Debates of March 27th, 1995

Criminal Code

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will not take long.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I hesitate to interrupt. Not to diminish in any way the importance of the subject matter to members on both sides of the House, but clearly I do not want the House to engage in debate on what was raised as a point of order, although it might have become more of a point of clarification, which would lead to debate.

I understand there have been some negotiations between the parties and an agreement made. Going back to the member for Wild Rose, there was a motion put before the House. Unanimous consent was requested and has been denied.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support Bill C-72. I commend the Minister of Justice for responding quickly to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on this matter.

This is a matter of concern to all Canadians. It is clearly a problem that has been identified in the criminal justice system. It is appropriate the minister respond, as he has indicated, and preclude a person from being able to rely on self-induced intoxication as a defence.

It is also proper that the minister is considering the most appropriate way the proposal can be introduced into our criminal system. It would be irresponsible not to consider the constitutional ramifications of the proposal.

As we all know, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about their safety, the safety of their families and the safety of their communities. Their confidence in the criminal justice system and its effectiveness in reducing crime rates have given rise to concern over the last few years. There is increasing

demand that the government take action to deal with this situation.

I believe firmly and my party believes firmly that society should take stern, tough measures against violent crimes and those that commit them. I also believe just as strongly that we must balance the approach by putting in place programs to effectively prevent crime. We must be both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

It is true that Canadians need to believe that those who commit violent crimes for whatever reason will be properly dealt with in the courts. This bill will address one concern: that someone can use the defence of intoxication to get away with a crime of violence. It is appropriate that the punishment fit the crime.

Unfortunately it is a knee-jerk reaction that is not good enough. From experience we know that simply expanding the incarceration system, the prison system, spending more money on courts and prisons, making more and more laws to punish more and more people has little positive effect on the overall sense of security and overall levels of criminal activity.

The Minister of Justice recently pointed to this problem. He said that building more jails, filling them with criminals and throwing away the key will not solve Canada's crime problems. In a speech to the Empire Club of Toronto he stated: "I believe we have to go beyond the slogans to the substance of the issue to prefer logic to rhetoric".

He continued: "If crime prevention is to be successful, it has to be a co-operative effort by law enforcement agencies, social agencies, the education system, community workers and health professionals. The goal is preventing crime. Making the streets safer has as much to do with literacy as it does with laws, human rights and living standards".

"Crime prevention means recognizing the connection between the crime rate and the unemployment rate, between unsupervised access by young people to movies saturated with violence and the way they behave toward one another and how a kid behaves in a school and whether he has a hot meal".

The Minister of Justice is entirely right in linking the causes of crime to the level of criminal activity which has caused so many people concern.

Before I go on to comment more about that let me talk about this defence. We know that the conduct of Henri Daviault, who consumed 40 ounces of brandy and seven or eight beer before raping a 64-year-old, partially paralysed woman is something that is reprehensible, something that every decent member of society finds absolutely disgusting.

Carl Blair, drank 40 ounces of rye, 40 ounces of vodka and a large quantity of beer and then brutally beat his wife. This kind of activity cannot be tolerated. We have to do everything within our means to address this effectively.

One of the things we can do, one of the things that we have the power to do, is ensure that drunkenness cannot be used as an excuse for violent behaviour, that it cannot be used to avoid a criminal sanction for such reprehensible acts.

Where did this activity come from, where did this seeming disregard for the rights of women come from, why do people turn to these actions? We know from reports by the standing committee on justice and the solicitor general on crime prevention that those represented on the committee maintain that the identification and punishment of criminals are, on their own, ineffective means of reducing future risks of victimization and promoting community safety.

Over the past decade we have seen the United States and some states in that country spending unprecedented sums of money on more judges and more prisons. In some states the building of prisons is the largest industry. Yet there, as here, citizens continue to report an increasing fear of crime in their communities. Pouring more money into punishment and incarceration cannot be seen as the complete answer to the concerns Canadians have about their justice system and safety in their communities. It cannot be seen as the complete answer to the problem of criminal activity that we experience. While the punishment must fit the crime, we must also act to eradicate the conditions that lead to individuals violating those laws. We must find new, effective and cost efficient ways of addressing the causes of crime.

