Andrew Telegdi

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-33.

Before getting to the substance of the bill perhaps it would be good to take stock of our great country and to take a look at the evolution of Canada.

There is no question that when the French and the English first came to the country a sizeable native population had its own nation. There is no question that over the years one shortcoming was the way we handled our native people. There is no question when we look at immigration to Canada from other places that we have had painful experiences of racism.

I recall reading some articles on the evolution of the various groupings in Canada. I came across a part of a book with a poster which said: "Help wanted. Irish need not apply". My wife is Irish.

There is not question the Chinese who helped build our railway were discriminated against as a group. Their spouses were not allowed to join them and they were kept in barrack-like conditions.

What happened to Canadians with Japanese ancestry during the second world war is well known. They were uprooted, put in camps, dispersed outside British Columbia, and their properties were confiscated.

In my community of Kitchener-Waterloo there is no question there were problems involving the German population. There was also discrimination against Italians during the second world war.

Jews were discriminated against in this century and previous centuries. The Spirit of St. Louis , a boat carrying hundreds of Jews, was denied access to free ports. The people on it, mostly women and children, ended up being killed.

I came to this country as a refugee in 1957 from Hungary. I am painfully aware of what is happening in Europe, the former Yugoslavia and other countries right now. In those other countries there are problems with minorities dealing with each other.

When I was president of the federation of students at the University of Waterloo in the early seventies I heard of cases where people were denied accommodations because they were Chinese or of other ethnic origin. They were proven.

Previous to that time we saw the great human rights debate in the United States wherein we came to know what we shall overcome means and what was being done to African Americans in the United States. Some of that was happening in Canada as well.

In the late seventies a volunteer working for an organization in which I was executive director committed suicide because she could not bear to live in a world where homophobia was so strong.

In 1990 during Desert Storm people with Arab and Jewish backgrounds in my community got together to try to bridge some of the gulf between their two communities and make sure what was happening in the Middle East would not spill over to our community.

One result was the establishment of the Mayor's Race Relations Commission in the Waterloo region to foster understanding among the various groupings in our community.

It is not difficult to recognize that bigotry is alive and well. It certainly has been expressed in the Chamber. I noticed in today's paper that the Reform Party member for Calgary Southeast questioned her place in a party whose members espouse racist and bigoted views. It comes from the incident last week when the former whip of the Reform Party told Canadians that it was okay to fire somebody on the basis of their sexual orientation, that it was okay to fire somebody or to move someone of a different colour to the back of the shop.

Unfortunately too many people in the third party express those views. It is unfortunate that those views are put forward by members of Parliament. The job of members of Parliament should be to try to bridge various communities, not to drive them further apart by setting community against community. What makes this country so great is we have learned from our past experiences and we have worked on building a tolerant society.

The question as to whether the issue before us should be subject to a free vote or whether it should be subject to party discipline was one that was debated prior to the decision being taken last week. I was of two minds on that issue.

I believe that the bill deals basically with human rights and equality of Canadians. We also say that someone is not going to be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation. Also, a bank for example will not be able to deny service to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. To me that is a human rights issue. Some of my colleagues in the Liberal Party have said that for them it is a moral issue.

Originally I told our party whip that I considered this to be a party vote and I wanted us to vote along party lines. I listened to the debate. I saw what happened in this House when the former Reform Party whip stood up and made those comments. Not only did he make those comments, many of the members around him supported those comments, including the leadership. When that happened I said to myself, I want this to be a free vote. When this issue comes on the floor of the House of Commons I want the people of this country to know that we are allowed to vote our conscience on it.

I am very proud to be voting in favour of the bill. I am very proud to stand up for this bill which is going to help make Canada the best country in the world. It is going to take us forward to be a more tolerant society.

I do not think that any Canadian would ever believe that someone should be denied a job based on their sexual orientation. I do not believe that any Canadian would want someone rejected for a bank loan on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I am sad that some people would misrepresent the bill and bring forward issues that are totally false, for example, that once we pass the bill we are legalizing pedophilia. That is a red herring which has been thrown out by people who want to keep the status quo. They are sad that we actually have human rights legislation in Canada and would undermine this bill.

This bill does not give anything to people based on sexual orientation that other Canadians do not have. It makes sure that they are not denied what other Canadians can have.

I will be proud to stand in my place to vote for this legislation. The people of Canada will be proud of us as well.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of government legislation, the hon. member for Calgary Centre made some of the same points. Interestingly enough, the hon. member for Calgary Centre who spoke against the government's gun legislation today, supported the government when the legislation was before the House. I guess that is rehabilitation Reform style. The two members who supported the government have been rehabilitated. They have been taken to the woodshed.

