Debates of Feb. 4th, 1997

Prisons And Reformatories Act

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

Oh yes, I hear "extremist" from over there. Sure, it is extremist to worry about the taxpayer in this country. It is extremist to worry about the livelihood and the safety of my mother. It is extremist. That is right, you keep it up. That is what you call extremist. Shame on you. I hope your parents give you a talking to when you get home. That is all I can say. You have no more thought for them.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Racist.

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

I hear the word "racist" from that side. Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch? Come on.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hopkins)]

Order.

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

I will not have some s.o.b. sit here and call me a racist.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Order please. Hon. members know that sometimes tempers flare in debate but I think if the hon. member would continue to engage in verbal sparring rather than the other sort we would all be better off. I think that is true throughout the House.

I invite the hon. member if he wishes to resume his remarks to do so. If he feels it is not a good time for that obviously he can allow another member to speak. If he has a problem that he wishes to raise he can do it through the Chair. I invite him to address his remarks through the Chair, indeed all hon. members to address their remarks through the Chair rather than directly.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are right, I should address the Chair. I do not mind being called a lot of things but there are a few things I will not stand for.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

But you can call anybody what you want.

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

I have never said that to any man yet. Never.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

You should read the blues tomorrow.

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

Yes, I am afraid I have read your blues before. I have heard all this before from you people.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Order. I invite the hon. member-and I thought he had agreed to take my advice-to address his remarks through the Chair. The intemperate language that we are hearing in the House is perhaps unnecessary and it is not helped when members address each other instead of addressing the Chair.

I respectfully again urge the member in his remarks to address them through the Chair and not to other members in the House. I am sure if that happens other members will try to do the same. I appreciate that co-operation.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are right.

Bill C-53 does absolutely nothing to address the safety and well-being of citizens of this country. I have said that before and I will say it again because I do not think people fully understand what goes on here. We hear from the government time and time again that violent crime is down in this country.

Yes, in some aspects it is but they forget to tell the people that one of the reasons is because it is called plea bargaining. We have a plea bargaining system set up that when a person is charged with a number of offences, through our good graces we are a forgiving people, I guess, and we will wipe that all underneath the table if they will plead guilty to one portion of their crime. When the government says that violent crime is down in some areas, sure it is. We have allowed them to get away with it. We have allowed them not to be sentenced on that issue.

Let us look at truth in sentencing and what it really is. It is a joke. It is a joke on the taxpaying people of this country but the members on the other side do not seem to think so. They use this as a basis for their argument. They do not tell the people the proper stats of what the crime is, what the plea bargaining system does or what was plea bargained away. No, not this sharing, caring government. It would never think of doing that.

I am proud to stand here today and oppose this bill and I look forward to any of the questions.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member I want to begin by reading a short sentence from the bill because I think it is important that Canadians understand exactly what this bill does. If they listened to the member for the last few minutes his speech in no way, shape or form reflected anything that was in this bill. He was talking about something that had nothing to do with this bill. This enactment amends the Prisons and Reformatories Act by adding a statement of purpose and principles for temporary absence programs similar to the statement in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The enactment also authorizes the provinces to create additional types of temporary absences consistent with purposes and principles.

The enactment extends the period of temporary absences granted for non-medical reasons to a maximum of 60 days and adds the power to renew temporary absences following a reassessment of the case. The amendments authorize the provinces to establish eligibility criteria for temporary absences in order to restrict the concurrent eligibility of prisoners for some types of temporary absences and parole.

Part of this whole program is about rehabilitation. Is the member from the Reform Party saying that he does not believe in rehabilitation? Is the member saying that once you are assigned or put in prison that is the end of you for life? Is this some kind of new treatment the member is trying to design? I am just not clear where the member is coming from.

I wonder if the member could make it quite clear to those of us in the House and state categorically that he does not believe in rehabilitation in any way, shape or form. That was the message I got from his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member got that from my speech because that is not what I meant at all. I believe in self-rehabilitation. I believe in the rehabilitation of certain criminals for certain crimes. There is nothing wrong with that. What I have trouble with is when we have the state passing out little goodies, allowing them out on temporary absences. How many have re-offended during temporary absences?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

That's not what the bill says.

