Debates of June 15th, 1995

Criminal Code

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-41. In particular, I would like to address the proposed change to section 718.2 of the revised Criminal Code, which deals with crimes that are motivated by hate, hate being deemed an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

More specifically, this section of the Criminal Code looks to criminalize those who commit an offence that was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation.

This section takes into consideration that there are crimes against individuals and then there are crimes against a group. The latter crimes have the potential to hurt and hurt deeply and injure a collective group of people. Hate crimes put a group at psychological unease, deteriorating their psychological quality of life and inducing mental injury. As we all know, mental injuries and traumas can lead to physical illnesses, commonly referred to as psychosomatic illnesses. However, everyone within the designated group will be affected to some degree, some more than others. Above all, practically every single one will feel a deterioration of self-concept and eventually feel themselves second class citizens.

It is important to take note of the fact that all of the groups specified in the proposed legislation are afforded equal protection. I reiterate: equal protection. For example, hate crimes against males are treated in the same manner as hate crimes against females. Caucasians are afforded the same protection as Orientals; Christians the same as Muslims; anglophones the same as francophones; heterosexuals the same as homosexuals; and Ukrainian Canadians the same as Iranian Canadians and native Canadians.

Each of these mentioned groups at some time or other can be potential victims of hate crimes. All of them have been singled out for excessive negative treatment by someone for some reason. Why? It is ignorance, pure and simple. Ignorance is the foundation of this negative form of behaviour. It is nurtured by someone for someone's advantage, whether it is for control of a group, greed, or to keep people in a state of ignorance so that they will never know there is something better around the corner.

Fear is another controlling factor. This points out to me and to everyone else that there is a desperate need for education, education that will enhance the image of every single Canadian to the point where they will feel secure in the decision making and the choices they make and someone else who is trying to manipulate them for some unknown reason will not degrade them, debase them, and humiliate them to the point where their self-concept is practically destroyed.

Remember that most people who attack other people and hate other people have very poor self-concepts. Because of the poor self-concept they have, they are trying their very best to knock someone else down to a much lower level of esteem.

Given the above realities, one is astounded as to how opponents of the bill can possibly come to the conclusion that any particular group is being granted special protection. The above clearly indicates that in fact everyone is treated equally. Yes, every hate crime as well is treated equally.

Bill C-41 does not give special rights to anyone. It protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender, a sexual orientation, and a religious belief. If there is a member in the House who believes he or she is an exception to this rule, please let them stand and be counted.

Since no one has risen, I will assume I was correct in my assumption.

Another misguided criticism regards that claim that inclusion of the term sexual orientation would somehow serve to promote homosexuality. This allegation hardly deserves a response. I cannot for one moment think of a way in which this bill would serve to promote a certain sexual orientation, or any other group protected by Bill C-41 for that matter.

Some opponents of this bill have been misled into believing that Bill C-41 involves changes that would include the recognition of same sex marriages and even same sex benefits. This is absolutely ludicrous. This bill deals with crimes in the Criminal Code, not with same sex issues.

The civil and political rights of gays and lesbians will be debated in a completely different context, that being within the context of national and international human rights. Those civil and political rights are completely unrelated to the bill that is being discussed today. Some members in the House have been able to make the distinction. In fact, judging from the debate I heard today and yesterday in the House, some members have been having a terribly difficult time in doing so.

Furthermore, I fear that some have utilized this debate as an opportunity to voice their dislike for certain lifestyles. Although I do agree that they are privy to their own opinions in this respect, I most certainly believe that today's debate is not the forum for them to voice these opinions. We must deal with this area of concern in a rational manner and not emotionally.

Today's debate is concerned with the pressing need to prevent offences of hate motivated violence in Canada. This distinction we must keep in mind.

It is quite apparent that the allegations and criticisms aimed at Bill C-41 are entirely unfounded and misleading. These criticisms are based upon half-truths and misconceptions as well as misperceptions.

For those who are opposed to the listing of the various characteristics of the individual in this clause, please remember that the hate crime section is meaningless without the list. In several rulings the Supreme Court of Canada has warned that any hate related legislation must be very, very precise and identify target groups it intends to protect.

I urge all members in the House to objectively analyse the debate surrounding this bill and make a decision based upon the principles of justice, equity, and fairness.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan for lowering the tensions in the room and debating on a somewhat lighter level than we have been getting. Of course I think that is only just, because we are dealing with a very frivolous bill.

