Myron Thompson

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got all that. It is a little noisy. I am sorry.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we did miss the point of the debate, not for one little bit.

What the government is missing is that you do not compromise with criminals and say that they are free to go and do their thing again. Punishment has to come into play. I am calling for justice along with all the other moves that the government is making. That is only normal.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what I tried to say in my speech, but I do not want to leave out one factor. I will repeat it once again. Lowering taxes, as the hon. member was saying, as a method of stopping smuggling and then saying smuggling is okay is the thing I oppose. Smuggling is not okay. Smugglers must be caught, stopped and punished if we are going to put an end to it. They are going to find other things to smuggle and it will continue. You can mark my words.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if this member thinks for a moment that all we have to do is go out there and say: "You're not going to be able to do this any more, you lawbreakers, because we are going to lower the taxes", and they are not going to get engaged in some activity, then I do not know what he has been thinking about.

It has always been in this country, as long as I can remember since I have been here, that if one breaks the law one will pay the price and the price of that lawbreaking must fit the crime. Letting the criminal go on the streets is not doing that.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I was distracted a little bit. I did not get all of the comment. As far as enforcement of the civil aspect, yes, we want that.

I am talking about the criminals, the smugglers. That is criminal. That comes under the Criminal Code if I am not mistaken. If you get caught for smuggling you should pay the penalty. I have not seen that happen and it is high time it did.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I see they listen as well now as they do during Question Period. I never mentioned for one moment that reducing taxes was going to cause any problems.

What I am saying is that reducing taxes is not what I call justice for the criminal element. We are going to reduce taxes and, boy, that will teach those guys a lesson. That is what is hogwash.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I see from the list I have been asked to speak on justice enforcement. I am pleased to do that because I believe justice is one word which is rapidly disappearing from Canadian society.

Justice to me has always meant that the wrongdoer is caught, brought to accountability, prosecuted and when found guilty is punished. And the punishment is supposed to meet the crime. Seeing what is going on today with Bill C-11, we have really shown these smugglers a thing or two. We have lowered the taxes and has that not taught you a lesson, Mr. Smuggler? Boy, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I bet that frightens you.

I cannot for a moment believe we think this is justice. We have a country full of smugglers who are happy to carry on with smuggling cigarettes east and west as much as they can but will probably move into other areas, maybe alcohol. They may have to go to illegal drugs. Probably a lot of pornographic material could be worked on. Smuggling has become a thriving industry. But there is a tough government and if smugglers are caught it will compromise.

We have become a country of compromisers. No longer do we punish for wrongdoing. We need only to look at first degree murderers. We have compromised to the point where a first degree murderer can be back on the street in 15 years. Through legislation we have compromised to that.

We have compromised so successfully that in my riding when I tour around I see bars on the windows of the houses and stores. We do not need bars on jails any more; we need them on the doors of our homes and businesses so we can lock law abiding citizens in while the crooks run around on the streets.

I really am concerned. What is wrong with the idea of justice?

We have a new bill, Bill C-11. This bill was brought about because the government could not or was not willing to enforce the current laws. We have laws against smuggling and now we have a new bill. I am not sure whether this is a way of finding work for certain bureaucrats. It will keep them busy producing more paper for us to look at.

We certainly did not need a new law to enforce smuggling. What we need is action from a government that has the political will to say it is time to stop compromising with the criminal element in the country and that justice will prevail regardless of race, colour, creed or who one is. Criminals in the country must pay the consequences.

The Prime Minister admitted that 70 per cent of the cigarette smuggling problem occurred in limited areas in Quebec and Ontario. If that was known, why did the government not do something about the law breaking under the existing law? "Oh, but we did. We lowered the taxes". I keep hearing that. "We have stopped the smuggling cold. No, we did not want to go in there with guns blazing. We cannot do that. We have to take these other kinds of compromising positions". It is going on and on and has been going on for many a year.

The Prime Minister filled the House with sounds of fury the other day, blustering about getting tough with smugglers. I am waiting to see that happen. One moment the government concedes that smuggling occurs in limited areas in Ontario and Quebec. The next moment it is telling Canadians that smuggling is Canada wide. I do not doubt that for a moment.

When are we going to address the fact that there are law breakers out there? Instead of sitting back in our closets trying to dream up some scheme that will cause them to quit, why not bring punishment forward? Justice is one thing the country has been proud of in the past and should be proud of in the future.

I really became discouraged when I heard a member a while ago saying that enforcement was going to take place. Then he talked about the young person who would have a pack of cigarettes in his possession. Boy, we are really going to get that young person if we catch him with cigarettes.

The other day we talked about a bill and how severe it was going to be if a person was caught using an illegal drug. I did not hear anything about what we were going to do to the suppliers, not a great number of people, who put those things in the hands of our youth. We never hear that.

We hear stories about car bombings that are supposed to be the result of some organized crime associated with smuggling. Yet a Canadian journalist cannot find this car bombing, if it took place. I did not read anything in media reports about a car being bombed because there was some kind of battle going on over

smuggling territory. I did not read anything about it, but apparently that is what happened. Why are these things so hush, hush?

