Myron Thompson

[Criminal Code, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I endorse what my colleague said at the beginning of his statement, with all due respect to the minister and the speaker from the official opposition. It is rather difficult for an ordinary fellow with my education to keep up with lawyer talk. I get lost from time to time. If we use lawyer talk we might as well use doctor talk because I do not understand that either. However, I do understand the intent of this legislation. I commend the minister.

My colleague felt we were caught between a rock and hard place. I am going to change that from a stone to a hard place in respect of our minister so there will be absolutely no confusion.

I hope my speech will reflect the voice of ordinary Canadians, that which I have heard for quite a while on this issue. As we live from day to day we all have a habit of taking things for granted.

When I hear of a crime being committed by someone who is intoxicated I immediately take it for granted that he will be charged and probably convicted. However, when I learned there is no conviction because he was drunk, I am flabbergasted. I never dreamed for a moment that being drunk would be a successful defence. I began to ask myself how this could be. Who would ever have imagined being drunk would be an excuse to commit a crime?

My life prior to becoming a member of Parliament allowed me on many occasions to come to the aid of those involved in family problems in general and specifically in family abuse. In about 90 per cent of the cases liquor was a contributing factor. In other words, the physical abuse would probably not have occurred if the assailant had been sober.

With courts now deciding drunkenness can be used as a defence all our efforts to stop spousal abuse and child abuse would be for not. One only has to be drunk to be declared innocent. How ridiculous can we get?

Laws are written to protect the public. I find it unbelievable that normal human beings would decide that drunkenness is a defence. If it is because of the wording of legislation or the wording in the charter of rights and freedoms, for heaven's sake let us fix it.

I support and commend the efforts of the justice minister in preparing legislation to deal with this problem. I encourage each member to support it to the fullest so every judge in this country will get the message that the law makers of this land clearly state that under no circumstances will drunkenness be used as a defence in criminal activity. The best message we can send is that this legislation receive 100 per cent support, and the sooner the better.

As members of Parliament we are responsible for addressing the concerns of our constituents. As members of this House we are responsible for instituting legislation wanted by our constituents. Therefore the Supreme Court should be listening to

Canadians and parliamentarians when deciding the difference between what is law and what is legal.

No member of this House can say the people of Canada agree with the Supreme Court decision that drunkenness can be a defence for violence or actions that deprive someone of their personal dignity. Conversely, no Canadian can understand how the Supreme Court can condone voluntary extreme intoxication or that voluntary consumption of large quantities of an intoxicant absolves a criminal of all blame for actions following drunkenness.

It is time to force the Supreme Court to decide whether it will continue to be a law unto itself or whether its decisions will follow the wishes of the people. It is time to send the Supreme Court a message that making decisions not accepted by Parliament or the people of Canada will result in change. That message can be sent today. We have no need to wait or build a body of evidence for or against extreme intoxication as a defence for criminal action.

All Canadians want those who choose extreme intoxication to be held accountable for their crimes. All members expressed outrage that voluntary extreme intoxication can be used as a defence for criminal action. Everyone but the Supreme Court it seems understands there is some responsibility that must be accepted for a criminal offence that follows when choice was not impaired.

Let us send a message to all Canadians that parliamentarians acting on behalf of the citizens of Canada determine what is right and what is wrong, what is legal behaviour and what behaviour must be punished.

The justice minister wishes to send this to committee to solidify the foundation to implement the bill. I believe he suggested something along those lines. The foundation for the implementation of the bill has been built by the people of Canada in their outcry against the recent decisions in the courts of Canada regarding drunkenness. This outcry was heard by each one of us in the House. The voice of Canadians has provided the strong foundation necessary to make the bill law.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent for the following motion:

That Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication), be now not only read the second time but sent to committee of the whole and passed at third reading this day.

I ask this so all Canadians and parliamentarians can send a clear and loud message that states no one can or will accept voluntary extreme intoxication as abdication of responsibility for criminal actions, and that intent of or criminal action is decided by all Canadians, not by an appointed few.

[Justice, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a gentleman, a hard working fellow cannot sleep one night. He decides that rather than twist and turn in bed he would get up, go to his jewellery store in a small Ontario town and get a head start on the day's work.

It is dark at 3 a.m. The 81-year old jeweller is quietly working in the back of his shop when suddenly a loud crash startles our law-abiding shop owner. His heart stops as he turns and sees two young, strong vandals coming in through the broken window in the front of his shop.

He is frightened. He worries about physical harm and that his private property will be stolen. The frightened shop owner reaches for the revolver which has been inside his shop for many years. Out of fear for his personal safety he fires it to scare away the vandals.

The next morning the elderly shopkeeper has more to worry about. He is now the criminal. He is now facing charges far worse than those who were attempting to rob or possibly injure him. The law says he has no right to protect himself or his possessions.

Welcome to Canada in the 1990s. Just hope you never have to protect yourself, your family or your property. Nineties justice will say you are the criminal.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, a quick question for the hon. member. It really gets tiring hearing this blah, blah, blah about a wonderful budget that is not going to do what those members claim. I get frightened when the opposition wants to do something even worse. It does not want to address the serious problem.

