Debates of June 15th, 1995

Criminal Code

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Section 734 deals with fines. Does the Reform Party support the concept of fines as outlined in section 734?

What about section 738, dealing with restitution to victims of crime and in particular a proposal made that people who abuse their spouses should be ordered to make restitution?

I would like to know what the Reform Party's policies are in response to the very things that are in this bill on these points.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member. The answer to his last questions are yes, yes, yes, and yes.

However, here we have a bill that has a lot of similarities to Bill C-68 where it has some perfectly good legislation in it. At the same time, because of the way the Liberals operate, it has some terribly bad legislation in it.

This is just like Bill C-68, when we said: "Listen, why do you not split the bill. We will be glad to support you on the part dealing with stiffer penalties, but we cannot support you on the registration". We made amendments to this bill to try to delete some of the bad legislation that we thought was going to cause a lot of problems. It is interesting that so did some of the members over here. The government whip and the justice minister said no, it has to go through.

What is happening is that we are permitted to try to take out bad legislation here, which we have done. The member for Crowfoot made a ton of amendments to try to get this thing so it was acceptable by leaving the good parts and getting rid of the bad parts. I know the hon. member made a lot of amendments himself trying to do exactly the same thing.

However, the fact is that the justice minister, cheered on by the Prime Minister, had an agenda and just tried to ram this thing through and God help anyone in this party who votes against it, because they are going to answer to the whip over the summer.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear Reform members call the bill frivolous and say we are giving people with a different sexual orientation unnecessary powers when there is already flexibility, I say yes, judges have some flexibility, but they are under no obligation to consider the sexual orientation, race or gender of the victim. This flexibility applies to all human beings. There is no obligation.

In Quebec, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we have been using it for 17 years. We never had a problem. People never said we were giving more power to some people on the basis of their sexual orientation, race or gender. On the contrary. I believe this is a very democratic exercise.

Reform members today are trying to appear holier than thou. Today they are calling for the death sentence, and maybe tomorrow they will call for corporal punishment for children to make them more obedient. I think this bill is nothing out of the ordinary. It is a good bill. I think it should be supported, and we will do that. In Quebec, we have operated this way for a long time.

I would ask Reform members to stop playing holier than thou in this House. I would ask them to be logical and look at the bill as it is, and especially to read it, because they did not read it. I have a feeling they do not understand it very well. Maybe we should translate it for them. I would also ask them to try to understand and further the cause of democracy.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of talk there.

I want to address the first thing the member said. She said that the judges do not have an obligation. Judges are put in a position to preside over criminal cases. They are in fact entrusted with the responsibility and with the obligation to deal in the sentencing of people who are found guilty of committing crimes in this country. They do have the obligation. They clearly have an obligation. The problem is when we get politicians who do not allow them to do their job and want to try to influence them for politically correct reasons or for politically expedient reasons. They interfere with the justice system.

If judges were left alone to do their job without the outside influence from politicians and political parties who believe that people who commit crimes should not be convicted, we would have a safer society.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

I have to say that I do not think this debate is good for the Canadian public. This is the highest court in the land. Quite frankly, I am fed up with members of the Reform Party getting up and either intentionally or unintentionally in their debates on their points-they have every right to debate points here, but it seems that each and every time they use an example about what is wrong they use the example of a native Canadian, an Indian, as he just said, to show that the whole sentencing structure in Canada is wrong.

Did he use the example of an adult white male from Alberta? No. He used the example of a native. It is the same thing when there is a crisis in the fisheries on the west coast: they get up and talk about native poaching.

Every single thing I have heard from this bunch opposite since they got elected smacks of racism. It smacks of the very type of thing I fought most of my adult life to stamp out. To hear it repeated over and over again in the highest court in the land I think is condemnable.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know, was that a question?

I would like to make a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This hon. member appears to be under the understanding that I created this story. I did not. It happened. I read it in the newspaper. I read the report. I did not create the idea that-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. member for Dartmouth very clearly called the other member stupid. I do not think it contributes to the demeanour of this House one bit to have one member calling another in a loud voice stupid.

There are very few of us who were in the last Parliament here, and I can assure colleagues that the Canadian people thought we behaved abominably in the last Parliament.

I would ask the hon. member for Dartmouth whether he wishes to reconsider that comment.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was a member in the last Parliament, and I do not often use language that strong. I am sorry, but the member's comments incited me to strong language. If it is the wish of the Chair, I will withdraw it.

I will speak later in this debate and I will clarify my comments so that anybody who is listening will fully understand the intent of what I just said to the hon. member.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would thank the hon. member for Dartmouth very much for that. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), our members are to be dividing their time from this time on.

When I go to a store and buy a box of apples, if they are half rotten I am not going to buy the whole box. That is why I cannot buy this bill. There are some good points in it, but it is too bad that the merits are plumb spoiled by a number of items that are absolutely wrong.

I want to quickly mention alternative measures. Maybe it will help my lawyer friend across the way to know that I agree with the lawyers in their issue of the Law Times when they ask a question I asked. An editorial in the Law Times asks the question: Is the minister dispensing justice, or are his attempts at change another failed attempt at social engineering? I could not agree more with that law book. The minister has spent two years here trying to be a social engineer, not a Minister of Justice. I think he needs to straighten up his act.

