Art Hanger

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Is the member the only one who can interpret it?

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister's comment about how good Bill C-41 is and how much more it included other than section 718.2.

If the parliamentary secretary was listening carefully to the member for York South-Weston, he clearly pointed out two areas of this bill that are very questionable. One of them deals with alternative measures. Several clauses and subclauses are very questionable. Another one is section 718.2.

A third one I have found which is absolutely reflective of a government that really does not pay attention to the wishes of the people but writes legislation contrary to it is section 745.1. This section deals with early release for first and second degree murderers if they are under 18 years of age.

Very little has been debated on this bill. It was incumbent upon members in this House to do a thorough debate of this bill because of its implications.

Returning to 745.1 it reads:

The sentence to be pronounced against a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence for which the person was convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until a person has served such period between five and 10 years of the sentence as is specified by the judge presiding at the trial.

In other words, what is the difference between this piece of legislation when dealing with first and second degree murderers who are under 18 years old and those provisions under the Young Offenders Act? There is no difference whatsoever. Just like section 745, the attempt to repeal that section of the Criminal Code by the member for York South-Weston was brought about by him through a private member's bill.

Here is another section that almost replaces it which would be extremely irritating if the people in this country knew about its existence yet they know little about what is happening here. Bill C-41 is a very questionable document.

If I have learned anything since coming to Ottawa it is the wishes of the Canadian people are seldom reflected in legislation. More often than not legislation is passed either in spite of the desires of Canadians or by pulling the wool over their eyes, which is what Bill C-41 does.

I have also learned that political philosophy can influence legislation in one of two ways. The ideology of the political party that sponsors the piece of legislation can influence the means by which a commonly desired Canadian goal can be achieved, or it can set the goals. Bill C-41 is little more than ideology dressed up.

Canadians are realizing more and more that our current justice minister, the architect of this piece of legislation, is a man of the left, if not the far left. The justice minister knows exactly what he is doing. Just as he has hidden the true intent and true result of Bill C-68, the firearms registration bill, in a soft, fuzzy cloud of crime control, so he has disguised the real intent of Bill C-41 behind a veil of real justice reform. It is pure trickery, but it is also very transparent.

Bill C-41 is a bad bill and it will do bad things for Canada. Bill C-41 is an entirely predictable expression of what the current minister wants for Canada and what sort of impact he wants to leave on the political landscape. With Bill C-41 Canada sits atop the crest of a hill. If we in the House pass the bill we will propel ourselves down the slippery slope of governmental redefinition of the family, of governmental sanction of unhealthy relationships.

Mark my words, this in turn will lead to a further alienation of the Canadian people from their legislators. People are already disillusioned with politicians. They do not trust politicians. Why should they? Politicians craft bills like Bill C-41 and disguise it behind the veil of justice reform. It is only later when the legislative rubber hits the road and the courts take action that

Canadians find out what really is the true impact of the bill. That is what will happen with Bill C-41.

The world will not end if this bill passes. In fact, it will not change overnight. However, it will change and it will change for the worst. If this bill passes, the courts will be given full licence to redefine what marriage is, what discrimination means, what the limits of freedom of association are and just how free free speech is. We have seen examples of that in the House with the attempts to shut down debate. That will happen.

Bill C-41 with the inclusion of sexual orientation, whatever that means, as a protected category will inevitably lead to a change of discourse in the courts and eventually on the streets. It will lead to expanded special rights for one very small group of people. It will set new limits for the majority of people who do nothing more in life than go to work, go to church, pay their taxes, raise their kids and ask nothing more than to be left untouched as much as possible by the long arm of the Liberal state apparatus.

My years on the police force were invaluable in understanding what the real long term impact of legislation such as this will do. It has provided me with an education like no other with respect to the importance of the fine points of legislation and the massive ripple effect it will have on the street. The devil is in the details, as they say.

The Bail Reform Act for example is an act which was filled with good intentions but led Canada down a slippery slope which ended in the weakening of the criminal justice system in protecting society. That was a Liberal act. It was intended to allow the early release of non-violent offenders but was interpreted by jurists to include violent offenders. Broad intentions were transformed into bizarre reality as the legislative rubber hit the judicial road.

We have all seen the direction the Supreme Court has taken on the charter. The charter has to be so exploited by narrow political causes that constituents regularly call my office saying to scrap the thing altogether. Our esteemed court of highest appeal has ruled that drunks cannot commit crimes.

For those on the other side of the House who accuse me of fear mongering for suggesting that Bill C-41 with its addition of sexual orientation to the list of protected groups will not create waves which will wash dangerously over Canadian families, I say let us look at the record and let us get rid of the long list of those protected areas. For those who say that this bill is only about protecting people I say, just wait. A few years away, a few court decisions hence, this protection will turn into promotion. While all of us in this House support protection of any person from discrimination or violence, let us think very carefully about what we want to end up promoting.