I have in my hand the victims services pamphlet which is put out by the Waterloo regional police. It says that victims of crime need not suffer physical injuries to experience severe effects for weeks or months after the crime. They may feel anger, fear, guilt and helplessness. To assist victims in dealing with the effects of crime the Waterloo regional police established a victims services unit. Civilian counsellors in the unit provide assistance to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes. Actually, a fair number of the services it offers fit in with the Reform Party's victims bill of rights.

Would the hon. member for Wild Rose and his party support the idea of letting the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario know that the victims services as operated by the Waterloo regional police force are services which they support and that the provincial government should not be slashing funding to that organization as well as other victims organizations?

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what comes forward from members of the Reform Party. If their advice were to be followed we would lock up everyone possible and throw away the key. It is because of that kind of attitude that we have picked up on the American model which is very expensive and destructive. It does not promote safer communities. It ends up being very costly and does nothing for the victims of crime.

The conference that was held at the Royal York Hotel in March 1993 brought people together from across the country. Police officers, judges, people in government and people from communities were there. The Federation of Municipalities was there, as well as groups representing victims rights, young offenders and correctional services. They concluded, after looking at all the models in the free world, that the one which worked the best was the European model and the least desirable model was the American model.

The hon. member did not take me up on my challenge when I asked him if he and his party were going to phone the premier of Ontario and say to him: "We do not want you to stop funding programs for the victims of crime in the province of Ontario". That is exactly what is happening in the province of Ontario right now.

We have to pay attention to victims. We have to ensure that the support services are there for them. I hope Reform members will contact the premier of Ontario and say: "We do not want you to stop funding programs for the victims of crime".

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are not living in a world of either/or. Many things are important to Canadians. I know that 81 per cent of Canadians are concerned that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. A poll has not yet been done in Canada which shows that Canadians condone discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, that does not negate the whole issue of victims which we must address.

I will repeat to the member that I shed tears when I see funding slashed by the provincial government for programs that were painfully developed to nourish community support for victims, victims in my community.

There is no question that I will support the motion for a victims bill of rights, but we have to look at where the money will come from. We will get that money if we make the judicial system more effective. It will not be more effective if we continue with the rhetoric of the Reform Party. We will increase the rate of incarceration in this country by 50 per cent at a great expense and it will not be effective.

I hope the Reform Party members phone their ideological cousins in the province of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government members, to protest the cutting of victims programs. I expect and hope that members of the Reform Party will do that. I look forward to their doing that.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Calgary Centre voted in favour of the gun control legislation that this government proposed. I am surprised he is talking from the opposing side about it right now.

There is no question that all members in the House support services to victims and better treatment for victims within the criminal justice system.

I have been involved in a judicial agency, Youth in Conflict with the Law in the Waterloo region. I was involved with a whole series of organizations that dealt with offenders, the community and victims. There is no question as we examine the various programs that are offered in the country that Quebec is very much a leader in the area of criminal justice reform as well as dealing with victims of crime.

When I first became involved in working with offenders in the early seventies it became very clear that for the rehabilitation of young offenders, they would have to face up to their actions. They would have to make contact, where possible, with the people that they victimized and they would have to make restitution.

We have a number of programs in my community. We have pioneered many programs related to the judicial system in the Waterloo region. One of the programs that we pioneered was Youth in Conflict with the Law, working with young offenders.

Another program we pioneered was Kitchener House, a halfway house, so when people were being released from provincial institutions they would be eased into the community. The John Howard Society was active in our community and the Mennonite Central Committee started up the first victim offender reconciliation program back in the seventies. That is where the victim and the offender come together. When they are younger individuals it impresses on them the seriousness of their acts and the fact that there is a person involved who is hurt. From the victim's perspective, in many cases it helps them demystify who the offender is. We try to work out some compensation, fiscal and voluntary, that the offender can make to compensate the victim.

We also recognized that victim services needed to be present within the police department. When victims were going to the courts and facing the trauma that victims face, people would be assisting them and explaining to them how the judicial system, which can be a very complex system, works.

There was also a group which initially got involved because of a sentence handed down to a sexual offender. A grandfather had sexually abused his granddaughter and they felt the grandfather got an inappropriately low sentence. The group started out calling themselves citizens concerned with crimes against children. Initially it was a lobby group reacting against the sentence. The next thing it had become involved in victim services in the community working with children, doing a lot of prevention work. Its members are always ready to respond in case help is needed, be it from the police or from other family members, but they were always there to assist the victim.

