Debates of June 14th, 1995

Petitions

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 296 petitioners which will add to the total which I have presented in this House of 4,324 signatures opposing the gun legislation.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from 161 of my constituents. They state that dangerous sex offenders and paedophiles should be locked up for life, that statutory releases should be revoked, that stiffer sentences should be imposed on violent offenders, that violent criminals should serve their full sentences and have time added for bad behaviour, and that a central registry of the names and addresses of violent offenders should be established.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

The final petition, Mr. Speaker, is from 783 constituents who send the message to the government: "no new taxes".

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions, both asking Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and they have my full support.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners point out that alcohol is a drug and is addictive. They believe there is risk to the foetus when taken by women who are pregnant. They point out that drinking alcohol is a leading cause of death among young people. They also underline the fact that seniors can get into difficulties when there is an interaction between alcohol and medication taken. They believe that alcohol can lead to health problems and chronic illnesses. They point out that alcohol is toxic if it is taken too quickly in great quantity.

The petitioners want warning labels on containers in order to alert the population to this effect.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition points out that unnecessary violence and abuse in all forms, be it verbal, physical or other, in society in general on radio, television or by other means have become a major concern of the Canadian population. The petitioners point out that abuse and violence is not necessary to inform or to entertain.

They want government to ensure that the CRTC regulates violence and abuse. They point out that there have been some efforts and some accomplishments, but they encourage the government and the CRTC to do even more.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present six petitions adding 2,944 names to the already 14,549 names that have been placed before the House requesting that Parliament do something to keep dangerous offenders off the streets of our nation and in support of Bill C-240 which allows for post-sentence detention of dangerous offenders.

It is my pleasure to add more names to that growing list of concerned Canadians.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition from my constituents calling on Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders and specifically by passing Bill C-240.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 174 and 178.

Question No. 174-Mr. Robinson:

Does the government plan to participate with NORAD or NATO allies in joint research initiatives examining ballistic missile defence as proposed in the 1994 defence white paper and, if so, (a) what previous Canadian defence research, will the government propose to use as a basis for such joint research (b) will the Canadian government use previous research into an EHF space-based radar system as a basis for further joint research, and (c) what kind of new research will the government propose to initiate as a part of such joint research efforts?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

(a), (b) and (c) As outlined in the 1994 defence white paper, Canada is interested in gaining a better understanding of missile defence through research and consultation with like-minded nations. We expect that these consultations will address both limited missile defence for North America and theatre missile defence within Europe. Whether Canada will choose to participate in joint research initiatives will depend on what opportunities arise, and most significantly, whether these joint initiatives are cost effective, affordable, and make an unambiguous contribution to Canada's defence needs.

In the NORAD context, the NORAD renewal negotiations are set to begin this year. Joint reseach with the U.S. in ballistic missile defence will be discussed during the negotiations, however, the outcome of these discussions cannot be prejudged. Accordingly, it would be premature to speculate on the specific form and content of possible joint research activities in the absence of any agreement that such research should in fact take place.

Question No. 178-

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

With respect to the October 24, 1994 signing of a treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of India on mutual assistance in criminal matters, ( a ) when the treaty was signed, was the government aware that India has in place a law known as TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act) and ( b ) can Canadians of Indian origin be threatened or prosecuted by Indian law as a result of TADA legislation?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

(a) The preamble of the treaty between Canada and India on mutual assistance in criminal matters makes specific reference to Canada and India desiring to improve the effectiveness of both countries in the investigation, prosecution and suppression of crime, including terrorism related crime.

The Minister of Justice is unable to comment on the full scope of India's Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and on the extent of its extraterritorial reach, if any.

(b) The mutual assistance treaty does not make India's TADA legislation part of Canadian law. The treaty generally provides for assistance relating to the gathering of evidence for the purpose of a criminal investigation or prosecution pending in the state requesting assistance. The assistance contemplated under this treaty does not include the arrest of persons for the purpose of their return to the requesting state through deportation or extradition.

Requests for assistance made to Canada under the mutual assistance treaty are executed in accordance with canadian law once their execution has been authorized by the Minister of Justice. For this purpose the requests must contain information prescribed by the treaty. This includes the relevant law of the state requesting assistance.

There is no requirement under the treaty that an offence under investigation or prosecution in India also exist in Canada (referred to as double criminality requirement). This is common in mutual assistance treaties.

Canada may refuse or delay assistance based on grounds set out in the treaty. The treaty provides that assistance may be refused where executing the request would impair Canada's sovereignty, security, or public order and that assistance may be postponed where executing the request would interfere with ongoing investigations or prosecutions. These grounds are intended to protect the fundamental interests of Canada, where Canada is the requested state. They can be relied on in appropriate cases based on a consideration of the circumstances of each case in view of the treaty and the relevant law and could apply to

a request by India pertaining to an investigation under the TADA legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall all remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an important weekly event but I would ask that all motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and on Motions No. 5 to 17 inclusive.

Criminal Code

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on this section of Bill C-41.