The Prime Minister states there are no no-go zones. Yet a journalist reports of an RCMP officer having shots fired at him while observing smuggling. I did not see any report anywhere where the police had entered, searched or confiscated the weapons used to fire upon that police officer. Is it not the law that you do not fire upon police officers when they are trying to do their duty? If so, why was that law not enforced?

The Prime Minister has stated that the warriors on the Mohawk reserve have paramilitary weapons. Mr. Speaker, you had better not have any paramilitary weapons up there in Edmonton because they are going to come after you. Why is this just being ignored?

I inquired and discovered that aboriginal Canadians on reserves are bound by the same laws as all Canadians. When are we going to treat it that way? I did not hear that police had confiscated any restricted weapons that were documented as being used upon members of the RCMP.

I have problems believing that any new law preventing smuggling is going to be any better than the old law. Until we get the political will in this House, until we get to the point where we say justice must prevail, we have got to stop compromising with criminals and start enforcing the law and making justice happen. It has to meet the crime.

Stopping the so-called kiddie packs is the one thing that is excellent about this bill. The only problem is that we will not have to worry about the kiddie packs any more because now they can afford the 25 packs. Nothing was solved but it was a good gesture just the same.

I really do not understand why we could not put a high import tax on all Canadian manufactured tobacco products. If we would have done that, the price differential between domestic and smuggled cigarettes would have been so small that would have stopped it. However, that still does not for one moment indicate to me that is the answer. The smugglers can now carry on and find something else to smuggle. They have now been punished because we have made it impossible for them to smuggle cigarettes.

I have looked at the whole issue. I am prepared to support Bill C-11 if it will cause the government to go out there and uphold the law and treat all laws with equality. Good for them, if that is what it takes. However, I do not see where it is going to make a lot of difference if it continues to have the same lack of will to go out into our communities and tell the law-abiding citizens that for once it is going to look after their needs and their best interests because the bad guys are the ones who need to get caught and punished. When are we going to start doing it? The sooner the better.

I can recall not too many years ago when I saw people sell booze to minors. Those people were arrested and put into jail for 30, 40 or 60 days. It was at a point when people would say: "We'd best not do it because we can get into trouble". There is no fear of the law. I use fear in terms of respect. There is no respect and it is bodies like this that cause that lack of respect. Put the respect back into the law by giving the police and those who are asked to enforce it the power that is necessary to support them and concentrate on the victims.

I will support Bill C-11 simply because if that is what it takes for the government to do something then I will support it. Law enforcement and justice must prevail. I have not seen where it is going to do it. I am waiting for the big day.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from B.C. took care of the question I had. I will pass to the next person.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention when I started to address Bill C-7 to speak to the positives in it. However, I must admit that the best laid plans of this member to find something positive about this bill have gone astray, just like the contents of this bill.

The intent of this bill was a noble enterprise definitely needed in today's society. Instead of taking the time and making the effort to properly research, plan and develop a bill that would fulfil today's needs, this government has simply borrowed Bill C-85 from the previous government, made some cosmetic changes and put this bill forward as its own.

With laziness comes regret and the regret here is that the government was lazy. The only saving grace in this bill is finally a government is addressing the use of weapons, drug dealing near schools, and is requesting judges to offer written reasons for not incarcerating those convicted of using weapons in drug deals or dealing drugs near schools.

I will outline the faults with this bill as I see them. This government would have members of this House pass a bill before the regulations outlining what is permissible are even published.

Those regulations are needed in conjunction with Criminal Code rulings so that Canadians are aware of what is legal process. Ignorance of the law is not an admissible defence in court. Under this bill every Canadian would be denied a legal defence in court. They will be ignorant of the legal process until those regulations are known.

The people of Canada should never be governed by regulations. They should be governed only by law. Passing this bill before the regulations are complete and known will entail giving the regulations superiority over law. I cannot support that.

Further, this bill is so poorly written charter challenges leap off the page every time I turn one. Perhaps this government believes that Canadians have not had their fill of being tied up in courts, criminals being set free and large pay cheques for lawyers because of poorly written legislation.

Let me assure this government that belief is wrong. Let me assure this government Canadians want laws and legislation that will stand the charter test. Bill C-7 will have an extremely difficult time doing that.

The Supreme Court ruled in violation of the charter previous legislation having the same errors in construction as section 12 of this bill pertaining to search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled in violation of the charter previous legislation having the same errors in construction as section 13 pertaining to the necessary force.

Section 34 of this bill allows the minister to remove a person's right to a livelihood such as a druggist or a doctor and then asks them to present a case before an adjudicator.

This bill allows a minister to presume someone is guilty and then asks that person to prove they are innocent.

Do the words Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms strike any note of familiarity with this government? Nowhere in this bill do I see any reference to rehabilitation. I believe this government thinks this side of the House will support any bill offering jail terms for criminals.

Let me assure Canadians we believe in rehabilitation. We believe society and taxpayers are better served by having first time, small quantity possession addicts sent to cost efficient drug rehabilitation centres, offering them hope that they can return to normal life.