One of the troublesome aspects of the present state of affairs in the criminal justice system is we do not do enough to re-examine the way we deal with crime. In many cases we are following a knee-jerk approach, an approach that is being driven by the rhetoric of members of the Reform Party.

We get into a mindset that says we should try to deal with crime in a "lock them up, throw away the key" approach. In my community the victim services program for the police which we pioneered and which was supported by the provincial government, under the Harris government has been cut, slashed. That is for victims' rights. They are the kissing cousins of the Reform Party.

The program for husbands who abuse their spouses, run by the John Howard Society, was slashed to the bone. This program was to stop people from reoffending and to stop further victimization.

The sexual assault program, where community justice initiatives deal with victims of sexual assault, children and otherwise, was slashed by the provincial government. That concerns victims.

The biggest problem is we tend to ape and the rhetoric of the Reform Party apes what is happening in the United States in terms of crime and crime prevention. There is no worse model that we can possibly follow. The Europeans have shown much more effective ways of dealing with offenders which in turn makes the cost of the justice system cheaper and in turn allows funding for victims' services.

The tragedy is that there is not enough funding for victims' services because we are misspending it in the criminal justice system. At the present rate of sentencing it is expected that the population of prisons will increase by 50 per cent over the next five years. What a waste of money when keeping a person in prison costs $50,000 a year.

Let us be very clear when I am talking about people in prison and the justice system, I am talking about people who are property offenders, non-violent offenders, people who could be handled much cheaper in the community, be it through community service, or restitution or probation.

The climate that has been created is that away too much money is being thrown into the imprisonment area and we are doing precious little in the justice area.

I recommend to the members of the Reform Party that they look at the work of the crime community safety council. They might even go back to March 1993 when Mr. Horner, a former RCMP officer, a Progressive Conservative and the head of the justice committee, came up with a unanimous all-party recommendation in a report which would have dramatically shifted the way in which we dealt with the criminal justice system. It would have led to more community prevention and more work with victims.

If there is a problem in our system now, it is that we have not followed up on the recommendations of the Horner commission and the justice committee on this issue. There are many cases in that report of shifting resources to victims, to crime prevention and community safety. There is a rethinking of the way Canadians should deal with the whole issue of crime.

There is no question that in many cases victims have been ignored. I have worked in the system since the early 1970s and it breaks my heart to see victim programs in my community being slashed by the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario. It is the ideological kissing cousin of the Reform Party.

I accept that Reformers are being sincere in what they are trying to do. Please take a look at the justice committee report by Mr. Horner. Look at the cry from police across this country that there has to be a better, more effective way. Let us look to the European models and not to the United States. We know the American system does not work.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the government on this amendment.

[Stanley Knowles, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that today on Parliament Hill is the official launch of the campaign to establish the Stanley Knowles Visiting Professorship in Canadian Studies at the University of Waterloo.

Stanley Knowles is a living legend. He served continuously in the House from 1942 until his retirement in 1983. Over those 41 years he established an esteemed reputation among all political parties within the labour movement and in an ever widening constituency which ultimately extended to the international community.

One of the many honours Stanley Knowles has received was the appointment to honorary officer of the House by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

By establishing the Stanley Knowles Visiting Professorship in Canadian Studies, the University of Waterloo is pleased to provide recognition of this Canadian's efforts to create a better society.

It is my pleasure to invite members of the House to join in celebrating the launch to take place today at 200 West Block at5.30 p.m.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

And shoes.

[Ceso International Services, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding volunteer efforts of Mr. Frederick Harttrup of Waterloo.

Mr. Harttrup, accompanied by his wife Olive, recently travelled to Trinidad to advise a government owned forestry company on production techniques and total quality management.

Mr. Harttrup made recommendations pertaining to log supply and quality, sawmill flow systems and layout and the operation of the saw show and the planer mill.

Mr. Harttrup is one of 7,000 Canadians who have volunteered their time through CESO International Services. Since its founding in 1967, CESO has been providing volunteer advisers to businesses and organizations in Canada's aboriginal communities, developing countries and emerging market economies in central and eastern Europe. CESO volunteers are skilled Canadian men and women, usually retired, who willingly share their lifetime of practical experience with those who need it.

To Frederick Harttrup and to all the CESO volunteers, we express our appreciation and we send them our thanks.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, March 18th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-239, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the establishment of a system allowing persons who do not wish to receive direct mail advertising or mailing of printed matter without further address than householder, box holder, occupant or resident to notify Canada Post Corporation accordingly, and that Canada Post respect the wishes of the residents if they do not wish to receive junk mail, and that Canada Post comply accordingly.

The bill would empower Canadians by having their wishes respected by Canada Post. It would also be good for the environment.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)