Coming to this House has been really quite instructive. One can learn from many members. I have learned from the member for Burnaby-Kingsway that it does one good to express exactly where one is coming from in terms of one's own personal perspective.

In keeping with that, before I speak specifically to section 718.2, I might state to the House very clearly where I am coming from. I stand clearly, unequivocally and in a very straightforward way in favour of and in full support of the traditional family unit as generally understood within society.

To that end, it might be of interest to the House for me to very briefly read something that is in the public domain that I wrote to an editor at the Calgary Sun last March. The editor had stated: Decision targets family values'' andmarriage and family, as we all know, are not only cornerstones of our society, but are the bedrock of our civilization''.

I wrote:

I tend to agree with him.

The preferential treatment given to mom, dad and the kids, I believe is reflective of the value that our society places on the biological reality of propagation.

There are many instances of cohabitation in our society: The single parent and child, siblings living together or good, long time friends of the same or opposite sex. They may choose not to become involved in physical sexual contact. To extend spousal benefits to homosexual partnerships and not to other couples would be a grave act of discrimination.

A redefinition of family unit that would step outside of the obvious biological relationships to include same sex or opposite sex couples must include all relationships. It must not have reference to sexual orientation or activity. Otherwise, we would be extending a financial reward for sexual involvement between people who cohabit.

Max Yalden, Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, has stated the Human Rights Act should be amended "to reflect today's reality" by prohibiting discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals on the basis of sexual orientation. He is wrong. If we extend spousal benefits to people who cohabit on the basis of sexual orientation and not to all couples, we have truly engaged in an act of discrimination.

Fooling around and ignoring the obvious reasons for spousal benefits will cost our society much more than countless millions or billions of dollars. It has the potential of costing society its cornerstone and the bedrock of our civilization.

I give that as a background because it is true that all of us arrive at this House with predisposed attitudes and values that come from our very soul. I want to make it clear what my motivation is in taking a look, hopefully, at the deletion of section 718.2 from this bill.

In reading the notes that were given to the Liberal members I was interested to see that they say: "We will keep our campaign commitments and send a strong message against hate crimes. As an election promise and a matter of fundamental human rights, Bill C-41 will not be subject to a free vote".

The heavy hand of the whip is coming down on all of the Liberal members in this House, and we have seen the devastation that will do to their political careers as long as they toil within the Liberal Party. However, that does not change the fact that there are many people within the Liberal Party who have a serious concern about this issue, I suggest perhaps because of the same reasons that I have stated from my own personal background and belief.

It is also interesting that this document given to the Liberal members includes what I consider to be some terribly erroneous advice. It reads:

It is essential to list the grounds in Bill C-41. The hate crime section is meaningless without the list. In several court rulings, the Supreme Court of Canada has warned that any hate-related legislation must be very precise and must

identify target groups it intends to protect, otherwise it may be subject to constitutional challenge.

I think it passing strange that in exactly the same legislation the government is bringing forward a total patchwork in terms of alternative measures. In other words, it is saying in one section of the act we will not have any national standards and in the other section of the act saying that we must have precise standards. The question must be asked: Which is it?

Last evening I was very interested to listen in the debate to the hon. member from York South-Weston, who is a lawyer. I respect the fact that he would be able to read this bill as it is presently before the House and I concur totally with his perspective. In part, from Hansard , page 13767, he says:

What are those alternative measures? We do not in this legislation describe what those alternative measures are, what crimes will be subject to those alternative measures. In fact it says any crime. We do not know. Does that mean that a rapist, someone who is alleged to have committed a rape, can for example be diverted out of the criminal justice system and into some alternative measures? What can those alternative measures be? We do not know. This bill does not define what alternative measures are. The bill leaves it up to the attorneys general of the provinces.

For sake of time, I will not read further, but he went on to say-again, I concur with him totally-that what we have here is a total patchwork.

I ask the Liberals, I ask the justice department, I ask the parliamentary secretary: How can we have within Bill C-41 on one side of the coin an absolute patchwork and on the other side of the coin something that has to be very specific and very precise? The two things in the same bill do not make any sense.

I suggest to the Liberal members that in fact the advice they have received in their documentation, in their talking notes when they stand to talk on this act, is simply not good advice.

I suggest very strongly that section 718.2 is unnecessary. In the judgment of many Canadians, it is put in specifically so that the undefined term sexual orientation may be put into federal legislation. This is the first step of putting that undefined term into federal legislation. It is not an innocuous thing. It is not an inconsequential thing. It actually is the first step in a logical legal sequence for that undefined term to be included in the charter of rights and freedoms.

Again, I read from the Liberals' documentation. They tell their members:

We've heard a lot lately about the myths of "special rights". C-41 does not confer special rights. No one is "left out". C-41 protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender, a sexual orientation.

We've heard that C-41 will result in sweeping changes, including the recognition of same-sex marriages. That is nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, in the strictest sense of the term, that is nonsense. Bill C-41 will not achieve that objective on its own. I submit that the reason Canadians are concerned about Bill C-41 is because they see this very clearly as a very transparent, thin edge of a wedge that is an important stepping stone in order to get the undefined term sexual orientation included.

