Debates of Feb. 20th, 1995

Criminal Code

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (voluntary intoxication).

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce a second bill. Again my hon. colleague from Crowfoot is seconding the introduction of the first reading of this bill.

This bill will create a separate punishment for those who willingly become intoxicated through alcohol and drugs and who during this self-induced intoxication commit a prohibited act.

The bill clearly defines what is meant by a prohibited act and I believe that all Canadians would concur with this.

The recent Supreme Court ruling is what began the outcry. It is interesting to note that it was a suggestion of the Supreme Court that we as members of Parliament make the necessary changes to an apparent flaw in the system.

In his minority report Mr. Justice John Sopinka stated:

It has been suggested that Parliament should create a new offence of dangerous intoxication. Such changes are for Parliament and not for this Court to make.

I therefore encourage all parliamentarians in this House to support legislation that would put an end to further inconsistencies within the Canadian Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise before this House on day 11 to present petition No. 11. These petitions are being presented on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the parole hearing.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murders.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of over 3,000 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to revise the Young Offenders Act as follows: when a youth 14 years of age and above commits any crime of violence, including but not limited to murder, manslaughter, aggravated and sexual assault and armed robbery, he or she will automatically be tried in adult court with criminal records and adult sentences, taking into consideration the maturity of the offender; and public identification of a convicted young dangerous offender.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it my pleasure to introduce two different petitions into the House today.

The first one draws to the attention of the House that although the proposed anti-firearms legislation, as these people call it, will do virtually nothing to reduce violent crime it will, however, severely restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of innocent firearm owners contrary to the very principles of justice upon which this country was founded.

They ask and pray that the government refuse the anti-firearm proposals of the Minister of Justice and insist that he bring forth legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.

I think that is a good emphasis.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from people in and around my riding. They ask Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which 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 sexual orientation.

It is a pleasure to introduce this on behalf of my constituents.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 1,000 of the undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's national public broadcasting service and an agent of Her Majesty; that the CBC is funded by the federal government with taxpayers' dollars; that the CBC plays a significant role in meeting the statutory objective set out for the broadcasting system of safeguarding, enriching and strenghthening the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada; that the CBC has applied to televise the proceedings of the Paul Bernardo trial and that this application does not support the role of the CBC and does nothing to safeguard, enrich or strengthen the fabric of Canada.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the actions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to request that accordance with its responsibilities as the national broadcaster, the CBC withdraw its application to televise the Paul Bernardo trial.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 400 residents of the County of Peterborough, many of whom I know personally.

They point out that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has allowed Bell Canada to increase local area calling rates by $2 per month for each of 1995, 1996 and 1997, which represents an increase of approximately 50 per cent over three years. They point out that the proposed increases far exceed the cost of living index and that the proposed savings in long distance rates will be of little benefit to the majority of senior citizens receiving the guaranteed income supplement and other low income individuals.

Therefore, these petitioners request that Parliament urge the CRTC to require Bell Canada to file a plan that will address the issues of accessibility to local telephone service and the affordability of local calling rates for senior citizens who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement as well as other low income individuals in our community.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two different petitions.

The first one is from very concerned citizens who would like to see a review and revision of our laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish young offenders who are terrorizing society by releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow persecution to meet the severity of the crime.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a group of concerned citizens who

call upon Parliament and petition Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I have three petitions. In the first one the petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that section 241 of the Criminal Code which forbids counselling, procuring, aiding and abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously.

In the second petition the petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that there be no changes to the law to sanction euthanasia in any manner.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is a petition indicating that the petitioners believe that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are subject to discrimination in this country and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has a right to protection against discrimination.

They request that Parliament amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present four petitions today. The third and fourth petitions aim to draw Parliament's attention to the consequence of legalizing euthanasia.

The petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the 400 petitioners of the first and second petition are requesting that Parliament not attack the recreational firearms community.

They support legislation that severely punishes one who uses a weapon including a weapon other than a firearm, protects the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding recreational firearms community to own and use firearm responsibly, passes careful scrutiny to see that it will improve public safety in a cost effective manner, and repeals present firearms control legislation that features tortuous language and has been characterized by the courts as one of the most horrifying examples of ad draftsmanship.

I am pleased to submit these petitions. I support them.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from mining communities in British Columbia who are calling on Parliament to take action that will see an increase in employment in the mining sector, promote mining exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and keep mining in Canada.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in another petition the petitioners simply ask 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 sexual orientation.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 39, I placed a question on the Order Paper on September 30, 1994. That was 143 days ago.

As the question required a detailed response, I did not request that the answer be provided within 45 days as the Standing Orders allow.

I am seeking information on grants from the Canada Council. The government has failed to provide the information requested and the Canada Council is already exempt from access to information requests. Now it appears to be exempting itself from usual parliamentary procedures and the expectations of this member of Parliament.

In these times of government restraint taxpayers are demanding that government funds be used responsibly so it is my role to ask questions to ensure that this happens. However someone has chosen not to answer the question. Why is this information being hidden from Canadians?

One hundred and forty-three days is an unacceptable length of time to respond to my question which I shall pose again:

For 1992 and 1993, what was the total amount of funds received by individuals and groups from the Canada Council, who were these individuals, for what specific projects did they receive funding and how much did they receive?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I hope I will be in a position to furnish the House with an answer to her question later this week.

I note that the reply will be lengthy because the Canada Council hands out a great number of grants to numerous individuals and bodies across Canada. The first reply was received. Certain information that the member requested was missing from the answer and it was sent back so that it would be made complete. I expect to be in possession of the complete answer later this week.

If the hon. member is so concerned about saving taxpayers' dollars I have no doubt she would have gone to the Library of Parliament and looked up the annual reports of the Canada Council wherein all its grants are listed. She could have obtained the answer there instead of putting a question on the Order Paper which will cost many thousands of extra dollars to provide to the House in the copies and in the form that she wishes to have it.

Having given that response, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I rise in the House to point out to the government that I have had a question on the Order Paper since October 19. This is more than 120 days ago, although normally, it takes 45 days to get a reply. It has now been four months, and I have yet to get an answer to my question, unlike the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

The Minister of Public Works is doing everything in his power to prevent us from having access to the information I requested. I wonder whether the government is trying to keep members from having access to the information they need. I ask the Speaker to urge the government to observe the rules of this House. In my opinion, this shows utter contempt for the Standing Orders of this House. Could I have a commitment from the hon. member, a specific date on which I will get the information I requested four months ago?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same answer the hon. member was given Friday. This government does not vary its answers. The answer is always the same. We will have a reply very shortly, and when I receive it, I will table it here in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

Young Offenders Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before question period I understand the Chair undertook that the member for South Shore would have time to reply to the question or comment of the hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe when we broke there were approximately two minutes left so I will keep my answer short.

It will come as no surprise that I disagree almost completely with the premise of the member for Wild Rose. We ignore the sociological factors at our peril.

I would be more apt to accept the views of Dr. Alan Leschied over those of the hon. member. The hon. member will perhaps remember that Dr. Leschied was at the committee hearing. I believe the hon. member was in attendance when he addressed the factors that had to be considered. If we read the transcript which is quite lengthy it would set out the views that I expressed earlier in my representations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is approximately one minute left. If the member for Wild Rose wishes to use 30 seconds of it he has 30 seconds.