Myron Thompson

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.

I too have spent the last seven or eight weeks touring the country far and wide talking to people at many public meetings. I have also received polls. I received one yesterday regarding registration from the constituents of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, which had 2,807 respondents. Of those respondents, 111 said yes and 2,696 said no.

That is what came from that riding. The member of Parliament has received that poll from those constituents. Is that member of Parliament going to be allowed to represent his people? After all, the polls he is getting certainly do not indicate what the minister and other members are claiming.

Are we aware that the Prime Minister received 200 resolutions from municipalities in the province of Manitoba opposing the minister's gun law? We have not heard anything about that, but I know they were delivered to the Prime Minister of Canada from the province of Manitoba.

Tons and tons of petitions are being tabled. I have managed to put in over several thousand names from all over the country because some members evidently do not want to table these petitions. They have come from all parts of the country. The latest one was from Manitoba and was signed by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,400 individuals, including 400 or 500 women who signed it on special pink paper so it would be recognized. They are opposing this bill.

The hon. member for Burlington was with me at a meeting in Kamloops. The place was packed full. There might have been 300 or 350 people there. They asked that member to send a message to the minister. They called for a vote and they all stood opposing the gun proposals.

For heaven's sake, when you see these kinds of things-and everywhere I go I see them-and you get them from your own members' ridings, where it says that 96 per cent oppose gun registration, where in the world are you dreaming up these figures that you keep talking about?

[Religious Freedom, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Private Members' Motion No. 310.

I would like to start by reminiscing a bit back to the sixties when I first immigrated to Canada. I remember a couple of incidents that happened during my early arrival to Canada that I will never forget. One was a fairly simple matter.

When we were first invited into the homes of some of our neighbours, my wife and I went tramping in like one always does in Colorado where we came from. When other guests arrived and I noticed no one had any shoes on their feet it kind of surprised me. I asked: "What is this? Don't you guys believe in wearing shoes any more?" They informed: "That is what is done in Canada. When we visit we take our shoes off". I said: "I can buy that. I will be prepared for it, though, in case I ever have to take my shoes off".

The next time we went out to visit somebody we removed our shoes because that was the way it was done. Of course when I went back to Colorado after getting accustomed to it, I took my shoes off when I went to visit and they laughed at me because that did not happen there. That is fairly minor.

I remember another time my wife and I attended a community dance. When they announced it was the last dance I grabbed my best friend, my wife, and I said: "Come on, let's have this last dance together". They finished and then they played another song. I thought we were going to have one more. It took about three twirls before it dawned on me that everybody else was standing still because they were playing: "God save the Queen". That was a little embarrassing. I twirled around the floor just about three steps too many not to be embarrassed. I felt a little strange. I can say the next time there was a community dance I not only stood with the rest of them but I sang the words; I learned them.

I tell those stories because there were a number of things we had to get used to when we moved to Canada. Although we were not that far apart, a number of things were different.

Another thing I remember that caught me off guard was going into a club. It was not the legion; it was an Elks club, I believe. I did not realize the difference in Canada. In my state they had an Elks club. I was not a member but I always went there. In this club in Canada I did not have a membership so I was not allowed in. I accepted that as being the way it was. It took me and my family a number of months to get accustomed to different things that were happening.

What worries me about a bill of this nature is that it is a bill that says to a certain segment of society that it does not do things right, that we are going to legislate and do it the way it should be done. I realize it is just a motion to encourage the legions to reconsider. However my biggest fear is that if that is not the case and these wishes are not followed, would it some day become the wish of the House to legislate a rule that would affect an organization of this type?

When we start making legislation that controls the rights of individuals or controls the collective rights of organizations, we are stepping out of our bounds as legislators. I do not think we are here to start controlling things. I hope we do not get to that point in our lives.

I hope everybody here who has feelings today will express those feelings to the legions in the manner they should. I would not want it to be a collective thing coming down in any way, shape or form from the House saying: "We know what is best for you people out in Canada. Let's get away from that idea. We are going to do it for you. If not then we are going to have to do some other things".

I recall attending a golf tournament one time. A fellow drove about 300 miles to join us in that tournament. He came from Peace River and the golf tournament was in Red Deer. He walked in with his 12-year old son. Immediately the golf managers told him that the son had to leave because he had Levis on. Levis were not allowed. He said: "We came a long way. He is just going to caddy". It did not matter. Levis were not allowed on the course.

Are we to start going to golf courses and saying: "You have to change your dress code because you are offending some people?" Do we have to go to restaurants that say we have to wear a coat and tie to come in? They set the rules so we do not go in.

We should get away from the idea that we have to be involved in controlling the situation and not leave it in the hands of good common sense thinking Canadians. If we give them time to

organize their thoughts, rules and regulations, it will come into play where we can all be happy with it.

However when we start acting as government officials who know best and suggesting as legislators the way it has to be, it is wrong. It worries me that we would even consider to move in that direction. I encourage us not to do so by means of legislation, a member's motion of this nature or anything else.