All the members opposite who have spoken seemed to zero in on one section of the bill. No one remembers that the bill is thick and includes a great number of clauses many of which are as equally bad as the one all of them seem to want to debate.

However, the gauntlet has been thrown down on that one issue which lists and categorizes people and says that only they and no others are entitled to protection against hate. It was a bit frivolous when he started saying everybody has a race, a religion and so on. The hon. member knows it goes much deeper than that. In any event I will play on his turf and by his rules.

This is not a very hypothetical question, but if a man who happens to be Jewish goes into the bad section of town and is beaten half to death by somebody who wants to take his wallet, does that man suffer any less than he would have suffered had his assailant known he was Jewish when he was beating him? I would like a straight answer to that question.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the victim in this case has been robbed and in the process has received a physical form of abuse that could be very devastating. In both cases we have laws to cover them. I do not think the attack was perpetrated by the attacker knowing the gentleman was a Jew. Therefore I think the law covers it and states very clearly exactly what type of treatment the criminal must receive in this case.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the police commission has written a letter. It opposes this bill very strongly. If the hon. member has not seen the letter, I suggest he get a copy. It is stated loud and clear in the letter that in the courts today there are numerous texts, illustrations and periodicals and case law. All of that has been put together and they have been using it for a number of years to address hate crimes. They have been doing it very effectively I might add.

If the Liberal government thinks this is not being done, then someone should talk to one of the Liberal members on the justice committee who stated statistics from court trials where it was shown that the homosexual community is third on the list behind racial and possibly religious hate crimes. There are records of all these things that are happening. It is presently being done. That is why the police commission opposes this section. It is simple duplication and is unnecessary. They know what they are doing and they are doing a good job.

What is the real reason for section 718.2 if it is already being done?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the arguments and challenge being presented right now are the very kind of questions that were probably asked in the 1930s in this Chamber. In the 1930s the very same principles were being advocated by opponents to changes in our laws.

We have identified various groups in our society in the history of this country who have been victimized by hate. Various individuals have been attacking specific groups. The need arose. The need was identified and a responsible Parliament of the day made a change in the Criminal Code to make sure that we could protect that segment of Canadian society from various ignorant people, as I would like to call them.

We have reached a point in the history of this country where for some reason or other a group of individuals is being attacked, hatred being the main motivating factor. As a result we are taking into consideration the need to protect this segment of our society. That is why a change has taken place in that section.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems so convinced that logically the bill is defensible. Why then is it necessary to tell all of the members on the government side how to vote on it? Why can they not figure it out for themselves if it is so convincingly logical?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to convince anybody on the government side as to how they should vote on this bill. I know that members of the government are extremely rational individuals who are very very concerned about the safety of their compatriots, their constituents and the citizens of this country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for York-Simcoe. Perhaps it could be put on the record that by an understanding the hon. member for York-Simcoe is sharing the slot with the hon. member who just spoke on debate.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to debate an issue that is of importance to all Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for Bill C-41.

In particular, I would like to address the sentencing provisions of crimes motivated by hate. There has been an incredible amount of misinformation surrounding these amendments. I appreciate this opportunity to relay the facts and clarify any misconceptions that may have arisen over the course of this debate.

Bill C-41 is a general bill that proposes amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. One of these amendments proposes harsher sentences for those already convicted of crimes motivated by hate on a number of grounds, including race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation of the victim.

Currently there are certain hate crimes that are not covered by Canada's anti-hate laws. These include Criminal Code offences motivated by hatred against a targeted group which do not involve hate propaganda such as physical attacks or murder. In the past the law has viewed synagogue desecration as simple mischief without acknowledging the intense pain and fear suffered by members of the entire targeted community. Therefore, it is imperative that hate motivated crimes be included in this bill.

Unfortunately hate crimes have become alarmingly prevalent in our society. Expressions of hate are numerous and range from attacks by skinheads on gays to the desecration of synagogues to the killing of a native Cree. These attacks target virtually all minority groups and most of the time are violent and malicious. This can no longer be tolerated.

Statistics have made it apparent that hate motivated crimes are drastically increasing in our country. B'nai Brith has identified over 40 hate groups in Canada. Crimes targeting specific populations are on the rise. Hate crimes make many Canadians feel vulnerable and afraid. We must not tolerate this any longer in Canadian society. It is time that Canada recognized hate crimes as a particularly serious category of crime which attacks our diverse society. Bill C-41 sends a clear message that these hate motivated offences will not be acceptable.