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

Yes.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

You guys are just mixing apples and oranges.

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

No, we are not mixing apples and oranges. We want truth in sentencing, especially for violent, repeat and serious criminals. We want that.

We hear the rhetoric all the time from this government that this is not what this or that means, then all of a sudden down the road the light goes on for them. Maybe two or three years too late they say "by gosh, that was used for that, wasn't it?" We get this all the time. We read about it all the time. We did not understand that is what it meant.

I say and have always said two violence strikes and you are out, period, bang. Every criminal who is convicted the second time of a violent crime should be sentenced to imprisonment without eligibility for early release or parole. That is totally opposite to early release and temporary absence. That is all that means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I allowed two or three minutes for cooler heads to prevail, as you saw, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago.

However, I would like to rise on a point of order on Beauchesne's 485 regarding unparliamentary language which caused the outburst of rage from my colleague who was insulted by the member for Scarborough Centre who shouted words across the floor and accused my colleague of being a racist and an extremist. This type of language from members of the Liberal Party, the governing party, demonstrates their contempt for people who wish to express a point of view that is different from their own. This type of language does not belong in the House. It does not belong in a civilized society. It does not belong in any part of politics.

I would hope that the member for Scarborough Centre would rise and apologize profusely and without reservation to my colleague. I would hope that these remarks would be withdrawn and that the incident be recorded as having come from the Liberal Party members as their attitude when challenged by someone who has an opinion different from their own.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We will have to look at the blues. The actual unparliamentary language that was used came from the member opposite who was speaking at the time.

I was sitting two benches away from the member for Scarborough Centre. If someone would look at the blues and put the debate into context, the speaker at the time was referring to generalities with respect to certain terms that he was using in his speech.

All the member from Scarborough Centre did was to suggest other forms of words that he would be able to use. Extremist was a word that was used, yes. The member for Scarborough Centre also used the word racists in the plural tense. He did not put his criticism directly at the member. He directed it at the terms members are using.

I would encourage the Chair to review the blues to see that the blues speak for themselves. The actual apology should come from that member for the words we know he used.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

It would be helpful to the House if the Chair had an opportunity to review the blues to see what was said as suggested by the parliamentary secretary.

As members know, I was not in the Chair at the time even though I was in a position where I could hear what was being said in the House. I was immediately adjacent to the Chamber. I did not hear all the words that were alleged. However, I understand that there was a contretemps. I heard some language that was unparliamentary used. In the circumstances, since the matter has now been raised, it would be appropriate to defer the matter until the Chair has an opportunity to review the transcript of the proceedings. We will get back to the House.

If members have further submissions to make on the point, it might be appropriate that they make them in chambers after rather than now in the circumstances because I think we have heard both sides of the argument.

If the member for St. Albert insists, I will hear more, but given what I have decided to do, I hope his remarks will be extremely pertinent to the position of the Chair, given what I have already said.

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

Most pertinent, Mr. Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to the remarks by the parliamentary secretary who was talking about the heated debate being in context. The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that unparliamentary language is unparliamentary language in context or out of context.

The second point I would like to make is that the member who uttered the words is sitting in the Chamber. He should stand up and acknowledge that he said that in this House before his peers. If he can shout it out in anonymity, he should be prepared to stand up and acknowledge his words. He has the opportunity to stand up right before us as we speak to withdraw the comment he made.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport on the same point. Again, I hope he bears in mind what I said to the hon. member for St. Albert before he started his second comments.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. It is pertinent and I respect your wise counsel.

It should be noted by all members of the House that when there is the rhetoric that may fly back and forth during debate between members in the House, there is opportunity for any member who disagrees with a member opposite to follow protocol, to stand in their place and ask the Speaker whether he or she has heard the remark and then ask the Speaker to rule that that remark be withdrawn.

However, for a member to leave his chair, call someone an s.o.b., run across the aisle and physically challenge him I hope will be a consideration in your ruling.