If members wish to express their desires as they have done so well today, they should do so to the legion clubs in their ridings as individuals and not as a collective unit of government saying: "It is our way".

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Talk, talk, talk. No action.

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it pleases me to offer three petitions today. The first two come from in and around the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba with 300 signatures on pink paper from women who would like to draw to the attention of the House that the proposed amendments to firearm control legislation by the justice minister are unduly harsh and will waste dwindling financial resources while attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens without affecting crime.

They request that the provisions be separated and that Parliament proceed to strengthen border patrols and strengthen measures to deal with the criminal use of firearms but not proceed with the proposed enhanced controls on legal ownership of firearms.

There are 300 signatures on this petition from the women of Manitoba and I have an identical one with nearly 900 signatures from men.

The third petition from Calgary requests that Parliament support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not proved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

I concur with these petitions.

[Justice, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago I asked the Solicitor General why we were not able to kick Mr. Colin Wood, a non-resident, out of Canada after he committed his first serious offence. At that time the Solicitor General responded that it was a policy that somebody convicted of an offence should serve the sentence imposed by law. He stated: "If my hon. friend's proposal were followed we would be doing the convicted foreigner a favour by getting him out of the country before he paid the penalty required by Canadian law".

Why is it that suddenly out of the blue the chairman of the standing committee on justice asked: "Why spend any money on them at all? Let us kick them out right away". Is this another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? Is the Solicitor General now prepared to support getting rid of non-citizen criminals as suggested by the committee chairman?

When will this government get its act together and tell us what it intends to do with foreign criminals? Now is the time to act. Let us get them out of here. We do not need them. Let us make Canadians safe.

[World Cup Skiing, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the 1994 Women's World Cup alpine races were held in Lake Louise, Alberta, the heart of Wild Rose country. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the organizers of this prestigious event. With their tireless efforts Lake Louise has proven to be first class on the world skiing stage once again.

There are four individuals who must receive special recognition: John Cassels, race chairman; Bruce Hamstead, chief of race; Bill Webster, president of Alpine Canada; Brien Perry, president of Alberta Alpine.

On behalf of the constituents of Wild Rose we are all proud of the contribution they have made to the sport of skiing in Canada.

Well done, Lake Louise.

[Criminal Code, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and also for producing the numbers. That will save me some time. I am here to support the private member's bill of the hon. member for York South-Weston to abolish section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Something rather strange happened to me a while ago. I had to cross the floor and was in the government lobby. One Liberal friend saw me there and said: "Oh goody, you have seen the light". Well, I have some bad news for him.

I am really happy that some people from that side of the House have seen the light. They have seen the light to such poor legislation and are bringing forward a bill of this type and finding support for it even though it was a piece of legislation that was brought in a few years ago by the very same party.

This section of course allows convicted murderers to apply for a review to lessen their period of parole eligibility. It gives them a process to return to society before serving their entire sentence.

Some of those speaking to this bill have their own opinions on why a convicted murderer should serve a life sentence for killing an innocent victim. Many would admit life should be life, or we in this House should bring back the death penalty. I would challenge the government of the day to seriously consider having a referendum to let the people of this nation decide whether we should have the death penalty.

We are not here to argue that stand. We are here to argue why 25 years in prison should be the minimum penalty for taking another life and how 25 years is just retribution for inflicting untold grief upon the family and friends of a victim of such a heinous crime.

People have free choice. That free choice may include kidnapping, robbery or murder, taking another life. Notice the emphasis is placed on their choice to kill an innocent victim.

When a murderer is convicted in court, the presiding judge decides from the evidence heard what the sentence should be. The judge listens to all the evidence. In a case that clearly demonstrates that the murderer had no concern for human life and no remorse for executing an innocent victim the judge knows a life sentence is just. In those circumstances, the judge knows 25 years without parole is the right sentence for the crime.

I hear from the friends and families of murder victims how they become members of an exclusive club, a club whose only requirement for membership is having one of their own murdered. These club members cannot apply for a reduction of the life sentence given to them for their loved ones. The sentence which entitles them to be members of this exclusive club is indeed for life. Every day for the rest of their lives these club members will suffer. They will be filled with sorrow and will wonder what they could have done to prevent the loss.

Those who murder do not have to serve a similar sentence. They are still alive. They still enjoy the company of others, the benefits of good food, excellent health care and recreation facilities. All this is paid for by the average hardworking taxpayers like those they killed. The only hardship murderers must endure is their restricted access to society. Yet section 745 gives murderers a chance to reduce their separation from law-abiding citizens. That is not justice.

That exclusive club has an annual fee. The fee is paid on every birthday, every Christmas, every occasion that family and friends gather. The memory of the murder victim continues to haunt their thoughts. They simply cannot apply to have their memories reduced. These club members will shed tears where there should be warm embraces and pleasant thoughts of times gone by and times to come. They receive no sentence reduction whatsoever.