This rise in hate motivated crimes has also been recognized across the country by police. As a result hate crime units have been established to address the changing nature of crime. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police bias crime unit has already had an effect on hate motivated crimes in the national capital region. It has been credited with contributing to a significant decrease in all hate motivated crimes in Ottawa. As a first of its kind it will act as a model for other cities seeking to address this problem.

Canadian authorities have had their hands full trying to monitor and contain the hate movement. Bill C-41 is an important measure to help them protect innocent Canadians from persecution and harm. Section 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of Bill C-41 reform the sentencing provisions for hate crimes. These amendments are welcomed and endorsed by police units across the country.

In the past, court rulings have recognized the underlying principle that hate motivation should be taken into consideration in sentencing. These sections will ensure through legislative means this principle is applied uniformly across the country.

I firmly believe that specific legislation is required to address hate motivated crimes in Canada. These crimes are more serious than those committed against individuals and therefore should be treated more harshly under the Criminal Code.

For example, it is horrible that a young man walking home would be attacked because he was targeted as a member and therefore a representative of a specific group. This indicates that the crime is premeditated and committed with the specific intention of bringing deliberate harm and persecution to a targeted group.

Not only do hate motivated crimes make all members of a targeted group feel vulnerable or afraid, but unfortunately by their very nature they are often repeated crimes. Therefore, it is imperative that we punish these crimes more harshly.

Those committing the crimes must realize that their prejudice and hatred must not be tolerated by Canadian society and their sentence must reflect Canadians' collective condemnation of the crime. Only by recognizing the seriousness of these acts of aggression and punishing them accordingly under the Criminal Code can Canada combat this wave of hate propaganda.

Many of us assume that Canada is an open, tolerant and inclusive society. We must not take that for granted any longer. Canada has been changing over the past few decades. Unfortunately, some people do not like the changes and stubbornly resist them. That in turn creates more problems. People begin to scapegoat certain groups as instigating the problem. This is not right.

We must not blame groups for our problems in society. It is much easier to blame others than to seek solutions for our complex problems. We must not fall prey to this. We must work together to build consensus and effectively manage changes occurring in our society. However, we must also feel that it is crucial to protect individuals and groups from hate motivated crimes.

Hate crimes are almost invariably based upon these characteristics: race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation. Therefore, it is necessary to spell out these characteristics in order to ensure sentencing provisions in the legislation are upheld in court.

I have received letters from constituents regarding Bill C-41. In particular, they are concerned with the inclusion of the term sexual orientation. First, the bill does not confer any special rights, but rather protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender and a sexual orientation.

The bill will not grant special rights to homosexuals, nor will it in any way affect the traditional family. I have assured my constituents of these facts, but I will also take advantage of the chance to reiterate that this is a sentencing and crime bill which will protect all victims of hate crimes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the recognition of same sex marriages, nor will it destroy the traditional family.

I firmly believe that all Canadians should be protected from vicious, targeted acts of aggression. I certainly support the inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground for hate motivation in the legislation. The inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground for hate motivation recognizes the fact that criminal acts which are intended to terrorize the gay and lesbian community are on the rise and unfortunately have become a problem in Canadian society.

The term sexual orientation has been adequately defined. In fact, it has been used in a number of statutes in Canada, including the human rights legislation of eight Canadian provinces. This term has been consistently interpreted by the courts to include heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. It does not include pedophilia. As a matter of fact, pedophilia is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

I have also heard concerns from constituents that Bill C-41 will endanger freedom of speech. This legislation is applicable to offences indictable only under the Criminal Code. Bill C-41 is a sentencing bill and will be applicable once a person is found guilty of a crime. Church sermons are not crimes, nor is moral opposition to homosexuality. However, gay bashing is a crime. No one, regardless of their beliefs, will be affected by the legislation unless they commit and are convicted of an offence which is indictable under the Criminal Code. In addition, freedom of religious expression is guaranteed in the charter of rights.

We cannot ignore the fact that hate crimes are on the rise. We must not tolerate hate crimes in our society any longer. The Liberal commitment has been very clear from the beginning. Bill C-41 merely fulfils yet another of our promises outlined in the red book. I have always been opposed to hate crimes of any kind. I campaigned on this election promise and I fully support the bill at final reading.