I object to the alternative measures for the reasons I have mentioned. I object to the idea that we have come up with C-37, the tough legislation that is supposed to deal with young offenders, and then turn around and come out with a sentencing bill that puts in a clause that says 16 and 17 year olds who go to adult court are still going to be treated at sentencing as if they were juveniles. If they are going into adult court, they should be prepared to take adult sentencing. Even children in schools have told me that is the way it ought to be.

I want to make another quick comment with regard to something I read in Hansard . The hon. government whip dared to say that I am painting all teenagers with the same brush because I mentioned 16 and 17 year old hooligans. I did mention that, but I resent that comment. Thirty years of working in a school certainly ought to command a little respect for what I have done and how I treated students.

I can assure the government that 95 per cent of the time I spent with about 5 per cent of the youth, about 4 per cent of them were disciplined and about 1 per cent were serious problems. I do not paint them with the same brush. I reject that kind of thing.

I swear to goodness that if I were walking down the street and there were two people beating up on another person, had him down and were really working him over, I for one guarantee that I would make an effort to stop it. I would not stop to ask if the victim was gay or see if he was black or what. It would not make any difference. I would stop it, because that is the way it ought to be. You do not allow it to go on.

To hear these people talk, you would think I would lift him up and say: "Oh, you are gay, well then carry on". How stupid can you get? I resent those kinds of remarks and the implications.

I would like to say that I have a brother-in-law who is black. I love that man just as much as I do any brother-in-law. His children are also very black. I love every one of them, my nieces and nephews. I do. I happen to know a little bit about what it is to be involved with prejudice, because I have seen it happen to them. I know it can happen, and it should not happen. If we think for one moment that this kind of legislation is going to deal with it, we have to think again. It is not.

I want to talk about one other thing that really amazes me. I would like to find out how many employers throughout the country hire their staff and tell them: "You work for me, and if you go out and break the law make sure you do not go to jail for more than two years and I will keep you on the payroll". That sounds pretty stupid to me. Good grief, we are telling the taxpayers of the country that it is okay if we go out and break the law as long as it does not cost more than two years incarceration and they have to keep paying us and keep us on the payroll, so we had better make sure that if we get sentenced it is for only 18 months. Good heavens. We are pretty good, though; we got it changed from five years to two years.

The last thing I want to talk about is section 718.2. I did not even really want to address it. I firmly believe the courts are doing an excellent job of handling hate crimes now. I have seen numerous reports coming from the courts that verify that they are dealing with it effectively. They are doing a great job in that respect.

I only wish they would do that much for every crime, so we would not have to have caveat and other groups joining up all over the nation crying for justice and not getting it.

In the nearly two years I have been in the House I have not seen one piece of legislation that will make one person in the country any safer, not one.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Bill C-68.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That one most of all. Let me consider section 718.2. If they are doing their job then why are we including sexual orientation? That is a good question.

My, my. I heard my colleague say a minute ago that if we included it in this legislation it would be the first time it has ever been included. I have heard comments from the commissioner of human rights who says that if this is put into legislation it will get into the human rights act; it will get into the charter; and it will get into many more things.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That is what they want and they are making it very clear. That is why they are cheering. That is what they want.

I am speaking for myself; I am not speaking Reform policy. I want the whole world to know that I do not condone homosexuals. I do not condone their activity. I do not condemn homosexuals. I do not like what they do. I think it is wrong. I think it is unnatural and I

think it is totally immoral. I think that is the opinion of 85 per cent to 90 per cent of Canadians.

Members of the House should take the time to find out how their people feel, wherever they are. They should read the petitions with the table with the names of people who are against that kind of legislation. They should read the letters they get in their offices about the legislation. Then they would have no choice but to stand up for the people of Canada and say: "No, it is not going to be part of any legislation in the country as it condones immorality". That is what it does.

I will object to it forever whenever they attack the good, traditional Canadian family unit that built the country. I do not want any changes to that family unit, including this kind of legislation.

I am very certain the reason that section 718.2 has been included is so that they can do it in the future. I know for a fact, having talked to a number of Liberal backbenchers, that they feel the same way. I know they do. I have talked to them personally.

[An hon. member]

They do?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Yes, they do. I encourage them to stand for morality and not stand for immorality when the vote comes tonight. Listen to what the people have told you, read your mail and look at those petitions, one to ten or better. You must vote against this kind of legislation. Do not allow it to happen in this country. I beg of you, do not let it happen. Stand up for your convictions. Stand up for Canadians. I ask you to do that.

[An hon. member]

I have never seen a bigger bigot in my life.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the gentleman who just called me a bigot to come back in here and withdraw. Hamilton West, the member for Hamilton West.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Did the hon. member for Hamilton West call the hon. member a bigot?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West if he will have the decency to come back in the House.

The member for Hamilton West heard the point of order. Perhaps the member for Hamilton West would wish to reply.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have something to say if the hon. Speaker withdraws the remark that I do not have any decency.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, I realize this is a very, very controversial matter but there are rules, there are words that are unparliamentary. When one member calls another member a bigot and the member gets up and expresses offence at it, I would think that the member who has done it would be kind enough to withdraw the term. I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton West to withdraw the term.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. If Mr. Speaker rises and says will the member for Hamilton West have the decency to come back and apologize, then I have to question the Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs wish to speak to the point of order?