These club members are reminded every day of their loss, but that is not the only punishment this current justice system inflicts upon the survivors. This current justice system punishes the survivors further. The friends and family of a murder victim must endure further heartache when murderers apply for early parole. When murderers apply for early parole after 15 years they bring back all the terror and heartache that entered the souls of the family members at the time they were first told of the death.

Why do we continue to punish those who are victims of crime and those who are innocent? I have listened to what a section 745 hearing inflicts upon the survivors. They say they are once again forced to revisit the abyss, to relive the nightmare and all the pain and horror that goes with it. When a murderer applies for a section review of this nature, that is exactly what happens. What more needs to be said? What more evidence needs to be stated that section 745 must be repealed?

If Canadians look at the record of the Parole Board rulings, Canadians see patronage appointees who have little concern for murdered victims or their survivors. These appointees are notorious for listening to bleeding hearts who say the murderer has changed, he has remorse or he has found God and is intending to care for orphans and the elderly now.

These appointees hear reports from psychologists or psychiatrists who have spent a minimum amount of time with the murderer and have decided the murderer has changed. If there is one thing for sure I have learned since becoming a justice critic it is that the worst psychopaths know how to work the system. They know how to con political appointees who only want to follow the mandate of a bleeding heart government. These bleeding hearts believe anyone can be rehabilitated or can feel true remorse for the most heinous of crimes.

All that is needed to believe any political appointees can be conned is to remember that one out of three is given early release by past appointed employees of the Parole Board and one out of three returns to prison.

Section 745 must be repealed so the members of this House can say to the survivors of murdered loved ones they have been given a life sentence, the least we can do is give the murderer 25 years without parole. The most we can do is offer Canadians some minor peace in the knowledge that those who have committed the vilest of crimes will not have early parole.

Let this House recognize the eternal sacrifice of those murdered and eternal pain suffered by their family and friends. Let this House support this bill to end section 745.

In conclusion, I would like to point out one thing that was sent around by one of the members from the Liberal caucus as to reasons why we should not repeal this. It states: "The Liberal Party has never advocated a system of justice based on revenge.

We do not adhere to an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, principles espoused by the Reform Party".

I resent that kind of a statement. What we are calling for is not revenge, it is called justice, something this government has not a clue about and it has demonstrated it year after year in all the legislation it has brought forward.

I do believe that if this government wakes up and realizes there is such a word as revenge, and if we do not start providing justice to our society, revenge is exactly what we can look forward to. It had better wake up to the fact that Canadians are not happy with this justice system. If it does not believe me turn around and ask, it will find out or stand on any street corner in any city in this country and just ask them how they feel. I do not believe that is the Liberal way so I do not think we will look forward to seeing that happen.

Please, I ask everyone here to seriously consider the victims. Remember the victims. Do not vote to keep 745.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the hon. member was saying. I too helped to set up a crisis house. I donated money, time and energy to do that because I think it is important. We need to do more of that. It is too bad we have to have them.

She talked about the jobless, the economy, et cetera. We go back as far as the depression. During the time of the depression when the economy could not have been worse and jobs could not have been worse, amazingly enough on a per capita basis that was when there was the least amount of crime. That can be

checked. If one denies it to be true, it can be checked. One will find that is the case.

I remember maybe 40 years ago when there was respect that was really taught. I was about that age when my father would have a fit if I did not show a little more respect, particularly to the opposite sex in terms of helping them when they needed it. Opening doors was a common practice and things of this nature. We did not swear in front of a woman because it was not an acceptable thing to do.

This violence against women is abhorrent. It really is, believe you me. I believe that. I am trying to figure out what in the world brought us to this point? What is it that has advanced us so far along the line that causes men to do the things they do to women? Please do not point a finger at me because I have not laid a hand on a woman in my entire life.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

No parole?

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my speech was prepared for a lot longer than two minutes but I will try to reduce it.

The basis of this whole topic which bothers me is that it appears the government does not realize we are out of time and that we cannot afford Cadillac services any longer. We have to take a step backward. We have to drop the frills. It is time to trade in the Cadillac for a smaller car and realize that the days of wine and roses are over.

It amazes me. We asked for a simple thing. It would be a nice gesture on the part of the government to give up $10 million a year. Maybe it could go to the hungry children that the minister of human resources keeps talking about. It would be a good gesture. From the Bloc, from the Liberals and from everywhere else but the Reformers we hear: "No way, we are not giving up the good old pension plan, not for a moment. It is the rest of the country that has problems. Let them figure out what they are going to do. We do not want to do anything".

I look around the Hill and I see those blue cars courting ministers wherever they want to go. There are green buses that will take us any place we want to go on the Hill.

I understand that if they were willing to sacrifice a little, they each could cough up $45,000 a year that would really go well in the hands of the Children's Aid Society in Ottawa or Toronto. That is the kind of attitude I would like to see.