There is a growing recognition in Canada and in our communities that any effort to reduce crime must include programs targeted at its root causes, as the Minister of Justice indicated in his recent speech to the Empire Club. Evidence points to a strong connection between social and economic conditions and crime. The minister admitted as much. Extensive hearings by committees of the House have identified, among other things, unemployment, poverty, physical and sexual abuse, illiteracy, inadequate housing, social and economic inequality as major contributors to crime.

The social and economic conditions that lie at the root of criminal behaviour are of course complex. A safer community strategy must look well beyond the criminal justice system to incorporate all levels of all governments and a variety of community groups to seek real answers to these real problems.

A successful response will recognize that employment policy, educational policy, family policy, youth policy, health policy must be understood in the context of their impact on crime. We know there is a strong connection between poor economic conditions, unemployment and crime. Study after study point to these contributing factors and point the direction we must

pursue if we are going to effectively deal with criminal activity in our country.

In closing, simply reacting to crime is not the answer. Apprehending, prosecuting, sentencing, incarcerating and treating offenders cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars annually. While these measures are important, while we must be tough on crime and criminals, they will continue to be ineffective until they are coupled with long term solutions for prevention, until they are coupled with long term solutions to be tough on the causes of crime also.

Crime prevention through social development involves positive interventions in the lives of the disadvantaged and neglected in order to bring about a reduction in deviant tendencies. This approach aims to reduce crime and create safe communities by tackling the social and economic conditions that breed crime.

To approach the issue of criminal concerns in our country, the difficulties with our criminal justice system in the piecemeal way with which the government is proceeding, is simply not the answer. The government deals with the specific issue of the intoxication defence. It is only reacting because of public pressure which arose as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

This is not a planned approach to effectively dealing with crime in our communities. There may be differences of opinion in how we address this problem, but what the government needs is a holistic, wide ranging, complete approach to the issue of criminal justice. As with all things we must focus on prevention rather than just picking up the pieces afterward. If ever we want to see a contrast we only have to look south of the border to see what is happening in the United States. If we do not deal with the causes of crime we will continue to reflect more similarly the tragic social, economic and criminal situations which exist there.

While the Minister of Justice is proposing a few useful, though piecemeal, measures such as this one to deal with concerns with the Canadian criminal justice system, the government is attacking the very programs which would assist in getting tough on the causes of crime. The Liberal government's attack on social programs can only be seen to serve to increase the sense of insecurity in our communities and to increase the causes of crime.

We have seen this over the years with the last government. This government is pursuing the same, even more aggressive attack on social programs and we will see it increasing the tensions in our communities and giving rise to greater stress which will give rise to greater criminal activity.

What the government needs is two things. It needs a comprehensive criminal justice approach, not a piecemeal approach. Canadians deserve to see a plan, some vision, some effort over the long term to see where the justice system should go. It needs to be based on informed opinion, not on the reactions of the public to individual concerns. Only responding to public pressure on individual issues is not good enough. The government needs to get tough on the causes of crime as well as on crime.

Second, it needs to stop eroding the very programs which serve to prevent crime. Its neo-conservative attack on social programs means Canada is bound to lose the war on crime. Canada and Canadians deserve better.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse which purports to amend clause 16 of the bill now before the House.

I realize Your Honour is about to make a ruling in respect of the procedural admissibility of a number of proposed amendments. However, I want to speak to this particular one because in my submission it fails to comply with the practices of the House in regard to such amendments.

The effect of the amendment, if it were accepted by the House, would be to change the method of calculating the number of seats assigned to each province under the Constitution Act. I have concerns about that because the Constitution Act is not up for a review or a revision in the amendments that are before the House under Bill C-69.

The bill, as agreed to in principle at second reading, has nothing whatever to do with the calculation of the number of seats for each province, but is entirely confined to the determination of the boundaries within each province for each of the districts after the calculation has been done in conformity with section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Constitution Act could have been amended in the bill that was put before the House but it was not.

If I may review for you, sir, the legislative history of this bill, Your Honour will recall that there was a motion brought before the House instructing the procedure and House affairs committee to undertake a study in relation to various matters outlined in the motion which included a review, if necessary, of section 51 of the Constitution Act in so far as the allocation of seats among provinces was concerned.

The committee did this study and filed a report in the House with the draft bill in it. The draft bill contained no reference to section 51 of the Constitution Act. The bill that the government subsequently introduced in response to a concurrence motion on the committee's report is Bill C-69 and it also contains no reference to section 51 of the Constitution Act.

