Mr. Speaker, will the secretary of state assure Canadians that the Prime Minister will vigorously and publicly raise human rights concerns including China's arms sales and nuclear tests during his upcoming visit to China on November 4?
Lost his last election, in 2019, with 32% of the vote.
Human Rights October 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, will the secretary of state assure Canadians that the Prime Minister will vigorously and publicly raise human rights concerns including China's arms sales and nuclear tests during his upcoming visit to China on November 4?
Human Rights October 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific. It concerns the upcoming visit of the Prime Minister to China as leader of a trade delegation.
I have before me a document which was prepared by the deputy chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. It documents widespread human rights-
Criminal Code October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise during debate at second reading of Bill C-41, legislation which is a comprehensive package of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.
I know that my constituents have a number of concerns about elements of the legislation. Because we are at this stage in second reading in which there are some 10 minutes remaining, I want to take this opportunity to focus on one particular provision of Bill C-41 which has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy.
It is the provision of Bill C-41 that deals with the question of so-called hate crimes, crimes which are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, and which are based on a number of criteria set out in Bill C-41. Those criteria include race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim.
The question of the inclusion of sexual orientation of the victim has been the subject of some debate both inside and outside the House. I want to take a couple of minutes to explain why I believe it is profoundly important that sexual orientation be included in the hate crimes provisions of the bill.
However, before I get to that specific subject, I want to note that the reference to hate motivation as a factor in sentencing already exists in the province of Ontario. The Ontario attorney general has directed crown attorneys to argue that sentencing should be increased when a crime is motivated by specific hatred. A number of guidelines are in place to guide the work of crown attorneys in this.
I want to give a couple of examples of circumstances in which sentences have been increased because a crime has been motivated by hatred. Lelas was a case involving the desecration of synagogues. This crime was quite clearly motivated by hatred, by anti-Semitism, by the hatred of Jews. The Ontario Court of Appeal increased the sentence as a result of that. Another is the case of Moyer, a neo-Nazi skinhead who urinated on gravestones in a synagogue. This was considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing and the sentence was increased.
There is the case of Hoolans who went to a so-called hate rock concert and was urged to go coon hunting at this concert. Well he did. He went out and beat to unconsciousness a Sri Lankan dishwasher. When the judge looked at sentencing for this particular crime, because the crime was clearly motivated by hatred on the basis of race, the sentence was increased.
In that light I want to ask what are the implications of the argument of the member for Central Nova and other members of this House, including the members of the Reform Party? What are the arguments for excluding sexual orientation from Bill C-41?
The arguments are very clear. They say that it is just and right and appropriate to increase sentences if a person is motivated by hatred on the basis of religion, race or sex, but it is not if you are motivated by hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. What kind of message would this House be sending to Canadian society if we accepted that message?
Just last weekend in Toronto two men on a downtown street walking home from a cafe, the Second Cup coffee shop, were attacked. Six young men piled out of a van and beat up these two men with fists, boots, and beer bottles, right in the heart of downtown Toronto. As they beat them and injured them, in a pool of blood and broken glass they were calling them faggots. That is gay bashing. Gay bashing occurs tragically too often in my home community of Vancouver, in Toronto, Halifax, and New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and in many other communities. It is not always bashing of people who are gay or lesbian. In some cases it is bashing people who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. They are not gay or lesbian at all but because these thugs, these people who are motivated by hatred, believe they are gay or lesbian they beat them.
This legislation is saying that is wrong. It is saying that if we are to sentence people who are convicted of serious crimes of assault and other crimes and those people are motivated by hatred that judges should take that into consideration as an aggravating factor.
Frankly, I am astonished that a party like the Reform Party which says it believes in law and order would not understand that importance. I am very surprised and very disappointed at that. I have to say I am even more disappointed in the position taken by the member for Central Nova and a number of other Liberal members of Parliament on this issue. That member has said that sexual orientation should be taken out of Bill C-41, not the other grounds in section 41, but sexual orientation.
The implication and the message which is sent out by that is that it is okay. There is one standard if you beat up people based on race or religion and there is another standard if you beat up people based on sexual orientation. That is the message that goes out. If there is a different interpretation let her silent colleagues get up and say so. Let the member for Toronto stand up and say what he thinks about that kind of hateful language. That is what we are talking about here.
In fact, even the vice president of the Central Nova Liberal riding association, Janet Rosenstock, has said she is opposed to the position taken by the MP for Central Nova in this debate. She said the legislation does not single out sexual orientationany more than it does physical disability. It does not give special rights to gays or any other groups. That is the vice president of the riding association of Central Nova. She says, and perhaps Liberal members might find this interesting, that in its simplest terms if the hated are not named specifically prosecution of hate crimes is virtually impossible.