Regarding the corporations, if we get more taxation out of the corporations, who ultimately pays the bill and what does the member think caused a lot of the corporations to go south of the border previously if not taxation? Is he trying to chase everybody out of Canada?

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

I have four other petitions, Madam Speaker, that call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to legislation that would provide for the inclusion of sexual orientation.

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions; actually I have five but four of them relate to the same thing.

The first petition calls on Parliament to enact legislation that re-evaluates and amends the Canadian justice system providing protection to and giving precedence to victims' rights, stricter sentencing guidelines, stronger penalties for all major crimes, immediate deportation of convicted non-Canadians with all appeal costs financed by the accused, all juveniles charged with major crimes be tried in adult court and all violent criminals to serve their full sentences.

This petition comes from the Canmore, Exshaw and Banff district.

[Environment, March 20th, 1995]

That is a good answer for nothing.

[Environment, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last year the environment minister stated that a project, namely Sunshine Development, which had environmental assessments, was fully reviewed by Parks Canada and designated as environmentally sound, would be subject to more review because of her government's reliance on special interests.

If the minister is so concerned about the environment, why is her department sitting idle while clear-cutting of old growth is taking place on lands in which the federal government has an interest?

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

And pensions. We have to start thinking a bit more about the little guys who are trying to get on their feet. When times are tough and we get things rolling right, let us remember that we are trying to provide services and goods that are much needed throughout the world.

In case anyone has forgotten, the most important industry in the world is agriculture. We better not ever forget that. We have to keep our food supplies going where they are needed, keep people fed when we have the opportunity to do so, keep the jobs rolling and keep giving opportunities to young people who are saying that all they want is a chance to prove themselves. They are hard workers. They do not want welfare. They do not want

unemployment insurance. However we let these kinds of things go on year after year.

Bless the minister for coming up with the idea to put through some legislation that will put an end to this situation at last. Let us hope it is truly meant and let us hope that irresponsible opposition parties will fall into line and support logical legislation of this nature.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

It has to be a Liberal idea; it is no good otherwise. That is a shame. What did we hear? We heard: "No way", but here we are tonight debating something we all agree on.

There was noise from the opposition as soon as I mentioned that we should debate legislation to get these people back to work. What else did I hear? I heard irresponsible from Bloc members. I will tell them what is irresponsible. It is irresponsible when 295 individuals sitting in the House continually let these kinds of things go on year after year.

I admire and commend the Minister of Labour for her move. She said tonight that we must get something in place to make certain these kinds of things do not happen again. It is a good idea, even if it did come from the Liberal side. It is too bad they did not feel the same way last night. We could have got going a lot sooner, or maybe last year instead of letting it go for 12 days. We are just asking people to wake up.

A small business in my riding, Transfeeder, worked very hard this year to re-establish the business it lost last year. It does not employ a great number of people but it is doing its very best to help. It is part of a big picture. Last year it lost $500,000 in sales during a 12-day strike. Since then it has tried to calm the fears of Japanese businessmen and managed to get new orders.

It is finally getting back on its feet and suddenly everything is in jeopardy because of a stoppage. This small business is really striving. Japanese businessmen are asking why Canada is allowing the stoppage to happen. They do not understand.

Mr. Blair Wright, owner of that business in Olds, Alberta, could only answer like all Canadians by saying that he did not know. Is it not a shame when we in the House of Commons receive calls from our constituents saying that they have to lay people off, things are falling apart and perishable goods are perishing? They are being held hostage. Farmers cannot move their grain. Everything is looking grim. Yet we in the House hear nothing more than silly comments like irresponsible or no way when we try to do something about it.

It is time we woke up, started to get more serious and change our attitudes in this place. Perhaps that would inspire some attitudes all over the country that might make a difference and keep the economy going the way we want to see it go.

Unfortunately if we did not do something all Mr. Wright's work would be in vain. All he has done for a year to try to get going would be in vain. He worries about his staff. Most of them are young families trying to get a start somewhere. Most of them earn a little better than minimum wage. We do not even know what that is like any more, we are so accustomed to our big salaries.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine words. I am pleased to support this move tonight.

A number of things have crossed my mind since this affair began. I cannot help but remember the first two or three things that came to my understanding. We had some young families in Wild Rose that work for small businesses, exporters, mainly hay processors, that were laid off a week ago because the signs were coming that things were going wrong.

These people were the ones making $9 or $10 an hour. They do not make car payments and they do not make house payments because they cannot do that on $9 or $10 an hour. They have young children and are trying to survive. It is a shame that hundreds of these individuals are trying to get into the work market, trying to make a go of things, trying to stay off of welfare and doing all the right things. Suddenly there is a move about somewhere and they are being held hostage. They cannot go to work. There is nothing to do because a few people somewhere are stopping the work or not allowing the procedure to take place.

There is a discouraging part about it. I stood in this place less than 24 hours ago and asked if the House would consider giving unanimous consent to debate legislation requiring the workers to go back to work. The disappointing part was that right away we heard "no, no way" from the other side of the House. Good grief, here we are one night later doing exactly what I asked to do last night.

What was so unusual about getting going last night? Is it a bad deal that it happened to come from this side of the House? Did we have to wait another few hours to make sure it came from that side of the House?