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is entitled, subject to this Part, to remain at large in accordance with the conditions of the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence and is not liable to be returned to custody by reason of the sentence unless the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is suspended, cancelled, terminated or revoked."

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended in the English version a ) by replacing line 32, on page 24, with the following:

"(3.1) An order made under subsection (3)"; b ) by replacing line 36, on page 24, with the following:

"subsection (3) has been made, an offender"; c ) by replacing line 39, on page 25, with the following:

"to an order made under subsection (3) or"; and d ) by replacing line 2, on page 26, with the following:

"subsection (3) or paragraph (3.3)( b ) not to be released''.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, could you remind us which motion we are voting on?

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, regarding the motion tabled by the hon. member for Bellechasse, I wish to underline his active involvement in the committee. I think it is in everyone's interest to know how much the hon. member cares about his work. He is always striving for perfection. The government and especially the members of this House would do well to recognize what an excellent job the opposition member did, in my opinion, in this committee.

But I must stick to this text. We in this government support this motion as tabled by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-45, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 34, with the following:

"52. (1) Paragraph 140(1)( b ) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following: b ) the first review for full parole pursuant to subsection 123(1), including the review conducted pursuant to subsection 126(4), and subsequent reviews pursuant to subsection 123(5);

(2) Paragraph 140(1)( c ) of the Act is''. b ) by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 36, with the following:

"propriate that an inquiry under subsection (1) be held or where an inquiry must be held by virtue of subsection (1.1) a judge, supernumerary judge or former"; c ) by replacing line 46, on page 37, with the following:

"member's office,"; and d ) by replacing line 3, on page 38, with the following:

"the due execution of the member's office, or e ) has recommended conditional release for a violent offencer and the violent offender has committed a violent offence while on that conditonal release,''.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-45, in Clause 66, be amended by adding after line 6, on page 42, the following: b ) subsection 108(2);''.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-45, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 21, on page 42, the following: a ) the definitions day parole'' andfull parole'' in subsection 99(1);''.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-45, in Clause 39, be amended in the English version by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page 17, with the following: b ) serving a life sentence imposed otherwise than as a minimum''.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-45, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 46, on page 18 and lines 1 to 3, on page 19, with the following:

"(6) Where an offender receives a sentence to be served in a provincial correctional facility and fails to earn or forfeits any remission under the Prisons and Reformatories Act and is transferred to penitentiary, otherwise than pursuant to an agreement entered into under paragraph 16(1)( a ), the offender is not entitled to be''.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-45, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 21, with the following:

"(6) Subparagraph 129(5)( c )(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) referred to the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph (3)( b ) after the statutory release date has passed,''.

(7) Subsection 129(9) of the Act is re-".

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-45, in Clause 44, be amended in the English version by replacing line 13, on page 26, with the following:

"subsection 130(3) or paragraph 130(3.3)(b),".

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the motion presented by the hon. member would have limited effectiveness and is considered unnecessary in light of other mechanisms already in place to deal with restitution to victims.

The Criminal Code also includes current provisions for compensation and restitution to victims by offenders. The proposal made by the opposition, which would make restitution commensurate with 30 per cent of inmates' total gross income, would have very little impact in compensating victims because of the low level of inmates' income.

I would also emphasize that this proposal would be very costly and difficult to administer, particularly since the Correctional Service of Canada is not in the business of assessing the validity of victims' claims.

A similar motion was defeated by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which the hon. member is a part and where he had ample time to put forward his claims.

I would urge the House to reject the motion.

[Privilege, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I will not be able to intervene; you have already settled the matter. However, talking about shrinking a country's boundaries, just look at the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Privilege, June 21st, 1995]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, originally, my speech was supposed to be in French but as you know, this is an issue that has caused some controversy in many parts of English Canada and especially among representatives of the third party here in the House.

There is only one part of this bill which is controversial. Let us cut to the chase and talk about that one part, namely crimes motivated by hatred, particularly hatred of a person's sexual orientation.

In this debate, we have heard that sexual orientation is an ambiguous term. Not only is this term in the bills of rights in almost all of our provinces, but only two weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that sexual orientation was a form of discrimination and used those specific legally definable words.

We have heard talk about special rights being given to one segment of society. This bill does not give anyone special rights. It tries to restore basic human rights which are being stolen from some segments of our society.

Gangs of neo-Nazis are not prowling the streets looking for straight, white males to beat up and throw off cliffs. There are however gangs of neo-Nazis beating up and killing gays.

We have heard that looking at intent sets a dangerous precedent for our criminal justice system. Intent is the basis of our entire criminal justice system. After all, what is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder if it is not the intent of the perpetrator? The sentence for the latter is life in prison, yet both deal with killing.

We have heard the argument that a crime is a crime and that punishment for beating and killing should be the same for all people. There are different crimes and the punishment should fit the crime.

When a Jewish cemetery is desecrated the damage is not to property, it is to the entire community. As a result Jewish people feel unsafe in their homes as they recall their history and an entire segment of our society is scarred. That is exactly what the neo-Nazis want. When a gay person is beaten or killed it is not simply that person who is murdered but the entire community is victimized. This is exactly what the neo-Nazis and bigots of all kinds want.

We have heard the right wingers talk of conspiracy and agendas. The only agenda is that of the radical religious right trying to advance religious beliefs on the Canadian public. After all, this is not about new rights but about saving lives. The polls show that the Canadian public overwhelmingly wants this legislation, more than those who wanted gun control and that was well over 70 per cent.

I realize there are some members in this House who feel their personal religious beliefs are more important than either their constituents' views or an individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. However I would urge them to follow the lead of Quebec, the only province in Canada which has an official religion and the first province in Canada to acknowledge that there is widespread discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I would also urge these members to remember what we are talking about here. We are not talking about same sex benefits. We are not talking about adoption. We are talking about stopping gay people from getting systematically beaten and killed by bigots of all kinds.

Not too long ago a person walking across the bridge out here from Hull to Ottawa was seized upon by a gang of so-called neo-Nazis. His crime was only that these bigots thought he looked gay. The media later made a point of saying he was not gay but that should not have been relevant. This young man was thrown to his death at the foot of the cliff beneath these Parliament Buildings because the neo-Nazis thought it was good and right to kill gays.

I know some of my colleagues believe that their religion prohibits homosexuality. I also know that their religion prohibits killing. In Christianity the basis for the former is an obscure passage written in prose and the latter is one of God's Ten Commandments. I sincerely hope they will see their duty clear and join us in trying to stop these killings once and for all.

As a Roman Catholic and as a married man, I fully recognize the obligation of this House to recognize equal rights for all. All we are asking is that these fundamental rights which we hold especially on the government side be extended to all Canadians and that includes gays and lesbians.

[Petitions, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The petitioners call on Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

This is a petition which I wholeheartedly support.