We in this House want to send a very clear and strong signal that we believe that prosecution of hate crimes must not only be possible but must be vigorously enforced. That is the message we want to send out.
I urge members of this House to support this legislation. I urge members of this House to recognize that this is an issue of fundamental justice. It is not an issue of any kind of special rights or treatment. I urge that that be recognized.
To those who say it is necessary to somehow define sexual orientation, I have something to share with them. Sexual orientation has been in legislation in this country for a number of years. There has been absolutely no need to define it to avoid abuses.
I appeal to members of this House to support this provision. Recognize that to do otherwise would be to send out a message of intolerance, a message which this House surely does not want to send to the people of this country.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, I would also like the parliamentary secretary to address the issue of the symbolism of the law as to its educative role in the community for general deterrence to operate.
The potential sentence that can arise or if it be a consequence of an offence is directly related to how serious the community should look at that offence.
For example, for breaking and entering a dwelling house, the maximum is life in jail. We know that life in jail is not very often given for breaking and entering a dwelling house. However it is a symbol of how serious that charge is to be taken.
Regular theft, which is so pervasive in the justice system, is one of the most common offences before the courts. We think that to change the boundary sends the wrong message and undermines the operation of general deterrence.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to address that larger issue rather than the technical issues of looking at the offender and whether they will be able to elect or not to go to the higher court, but to first of all justify what is the problem that he is trying to solve with this provision and how is that going to undermine the operation of general deterrence.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, currently under the summary convictions provisions, the maximum is six months in jail. You have told the government that you are going to proceed to make it 18.
In the provincial courts they always can proceed on the indictment and handle the more serious charges but I see that the principle here is to take away the options of the accused to elect to go to a superior court.
In these situations as practice has it, these theft offences are usually cumulative. Generally the information is multi charges against an offender. To limit this dollar amount related to summarial procedure is going to really hamstring a judge in being able to give the latitude of sentence required.
We feel that there is really no current problem in the justice system that is reflected in this change, that it sends the wrong message to the community and that we are looking for substantive justification of why this clause is here.
Petitions October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by hundreds of residents from across Canada.
[Translation]
This includes Quebec residents. The petitioners point out to the House that the Criminal Code, as it now reads, deprives terminally ill patients and people suffering from irreversible and debilitating disease of the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their life with the help of a doctor. Consequently, they urge Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that all Canadians have the right to die with dignity.
Points Of Order September 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to support the point of order raised by the Bloc Quebecois House leader. This morning, I raised a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 18. This has nothing to do with the point of order now raised by the Bloc Quebecois House leader.
The basic issue is whether or not a member of Parliament has the right to put a question to the Prime Minister regarding comments which are totally unacceptable and full of hatred. That is the issue. Mr. Speaker, I suggest you do not follow the Standing Orders during question period.
Points Of Order September 27th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I have given the Chair notice of a point of order arising from comments made in the House during a debate on Bill C-41 on Tuesday of last week.
I will state my point of order briefly. It arises pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 18 of the House. That standing order lists a number of groups and states:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of-nor use offensive words against either House or against-any Member thereof.
It goes on from there.
On Tuesday of last week the following words were spoken in the House: "The reference to sexual orientation in the code and its proposed inclusion in the human rights legislation gives recognition to a faction in our society which is undermining and destroying our Canadian values and Christian morality". It goes on to state: "Homosexuality is not natural. It is immoral and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of our Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned".
Those words, spoken by the member for Central Nova, clearly in my view give rise to a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 18. As a gay man, indeed as the only openly gay member of the House, I want to point out that certainly I am not the only homosexual in the House. Indeed there are gay people on both sides of the House and in the other place. I dare say there always have been, just as gays and lesbians are found in all other walks of life.
Pursuant to Standing Order 18, I want to ask what could be more offensive, to use the words of Standing Order 18, than to suggest that my very existence is immoral, unnatural, destroying Canadian values and must not be condoned. If similar hateful words had been directed toward another minority, be they Jews, Blacks, Chinese Canadians, people with disabilities or aboriginal people, all of whom are represented in the House, it is inconceivable the Chair would not have intervened and called the offending speaker to order. Therefore I want to ask why the standard should be any lower in the case of hatred directed at gays and lesbians in the House.
Finally, just to conclude, it is not good enough to suggest that just because these words are not directed at a specific individual therefore they can be spoken with impunity. If the words are unparliamentary if spoken with reference to one individual member, why should they lose that character if spoken of an unnamed general group of members?
Petitions September 27th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of provinces across Canada who draw to the attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the assistance of a physician.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating
illness the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice subject to strict safeguards.
Peacekeeping September 21st, 1994
Madam Speaker, I await with great interest the response to the question.