I firmly believe that Bill C-41 is a crucial measure to send the strong message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canadian society. I strongly urge all parliamentarians to support the bill so that we may work together to protect all Canadians.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly noticed the strong emotion of the previous speaker. She is committed to ensuring that hate crimes, as she talked about them, are vigorously punished by the courts.

You and I, Mr. Speaker, both represent ridings in Edmonton. There is a problem in Edmonton and other cities with the Vietnamese gangs who have assaulted other people, white people, because they are of a different origin. If white people were to set upon the Vietnamese section 718.2 would certainly suggest because of their national ethnic origin the court should look on that quite seriously.

However, when the shoe is on the other foot and the Vietnamese gangs are pillaging and terrorizing the neighbourhoods I wonder if the member can explain how the bill will show the same respect and have the courts apply the same type of punishment.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians we come into the House and operate under certain parliamentary rules and procedures. One of the rules of the House is that we leave bigotry and narrow mindedness at the door before we come in.

I suggest to you that your-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Hon. members should address their remarks to the Chair.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

To Canadians watching tonight, this is another example of bogus, reverse discrimination consistently used by members of the third party.

This legislation refers to sentencing based on race and ethnicity. It does not specify the race of the ethnicity of the individual. If an individual is convicted of a crime motivated by hate based on race or ethnicity it has nothing to do with whether they are black, white, red, yellow, green or purple.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke pointed out one of the problems with this legislation.

When my colleague asked about different treatments that might be in place when Vietnamese committed crimes against whites because of race and when whites committed crimes against Vietnamese, she did not consider both to be discrimination. She considered one to be reverse discrimination.

I ask the member why that is. If one is discrimination, why is the other one not pure and simple discrimination?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was this is a typical example members on the other side use to illustrate what they refer to as reverse discrimination. I do not refer to reverse discrimination. I refer only to discrimination. I am referring to the things members opposite have used particularly in debates on employment equity when they are constantly screaming about reverse discrimination.

What I said, if the member opposite had been listening, was if a person is convicted of a hate crime based on race or ethnicity it does not matter about skin colour.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe seems to suffer from the same misapprehension as her colleagues in that she believes Bill C-41 is a bill with only one clause. We hear nothing except the so-called hate clause over and over again.

The member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan wants to play on that field. I will join her there.

My mythical Jewish gentleman wanders into a bad section of town and is beaten half to death by someone who does not know he is Jewish in order to steal his wallet. On another occasion he suffers the same type of treatment from someone who knows he is Jewish and decides that for his daily kicks he will beat up on Jews. As an afterthought he steals the wallet. The gentleman in both circumstances is equally damaged and ends up in the hospital. Why in the name of justice and common sense should one thug get a stiffer sentence than the other one?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on this side spoke about different aspects, about victim impact and other aspects of the legislation. Other members on this side have spoken about many different aspects of the legislation. However, some of us have been choosing to speak to the hate crime aspect of it simply because members opposite are not getting the point. We thought we would like to do it again and again until perhaps-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that becomes abundantly clear in this whole debate is the Liberal Party appears to be very uncomfortable with section 718.2.

We on this side know the bill is some 75 pages long. Some of the Liberal members have pointed out the bill is some 75 pages long. However, invariably every one of the Liberal speakers tonight has zeroed in on 718.2. Why is that? The reason is they are uncomfortable with it. They are finding themselves being put into a position of having to defend it over and over again and their case is getting weaker and weaker.

Now we find in this debate, which has been happening since the bill was first introduced, the speakers becoming proactive in jumping into 718.2 in order to fend off some questions from the other side. If I were not comfortable with 718.2 had I presented it as part of the government I would probably be doing the same thing.

Tens of thousands of letters, cards and names on petitions have come into Parliament, to members, by people who have taken the time to read Bill C-41. They have taken the time to get an understanding of what section 718.2 really means, what kind of precedent it can set and what it may lead to in the future when we come to defining some of the categories mentioned in it.

Let us not forget if this legislation passes, the term sexual orientation will appear for the first time in any Canadian legislation ever passed in the House. People are very concerned about that.

I understand the Liberals' current proactiveness in zeroing in on 718.2 because they want to deflect some of the questions over here.

They are uncomfortable with it. They know it is flawed. They know there has been a huge uprising of concern from the Canadian people, not from the special interest groups they have been talking to, but from rank and file Canadians across the country concerned about this clause in the bill as well.