Let us be honest with ourselves on this bill. We all know what it is going to lead to. I along with my constituents do not like that one bit.

The Reform Party does not like opposing legislation just for the sake of opposing it. No party should oppose legislation for that reason but we oppose this bill in its present form for good reasons. Those reasons are very much related to the problems I spoke of above.

What will happen when the open endedness of section 717 of the bill dealing with alternative measures for non-violent offences hits the streets and is subject to administration and interpretation? Nobody knows. The justice minister does not know.

I for one did not seek election in this House in order to leave the fate of legislation up to the law of unexpected consequence. This section, one of the more important sections of the bill, opens the door to the sort of judicial expansion that I witnessed while I was on the police force, the sort of expansion I know Canadians do not want.

Since we could not have this section tightened up in committee, we have no choice but to vote to scrap it. In my experience it is far better to return to the drawing board than to paint a dangerously obscure picture, especially when we are talking about criminal justice legislation.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 13th, 1995]

Of all the people travelling in their country of origin and referred by airlines to Canadian authorities abroad for the purpose of document verification in 1994, how many, in each country where such document verification took place, were, ( a ) permanent residents landed in Canada as convention refugees, or ( b ) persons residing in Canada after having made a refugee claim?

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1995]

They will spend money anyway.

[Immigration, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was reported yesterday that the minister of immigration is considering granting minister's permits to up to 17,000 refugees who cannot be given permanent residency in Canada. They cannot get permanent residency because they came to Canada with no identity documents and we have no idea who they are or what crimes they may have committed. We do know that most came from a country that was ripped apart by bloody civil war and terrible violent crime.

Will the minister promise to protect Canadians by not granting residency to one single individual if we do not know the full background and complete history of the person?

[Taiwanese Canadians, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society has brought to my attention an example of discrimination against Canadians that should not be tolerated by this government.

It seems that when Canadians of Taiwanese origin apply for visas to China their visa applications are refused. We know what the policy of China toward Taiwan is. There probably is not a lot the Canadian government can do about that. However, when Canadian citizens are discriminated against overseas because of the country of birth they list in their passports, then it is incumbent on our government to get involved. This is not an issue of two countries disagreeing over sovereignty. This is a matter of the fair treatment of Canadians around the world.

I call on this government to get involved and to use its newfound influence in China. We must not put trade above the fair and just treatment of citizens of Canada. We must defend what is right and attack what is wrong. End the unfair treatment of Taiwanese Canadians.

[Points Of Order, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to provide just a bit of background to my point of order.

Last Friday, June 2, in Oral Question Period I asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in which I brought to the minister's attention the case of Mr. Victor Sumbley, who has had enormous difficulties securing a visitor's visa for a family member to come to Canada.

In reply to my question the minister of immigration responded with the following: "Today he," meaning me, "decides to do some constituency work after all because there have been a lot of complaints from Canadians in Calgary, Alberta who cannot get the time of day on immigration matters from members of Parliament. It pleases me, finally, to see the member of Parliament stand up for his constituents.".

I have no quarrel with the accusations made by the hon. minister of immigration. I am quite accustomed to his style of debate. However, in the interests of accuracy I must insist that the Speaker ask the hon. minister to recognize one very impor-

tant point. Mr. Sumbley, a successful Canadian for whom I have made an intervention is not my constituent. He is, in fact, represented by the member for Mount Royal, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

Mr. Sumbley turned to me for assistance in his immigration case because that member refused to Mr. Sumbley's face to assist.

[Immigration, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star today printed a story that is nothing short of shocking. They reported that last year our immigration minister personally, with his own signature, gave permits to nine members of terrorist and revolutionary organizations to enter Canada.

These are not campus protesters. These are people from groups that have claimed tens of thousands of lives in civil wars and uprisings.

Is this bizarre story true? Did the minister give entry permits to members of terrorist organizations? If so, what will he now do to remove them from this country?

[Point Of Order, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I stand by the words I issued in my statement. I did not mention any particular person by name. That is all I will state in the matter.

[Immigration, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, whether the minister speaks Italian or English, I still do not understand the point.

The minister talks a good game. Just yesterday he bragged about how well the New Delhi immigration office was working. Tell that to Victor Sumbly, a well respected businessman whose sister and nephew could not get visitor visas from Delhi. They were told there was so much abuse that officials could not risk giving visas to a mother and child, even though Victor offered to post a $50,000 bond.

Would the minister be willing to meet with Mr. Sumbly and tell him face to face that the immigration system is working just fine?