What we have here is an opportunity, afforded by the hon. member in putting this motion, to make changes to other acts which in my view are outside the principle of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which is currently before the House. It is a whole new act but it deals with the adjustment of electoral boundaries, not with the assignment of seats to provinces. It is a different matter and is dealt with in a different statute and always has been dealt with in a different statute.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse is a backdoor attempt to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act. He has used the word notwithstanding but it does not get the proposer of the amendment off the hook. It is an attempt to amend another act which is in no way open for amendment by Bill C-69 as agreed to in principle at second reading.

The amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading and opens up an entirely different subject not dealt with by the bill before the House.

I would like to quote from Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 698 which says in part:

An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be put from the chair:

(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.

(8)(a) An amendment may not amend a statute which is not before the committee.

There are various references in support of each of those citations.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that had this amendment been put in the committee after second reading of the bill, that is, not in its prestudy, but in its own study or in its own draft bill, in an amendment to the bill, as committee chair, I would have had no option but to rule it out of order because in my view it is beyond the scope of the bill.

It should be pointed out that attempts to use the word notwithstanding in order to sneak in a back door amendment to a statute not before the House is not a new device, nor is it one that the House has accepted.

In earlier years, previous governments were sometimes called to order for trying to legislate through estimates. This is an unacceptable process whereby statutes other than appropriation acts were amended by adding words or items in the estimates. One of the more frequent patterns of attempting to do this was to insert words in the item that notwithstanding such and such an act, the following shall be done or not be done, as the case may be.

I checked the precedent for this. On March 10, 1971 at pages 4126 and 4127 of Hansard , Mr. Speaker Lamoureux rendered a decision in respect of the supplementary estimates ( c ) for the financial year ending March 31, 1971. In a ruling on a motion that was brought forward by the President of the Privy Council, Mr. MacEachen, to refer these supplementary estimates to committee, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled that certain of the supplementary estimates were not properly before the House because they purported to amend statutes through the estimates process and therefore went beyond what estimates could do.

The words that were used in the estimates fit the description of the words being used in this amendment. As Mr. Speaker Lamoureux pointed out on page 4126:

Let us, if you will, examine the items singled out by the hon. members. The first one is vote 35c. It proposes to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. The vote proposes to repeal schedules A and B of the Pension Act and substitute therefor new schedules A and B as found in vote 35c.

I could go on but I do not need to read it all. The point is that the Speaker found the estimates were seeking to amend statutes and of course those statutes were not before the House for amendment. The Speaker held, I think very properly, that the practice of amending statutes by the estimates was out of order. He made that ruling on page 4127. He said that "in view of the situation created by the new rules, these items are not before the House in proper form". He declined to allow them to go to committee.

Mr. Speaker, if that was the view then, I suggest that same view must apply to this amendment. What the hon. member for Bellechasse is trying to do is amend the Constitution Act,

section 51, by amending this bill and by simply saying that notwithstanding and it is changed so this and such happens.

Successive Speakers have found this was an unacceptable device because the word notwithstanding did not disguise the real purpose which was to amend another act not opened by the estimates process. The same rule must apply in respect of this act.

The provisions of the Constitution Act 1867 are in no way opened up by Bill C-69. The word notwithstanding does not disguise the fact that the only purpose of the proposed amendment is in fact to open those provisions of another act which would have not been opened by the bill and which should therefore not be opened up by this amendment.

I invite Your Honour to rule that the amendment is out of order and not properly before the House at this time.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

If you read Motion No. 4 in the Notice Paper, you will see it relates directly to clause 16 of Bill C-69. So much so that subsection 16 (2) says:

(2) On receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of a return referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a decennial census, the Chief Electoral Officer shall calculate the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to each of the provinces, subject and according to the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

The amendment I proposed, which is in the Notice Paper, would be added to this.

However, when they refer to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in subsection 16 (2), what are they referring to? Certainly not the text adopted in 1867 by the Westminster Parliament, pursuant to the Imperial Act which created the federative kind of constitution we know today.

Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, referred to in subsection 16 (2) of Bill C-69 which is before us, refers to a legislation adopted by this Parliament, which received assent on March 4, 1986. At that time, the federal Parliament of Canada, acting on its own pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, did adopt the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

With your permission, I will table the 1986 legislation, that is chapter 8 of the 1986 Statutes, to show how this new section 51 was introduced and became part of an act entitled Representation Act, 1985. It is highly appropriate, when we talk about electoral redistribution, to establish a fundamental rule which will apply right at the beginning, which will govern the provinces, and then to say to the officer or the chief returning officer: before making any other distribution, you must consider that 25 per cent of the seats must be assigned to Quebec. It is in that same spirit that the amendment has been moved today.