They all have the letters. They have the cards. They have seen the petitions. Our Criminal Code tries to demonstrate the things we hold dear and what penalties should be dealt should these things be violated.

The government of the day and parliamentarians have an obligation to listen to the Canadian people, to a broad range of Canadian people to get the feel of the average person so when amendments are made to the Criminal Code they will best represent society's perception or views on what direction we should be going in when we deal with changes to the Criminal Code.

Bill C-41 does not reflect the views of the average Canadian because the Liberals did not pursue a broad sampling of the views of average Canadians. That is not their style. Instead they selected people to attend the committees, to submit briefs from groups and organizations, not individual views, so they could mould them into the real Liberal agenda in the bill, something politically expedient for that party.

This is one of the many bills the Liberals have introduced this session that do not address the real views of the Canadian people. I want to talk about criminal justice for a moment and tell members about a survey so there is no mistake on some of the things I may say tonight as to whether I am representing the views of my constituents. Above all, unlike the views of the leader of the Liberal Party, I am here to represent the constituents who voted and sent me here to represent them.

I did a survey on criminal justice and I wanted to get a broad range of views from right across my constituency. I asked 30,000 households about their views on the death penalty. Eighty-eight per cent of the people who returned the questionnaire said they wanted to have the death penalty returned for first degree murder. Of those 88 per cent affirming the return of the death penalty, 58 per cent suggested it should be extended to child molesters. Fifty-four per cent said it should be extended to rapists. Forty-five per cent said it should be extended to drug dealers. I think members are getting an idea of the views of the people I represent. They are my views as well.

The point is we have a Criminal Code which our courts are obligated to operate under. In the sentencing provisions judges are given sentencing latitudes. The penalties, quite frankly, with the exception of capital punishment which is not in there, thanks to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce a few years ago, are in the criminal justice system already. It is not the problem of the penalties. It is a problem with the administration of the penalties by the judges. It is the sentencing that is the problem. The judges have latitude and they are not giving out the penalties.

An assault is an assault is an assault, whether it is against one person or another person, regardless of what people's differences may be. A physical assault is a vicious crime. A sexual assault is a more vicious crime. An assault that causes a lifetime injury, a disability, is a very vicious crime. There are penalties on the books to deal with these crimes. But a government like this one does not have the guts to encourage the judges to deal with them in a manner that rationalizes the sentences they should be giving. That is the

problem. We do not need changes to sentencing provisions. They are already there but they are not being used. This is frustrating Canadians all across the country.

A section in the bill deals with the treatment of offenders of aboriginal descent. About two weeks ago a native Indian was convicted of sexual assault. At the same time he issued a death threat against his victim. The fellow went to court and was found guilty. That is a very serious crime in my book and would be considered so by most Canadians.

Even some of the bleeding heart Liberals across the way would agree with me that sexual assault is a very serious crime. Saying: "If you do not co-operate, I am going to kill you", is a very serious offence as well.

The person was found guilty. The evidence in court showed that the person had prior arrest and convictions for armed robbery. However, the judge with his creative thinking or because of political pressure or the influencing forces to make politically correct decisions, decided that instead of dealing with the crime as one that has a specified punishment in the Criminal Code, to have a sentencing circle. That is something new that is coming into the country when dealing with aboriginals.

The sentencing circle of elders determined that this man who was convicted of sexual assault and while assaulting his victim said: "If you do not co-operate with me, I will kill you", who had previous sentences for armed robberies which is a serious crime, whether your gun is registered or not, was given a sentence of one year banishment.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Shame. Shame.

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

He was given one year banishment. He was to go out into a remote area for a year and be counselled by some elders.

I saw an article on that in a Halifax newspaper while going home. By the time I reached Prince George, B.C. it had hit the Prince George Citizen the next day. My phone started ringing off the hook and people were asking me: Is everyone crazy out there?'' I said to them:No, just the Liberals''.

This is the type of justice that Liberals seem to embrace. An individual is responsible for a crime which he or she commits. But Liberals do not believe in placing the responsibility on the individual who commits the crime. No. The Liberal philosophy says that it is society which is to blame. Let us penalize society. Society turned this person that way. They are not to blame.

The fact is there are provisions in the Criminal Code to deal with serious crimes, even the hate crimes which are pointed out in section 718.2. We have penalties on the books now.