The Liberals know this. The justice department has received over 70,000 letters opposing this bill. Furthermore, until yesterday there had been 7,250 names in favour of the inclusion of sexual orientation in petitions presented to this House. That is 7,250 for, and 83,471 against. These are people in Canada who take the time to put their names on petitions, to gather these petitions together. Yet this government is prepared to absolutely turn its back on these representations from ordinary Canadians.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Based on misrepresentation.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

It is interesting that a member opposite has said based on misrepresentation. May I suggest to that member that exactly the same statistics were used to theoretically justify the imposition of Bill C-68, the gun control, which was based on lack of information. Those polls are being quoted and were being quoted as justification by the justice minister.

Here we have 83,000 people taking the time to sign petitions and send them to this House, and they say those polls do not count, they are not based on good information.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. But for those who have eyes, I implore them to vote for the exclusion of section 718.2.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-41.

There has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation being disseminated about this bill. Unfortunately, a lot of the verbal shadow boxing around Bill C-41 has almost entirely focused on one phrase in one clause in the overall bill. The term sexual orientation seems to have piqued the interest of many narrow minded individuals whose sense of reason has been drowned out by the self-righteous pontificating about the so called provision of special rights to designated groups and individuals.

Last week an impatient man approached me in my constituency office. He asked me whether I was going to vote yes or no for that "same sex benefits bill and special rights for gays". I proceeded to try to explain to the gentleman that he had it all wrong, that the legislation was not about same sex spousal

benefits or special rights for gays and that it had more to do with protecting individuals from hate motivated violence. The man stormed out of my office before I could get a further word in edgewise. That is exactly the kind of intolerance and confusion that underlines most of the opposition-especially from the third party in this House-to provisions in Bill C-41.

For the edification of the man who stormed out of my office last week and for many others like him, many to be found in the third party opposite, who may have forgotten or perhaps never took the time to find out what Bill C-41 was actually all about in the first place, I want to highlight for them the main objectives of this legislation along with some of the compelling yet often misunderstood and ignored portions of this bill.

Some of the most significant provisions of Bill C-41 are those related to enhancing the rights of the victim. This bill includes an unprecedented amendment to section 745 of the Criminal Code that would provide victims of violence with the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the criminal justice system by presenting victim impact statements when convicted criminals apply for early parole consideration. This would ensure that victims of violent crimes have the opportunity to speak out about the harm done by the offender.

Quite frankly for me, and I know for another member at least in this House, maybe that is not enough. To my way of thinking, section 745 should be rescinded. But that is what is in the bill today, and it has gone a lot further than what members opposite, especially in the third party, are proposing. Therefore, the victim's experience will now be taken into account at the very least when deciding whether the parole ineligibility period of an offender should be reduced.

The bill also encourages tougher sentences for the abuses by offenders in positions of trust or authority. It encourages alternatives to fines for those unable to pay them and provides for stricter penalties for offenders who breach probation and provides cost effective alternatives to those expensive and often unnecessary formal court proceedings. Furthermore, the bill will allow judges greater leeway to impose certain conditions on an offender to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

This bill follows through on the government's commitment to Canadians who have so passionately expressed the need for meaningful and progressive criminal justice reform. It should be noted that Bill C-41 adds a statement to the Criminal Code that provides clear direction from Parliament on the purpose and principles of sentencing.

The reforms provide a balanced and sensible range of options that address the public's need for safety, the victim's desire for restitution, and the important principle that serious offenders should be dealt with more severely than minor or first time offenders.

This legislation clearly indicates that the purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society and to promote respect for the law by imposing just sanctions.

The statement sets out objectives for sentencing, which include protection of the public, rehabilitation, promoting a sense of responsibility among offenders, making reparations to victims and the community, and deterring crime. These objectives are guided by the idea that a sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In this regard, the courts will be required to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances associated with a particular crime.

Accordingly, the proposed statement of principles indicates that when an offence is motivated by hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim, this must be considered as an aggravating circumstance. On this point, people have asked why hate motivated crimes warrant harsher sentences than non-hate motivated crimes, suggesting that such provisions and the use of the term sexual orientation would grant special rights and magical privileges to non-heterosexuals. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that use of the term sexual orientation would encourage a homosexualist agenda, if you can believe it. Quite frankly, this is surely and simply ludicrous.

As stated by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, we are talking about the criminal law here. We are talking about crimes motivated by hate. To say that including sexual orientation in Bill C-41 is encouraging a lifestyle is like saying that because we have included religion we are encouraging people to become Catholics.

Hate crimes are distinct in that they are not only an attack on a single individual, they are also an attack on an entire group in our society. For example, if someone paints graffiti on someone's house, that person would probably be charged with mischief and the house owner would likely be the only victim. But if someone were to paint swastikas on one of the five synagogues in my riding of Hamilton West, the victims would include all members of the Jewish faith. Try to understand that, members opposite.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Yes, tell us about the bar association. Come on.