To make matters clear, Representation Act, 1985, was challenged in our courts. It was challenged in a case called Campbell vs. Attorney General of Canada -which is reported in 1988, 49 Dominion Law Report, 4th Edition , p. 321-where the British Columbia Court of Appeal, comprised of five judges in this particular case, decided: ``That the Federal Parliament had all the authority to vote the above-mentioned act in 1985, that it did not need the support of the provinces, that the proportionality criteria in representation should be understood within the Canadian dynamics of proportionality, where there were Senate clauses, where deviations were made, and that this act, even at the time, did not affect the proportionality criteria''. This opinion from the British Columbia Court of Appeal is most interesting.

Now, what about the way we have to deal with this bill? Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which concerns amendments, reads as follows: "Subject to sections 41 and 42"-where the consent of the provinces is required-"Parliament"-which means us-"may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and the House of Commons". As the Campbell case indicates, we are well within federal jurisdiction here. Section 44 does not specify a particular procedure. I may recall that unlike other amendments that may be made with the support of the provinces, in this case we can amend the relevant provisions through a bill.

When I move a motion in amendment that refers to the Constitution Act, 1867, as Parliament was in 1985 when it passed the 1985 readjustment legislation, I am well within the scope of this debate, and I submit, with respect, that my motion in amendment is entirely admissible at this stage.

We are merely establishing a basic rule, one of many basic rules in this kind of legislation, rules according to which the commissions may deviate by up to 25 per cent and special circumstances may be taken into consideration when establishing certain electoral districts. Establishing an additional rule that would guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the seats is, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, just another rule to add to the bill that would make it more comprehensive. I submit this with all due respect, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of clarification, I certainly agree with what the hon. member said about the authority of the Parliament of Canada to amend laws and to amend the section of the Constitution Act we have been discussing.

However, the problem is, in my opinion, that this cannot be done unless the government includes a clause to that effect in the bill before second reading. That is the problem we have today. There is no amendment to the Constitution Act in Bill C-69. So the hon. member cannot use an amendment to make this kind of change in the bill. He must do so in a separate bill which is not now before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

A short comment by the hon. member for Bellechasse, because I do not want to get into debate.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Where the bill refers to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended in 1986, what we want to do is not change this provision but simply say that for the purposes of Bill C-69, it should be interpreted in such and such a way. I believe that is all I wanted to say.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I have listened carefully to the representations made by the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Bellechasse with respect to Bill C-69 and, more specifically, Motion No. 4. I will take the arguments presented by both members on Motion No. 4 under advisement.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I also want to advise the House of the ruling of the Speaker on Bill C-69.

There are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

Motion No. 6 has been withdrawn. Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 will be grouped for the purposes of debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7.

Before proposing Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 to the House, I believe the Speaker will want to proceed with the next order of business. We will follow up on Bill C-69 following question period.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), we will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Education

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent recovery, 433,000 jobs were created in Canada. However a closer analysis will show that there is a disturbing problem underlying this.

Young people with a university education had a 25 per cent increase in the number of jobs. Those who had some level of diploma program after high school had a 14 per cent increase in jobs.

However, those who had only a high school education had a 23 per cent decline in the number of job opportunities. Accordingly it is very important for all Canadians to do what they can to encourage our young people to pursue their education.

The national high school dropout rate is 18 per cent. This is not acceptable for Canadians. I urge all members to do what they can to address this serious problem. As we all know, an investment today in our youth is an investment in our future for all Canadians.

Unemployment Insurance

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after cutting $5.5 billion on the backs of the unemployed in 1994-95, and at least $700 million in the latest budget, the government continues to hound the unemployed by hiring 600 new UI investigators.

From the government's cuts to unemployment insurance, we learned that the Liberals' new job creation credo was to consider the unemployed lazy. Now the government considers them cheats as well.

In the meantime, the government's measures to recover $6.6 billion in unpaid income taxes are not enough to remedy the situation. With the banks reaping profits of over $5 billion, the government is asking them supposedly to do their share by paying temporary income taxes of $100 million. The government's priorities are more than questionable, to say the least.