I want to get back to sentencing. Section 718.2(c) states:

where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

When I read that I see Pierre Elliott Trudeau and I see his former justice minister, the one responsible for section 745. It is the rallying cry of bleeding heart liberalism personified in the bill. Far be it for the courts to suggest that criminals should be punished for a crime.

Many Canadians are wondering about the existence of concurrent sentences. Why should a criminal convicted of several crimes serve his sentences concurrently so that he ends up serving a sentence for only one of the crimes?

This fashion of sentencing, consecutive and concurrent, is the number one contributor to plea bargaining, to deal making outside the courts. The lawyers get together, have a cup of coffee and say: "If you want to play golf this afternoon let's cop a plea and we will get this thing over with".

People read in the paper about someone who has been convicted of a serious crime and got a slap on the wrist. Most times the judge takes a bad rap for that because the lawyers had made the deal outside the courtroom before it even got to the judge. I have a decent enough regard for lawyers. They have to make a living too. We took the bounty off them in our party, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberals have it all wrong in Bill C-41. They are simply reacting to pressure from the interest groups which supported them during the election. The Liberals are famous for that. Mr. Trudeau probably did the best job at gathering together people from different categories and from different groups so that when the election came along they did not have to start talking to people individually, they just talked to the leaders and the rest of the people followed behind.

Our country is on a dangerous path. We would be negligent as parliamentarians if we dared to forget that the people of Canada have a right to decide what kind of society they want to live in. As long as the government refuses to listen to a broad spectrum of the Canadian people to hear their ideas and concerns, then anything it attempts to do with the criminal justice system is going to serve only the people who support it.

This is the underlying purpose of the bill. It is not to try to address crime in a meaningful way, but rather to placate the special interest groups that are giving the government a lot of problems right now.

I cannot in any way support a bill like this. I have had probably in excess of 15,000 pieces of mail from my riding all saying: "You are our member of Parliament for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. We implore you to vote against Bill C-41 particularly against section 718.2" which attempts to categorize certain types of crime based on the categories that the Liberal Party wants there.

In response to the people who sent me here to represent them I will most assuredly vote against Bill C-41 and comply with the wishes of my constituents, something that the party opposite is not able to do.

Let me rephrase that. In all fairness there are members of the party opposite, and I apologize to them publicly now, who have had the guts to stand up and say, I am going to represent my constituency. That is what I was sent here to do. That is what I am going to do. I congratulate them and I condemn the whip. I condemn the Prime Minister for the things he has said about the people who have had the guts to stand up and vote in a democratic fashion representing their constituents.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a lawyer. They may have taken the bounty off lawyers in the Reform Party but I have to rise to debate the comments that my hon. friend has made. I want to make three or four comments. I ask my friend to have a pen and paper handy to copy down some sections. Then perhaps he would make a comment or two.

I have a great interest in this bill, having studied it in the justice committee. I have been watching the debate. I note that the debate is going back and forth. Where is Her Majesty's loyal opposition in this debate?

The last person I saw speak was from the Reform Party, then back to my own party, then back over to the Reform Party and back to my own party. I do not see the Bloc Quebecois members standing up and talking about what they think is right, whether they are supporting this bill or whether they are not.

The justice critic stood up and said a few words. One Bloc member addressed one of the many sections of this bill. I say shame on a party that does not take its responsibility seriously as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

I want to say something about the witnesses that appeared before the justice committee. I was a member of the justice committee that studied this bill. It is very true that what we would call the ordinary citizen, in other words, the person who might live on Grenoble Street in my riding did not have an opportunity to come.

The groups that appeared before the justice committee and gave evidence were in my view representative of all of the interests that were concerned with this bill and in my judgment at least put forward the arguments for and against various sections of the bill.

I do not think the Canadian people were deprived because each and every one of the members on that committee of all the parties took a certain approach at the justice committee and were able to ask the questions they felt were required based on how they want to represent their constituents.

I know a lot of the debate has centred on section 718.2. However, this bill has a lot of interesting principles in it and it deals with a number of things. We have had history lessons about Prime Minister Trudeau and who was the justice minister here and there. Let us find out a little bit about the Reform Party.

Section 730 deals with absolute and conditional discharges, which may be granted by the courts in certain circumstances. Does the Reform Party support absolute and conditional discharges, yes or no?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Section 731 deals with probation. Does the Reform Party support section 731 and the concept of probation?

[An hon. member]

Yes.