Debates of June 9th, 1998

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member for Elk Island knows that is not a point of order.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has nothing to say on the issue. Every time the Minister of Justice has introduced a measure to protect victims, members of his party voted against it.

Why is he against gun control as a measure to protect communities? Why is he against the initiatives of the government which deal with the protection of our society and with the prevention of crimes in our society? Why is it that I only hear doom from this member and his colleagues over and over again and about the terrible things that happen in our society? Never once have they proposed something that is tangible, that is positive, to deal with the problems at hand.

Our society is in good hands. For four years in a row crime has decreased. What does he have to say to that?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that member is a perfect illustration of why it is so difficult to be here. This is the only place I know of where you can stand and lie and it is okay.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member for Wild Rose wants to give a response.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we use the L word, then we are out of here. Is that correct? I do not know any other way to say it, except I never saw more people who are strangers to the truth than the members across the way. It is a shame that it has to be that way.

I loudly and clearly said that $1 billion for the registration of rifles and shotguns of duck hunters and deer hunters is a waste of money. It will not be effective.

I have challenged the government: show me where it will save lives and I will support it tonight. Show me where the registration of a shotgun or a rifle will save lives and I will support it tonight. I have challenged the government for four years. It has not been done. It cannot be done because, number one, criminals do not register their guns. They do a lot of things with their guns, but they do not register them. It is pure and simple. To spend $1 billion under the umbrella of what the government thinks is protecting society is just not the answer, but the government does not listen.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to what the member for Wild Rose was saying and I have a question for him.

I think this is part of the problem with the total disrespect for the justice system and the lack of faith which Canadians have in the justice system.

We must understand when we deal with Bill C-68 and a lot of other legislation that we cannot keep drugs out of our prisons in Canada. We cannot keep heroin out, we cannot keep methadone out, we cannot keep marijuana out, we cannot keep LSD out, we cannot keep anything out of our prisons. They are not ordinary buildings. They are buildings that are surrounded by barbed wire and great big walls. That is relevant. That is part of the reason the Canadian public has no faith in the justice system. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to determine why prisons are full of drugs. It is not that we cannot, it is that we will not. The reason we will not is because we do not have people on that side of the House with the intestinal fortitude to implement that kind of measure. They would rather sit back and not get too intrusive with the inmates in the penitentiaries. I am sure they would find some way to say that it offends the charter of rights. They would want to check that out very carefully. Would it be a right to be a heroin addict in the pen?

The sad part about it is that about 80% of those people are there because of drugs. That is what put them there in the first place. In prison it is more plentiful than you could ever imagine. I might as well sentence my Uncle Henry who is an alcoholic to the wine cellar for the rest of his life. It does not make a bit of sense. That is the problem with the entire group over there. Most of the things that happen just do not make sense.

When drugs are the cause of putting a person in a penitentiary, then why do we not work hard to get it out of the penitentiary and save these people from their own fate?

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose was cited as saying that if we put more criminals behind bars the crime rate may fall. I think I am quoting him exactly. I would like him to explain why the American theory does not apply. They have the highest number of penitentiaries, yet they also have the highest number of criminals.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time trying to understand the stats we get from these guys. It usually takes a little interpretation. They are difficult to understand.

In California we have learned that the crime rate is down by a huge percentage. In New York City it has gone down even further, simply by starting the broke and pain theory. That is the picture in those two areas. The only reason I know about them is because I read the reports in the newspapers. I try to keep track—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on the justice estimates. I find it strangely ironic that the member for York South—Weston, who is not in the House at the moment, would come into this House, someone who has championed, as he would put it, the rules and regulations of the House, to speak on a topic totally unrelated to the justice estimates. I will not do that. I will immediately proceed to the justice estimates because that is what we are here to debate.

I will get into two areas with respect to the justice estimates. One is gun control. The other is the question of drinking and driving that has come up in the House over the last little while.

The House should support the justice estimates. With the budget that the justice department will have, if it passes the House, it will be able to get on with implementing a number of very important initiatives. Gun control is but one of them.

We have seen that this is a very useful, efficient and effective program and it is supported by Canadians very broadly.

We can see the effects of it already. The police in my riding in Etobicoke are already reporting some of the very positive effects of some of the early measures that were implemented and I am confident that more will come. I am totally convinced of that. We register pets and we register bicycles. I do not know why in the heck we should not register guns. They are lethal weapons.

There are other very important initiatives like the changes we are making to the youth justice system that this budget will allow our government to implement. With the changes now before us, youth 14 years and older who are repeat and violent offenders, who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

I know in my riding of Etobicoke North that people are concerned about repeat young offenders. I think the justice minister and the department have come forward with very pragmatic and excellent solutions to this very serious problem.

The changes will also permit the publication of the names upon conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. Publication of the names of 14 to 17 year olds who are given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent offences could also be permitted.

I think these are very important measures and this House should support them.

I would like to turn briefly to the question of drinking and driving. It is a very topical subject and I am sure it will be before the justice committee in the not too distant future.

Everyone in this House I am sure is very concerned, very saddened and shocked when they see individuals who are injured or who die as a result of being hit by a car driven by a drunk driver. We should be concerned about that. It is a very serious issue.

In the ensuing months when we debate these changes, I think that we should avoid simplistic solutions. Moving the tolerance level from .08 to .05 or to zero does not really address the problem. The problem is the repeat offender, the chronic drinker, the drinker who drinks and drives repeatedly.

The drinker who drives and gets into serious accidents is sanctioned by society through either a criminal sentence, a serious fine, or through the repeal of their licence. Immediately they jump back into their car, go down to the local bar, gets drunk, go out and maybe injure or kill someone.

That is the problem. It is not the casual responsible drinker. If the level were dropped to .05 or to .00 it would mean that people could not even have a beer and get in their car. Why should we be designing laws in this country to deal with the 5% or the 3% of society who are irresponsible? Why do we not use tougher sanctions on them?

I am amazed when I see drivers who drink and who get into serious accidents. Their licence is revoked, but they are caught a few months later in a car without a valid licence. Why do we not put people like that into jail? To me that is the solution. Why do we have to penalize people for having one drink responsibly in an evening, getting in their car and driving home in a very safe and cautious manner?

We should be thinking about those kinds of solutions. If we went with no risk policies it would mean that people would always leave their cars at home. They would not get into an aircraft. They would not cross the street. We cannot design policies to deal with every single risk in life. I think we need to have pragmatic policies that deal with serious problems, but they have to deal with the offenders of the problems.

In my mind, the problem is not the responsible drinker, it is the repeat offender who just turns their nose up at the justice system. They have been convicted of an offence, they have had their licence revoked, and they get back into a car, go out and drink and drive, and behave irresponsibly.

I understand that a coalition has been formed which includes MADD, Mothers Against Drinking and Driving.

I am sure it will present to the justice committee. It is saying that moving tolerance to .05 will not work either.

[The Speaker]

It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 192

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.