Arts

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a proud day for Calgarians. Yesterday Calgary's Jan Arden swept the Juno awards by winning in three categories: female vocalist of the year, best single of the year and songwrit-

er of the year. It is the artistic excellence exemplified by Jan Arden that typifies the superior calibre of art in Canada. The future success for Canadian artists is boundless.

Another group bound for success hails from Newfoundland, a province that has produced more than its fair share of Canadian stars. Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland is a theatre company trying to raise funds to take its production to the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh.

Instead of seeking financial support from the government it has focused its attention on raising funds from the corporate sector. David Somers, a spokesperson for the company, said: "I am not under the impression that anybody owes us anything as actors or theatre people. It is entirely up to the artistic community to ensure its own survival. Businesses have been funding plays since Shakespeare's time and probably before".

With an attitude like that we know the group will be a success. This is a proud day for Newfoundlanders, Calgarians and all Canadians from St. John's to Victoria.

Red Cross

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud to celebrate Red Cross Month this March. For nearly a century the Canadian Red Cross Society has been working hard to prevent and alleviate human suffering across Canada and around the world.

The Red Cross has a distinguished history of helping those most in need by providing emergency relief to foreign countries devastated by war or natural disasters, helping victims of house fires and other tragedies, teaching prevention and safety through first aid and water safety programs, and ensuring an adequate supply of blood for all Canadians.

Last year, Fitness Canada provided $95,000 for water safety services and $51,000 for fitness programs for seniors.

Please join me in recognizing the contribution of the two million Canadian volunteers who regularly donate blood and support the programs and services of the Canadian Red Cross. We all wish you a very successful Red Cross Month.

National Women's Hockey Championship

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work and dedication of the organizers of the 14th Annual National Women's Hockey Championship. It took place this past weekend in Summerside, Prince Edward Island.

The winning team from Quebec is deserving of the title of national champion. It emerged on top after three days of intense and high calibre competition, although I do not think it competed against a Newfoundland team.

Women's hockey has seen remarkable growth over the past decade. Today over 15,000 girls and women play the sport on a competitive basis, adding every year to the talent pool that has given Canada three world championship titles.

We can now look forward to the 1998 winter Olympic games when we will have the opportunity to cheer the Canadian women's hockey team since women's hockey has now been added to the Olympic games schedule.

Congratulations to all those involved with this year's national championships in P.E.I.

Government Spending

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to tell the end of the fiscal year is upon us. Furniture trucks have been lining up at government offices all across the land as officials try to spend every last cent in their budgets before April 1. In my riding of Hillsborough, as elsewhere, the furniture trucks arrived on the weekend to deliver the goods at various government offices.

This would be all well and good if they were spending their own money. However, they are spending the tax dollars of every single Canadian. When a family is finding it difficult to make ends meet it cuts expenses and delays buying things. The government is having difficulty making ends meet and it also should delay the purchase of such things as furniture. Taxpayers have had enough of this wasting of money every year in March madness.

As we saw in this morning's Ottawa Citizen , the National Capital Commission spent $3 million on new furniture and over $300,000 on new telephone equipment. The people of Hillsborough and the rest of Canada want to see this amount of government waste ended.

World Theatre Day

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate World Theatre Day. In Quebec the event will be marked by performances and plays, which the public is encouraged to attend in droves.

On this day we want to stress the importance of the theatre and the people in it, who give life on stage to plays that move us to

tears or put a song in our hearts. Theatre expresses life in its most tragic and most comic forms.

It is also a cultural industry with a considerable impact on the economy. The theatre also provides artistic and technical talent in all disciplines to other cultural industries such as television and film.

I wish all the people in the theatre and all those who love it a fine celebration. This is another moment of glory in your long history. Let the curtain rise.

Oscar Noll

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the following are the words of over 10,000 Canadians in and surrounding the town of Palmerston, Ontario, where 82-year old Oscar Noll was charged with assault with a weapon following his success in saving himself and his property from damage and theft at his place of business:

We the undersigned are both concerned and provoked that Oscar Noll should be charged for protecting himself and his property against illegal intruders. We feel he used reasonable force under the circumstances and attempts to penalize him are unwarranted.

This statement as well as dollars sent in to support Oscar Noll's defence are a clear sign that the 1990s law of the Liberals is not satisfactory.

I take this moment to remind the government, especially the Minister of Justice, that Mr. Oscar Noll is the victim of crime, not the criminal. I urge the government and the minister to answer the wake-up call of Canadians and fix this problem.