We believe excluding in this bill any option for rehabilitation is a sad oversight and shows Canadians the only understanding this government has for a judicial review is punitive measures.

How can any Canadian who is a slave to drugs or a slave to drug pushers and organized crime make a decision for a better future when the only option is to remove them from society?

This bill shows the true light of this government. This bill not only shows this government has a complete lack of understanding for judicial reform, but this bill also shows this government does not understand the concept of justice. The punishment should meet the crime. According to this government, seeking help for an addiction would be a crime.

No one believes in the right of citizens to feel safe in their homes, in their schools, in their streets and in their communities more than I do. I also believe victims include those who are addicted to these soul-stealing drugs.

Nowhere in this bill do I see where this government allows victims of drug addiction any hope of rehabilitation. I really wanted to support this bill. I really wanted this bill to offer protection to society against designer drugs. What do I see instead? I see a bill that is so poorly written, so broad in language that a charter fight will surely result.

The wording in this bill could cause charges under section 3 for giving someone too much coffee. Caffeine in large amounts creates similar stimulative effects as amphetamines. According to this bill, an attempt to keep a friend awake with several cups of coffee could result in charges.

I do appreciate the intent of this bill and believe legislation must be enacted to address the issues intended, but this bill is not the answer. This bill will create more legal and more social problems than it will ever solve.

It is a shame that this government did not take this issue to the serious extent that is required. This government simply borrowed an inept bill left over from the previous government to address a problem that most Canadians want correctly solved.

This bill confuses regulations with criminal law. It presents far too wide powers for inspectors enforcing regulations, not laws. It offers wide powers that will lead to charter challenges, invalidating any evidence found and letting criminals escape from justice. It offers no hope for rehabilitation. It will force undue hardship on medical practitioners and pharmaceutical corporations.

I must discourage support for this bill. I also must encourage this government to return this ill-conceived and poorly worded bill to the drawing table. Then let the government return to this House with a bill that will stand the test of modern jurisprudence.

At that time I will be more than happy to support a new bill and its intention to bring controlled substances and those who are involved in the trade of controlled substances before the law and to justice.

There are penalty provisions in Bill C-7 for small amounts as severe as large amounts of drugs, except a special provision for cannabis, but sharing cannabis with a friend can equal 14 years, according to this bill.

It could cause prescription problems for doctors. Doctors could be charged with trafficking, especially if a substance is not on one of the schedules.

It allows inspectors access to confidential doctor-patient records. It gives the minister the power to impose sentences for substances not yet on schedule, arbitrary power of imprisonment.

The size of this document amazes me. This document, with all its contents and the way it has been written and all the matters that pertain to judicial matters, is then turned over to the health committee to study and to bring back to this House. If I were on the health committee I would wonder why such a document so full of judicial matters would be before us.

Illegal drugs need to be dealt with.

As many members know, I was the principal of a junior-senior high school for 23 years. I have a colleague who is also a principal in Quebec. We could probably share a lot of stories about illegal drugs and what I have seen them do to youth. I have attended many funerals in those 23 years, some of which were the result of drugs and the way they are handled.

I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that over the last two decades or so we from the educational, community and parent levels have asked and continually ask governments and politicians, those in power, to please take charge of the situation and do something about it. It is out of hand, it is getting out of control and it is serious.

I am really disappointed that over the last 23 years I have seen no such progress. If this 35th Parliament would only get the political will and the intestinal fortitude, the courage and the guts it takes, it could take on illegal drugs in the same manner in which it was so brave to take on cigarettes. When they moved in and did those things in such a harsh manner and told the whole world that they meant business it caused the health practitioners throughout the country to cheer and applaud.

When we continually slide by other drugs that cause many serious problems, Canadians wonder when we are going to take the action. Then again, maybe I should not encourage my colleagues on that side of the House to get too much involved in doing this sort of thing just yet. After all, if they want to continue with a lackadaisical attitude they had when they put this bill together and continue to ignore the wishes and desires of Canadians, that should probably make me happy. If that kind of attitude continues they will be occupying some seats on this side of the House after the next election because Canadians are not going to stand for that any longer.

There are problems out there and we are saying that is too bad.

I remember going to the police and how they agreed with me that one individual, an adult, was responsible for trafficking most of the drugs in the small town I was in. Every time they got close to bringing this person under the thumb of the law, some kind of technicality or charter challenge would prevent that. In frustration we could only talk about how we could overcome that kind of a situation.

Yet what I see today is a document that is full of the opportunity to continually cause more and more charter challenges. Why do we not get away from that? Or, do we all have some kind of stock or interest in a law firm and the busier we keep our lawyers the fatter their wallets get and the less we do for society?

Many members make a mockery of these words. It is too bad they were not at some of the funerals I was talking about. It is too bad they were not there to watch the 14-year old blow his own brains out under the influence of a drug over which he had no control. It is too bad they do not get a little closer to the people as politicians to get a little more feel of what they are trying to tell us. Once they understand and get a feeling for it, they will understand why I desire getting something done.

Things can go right when a 34-year old man is caught and charged for trafficking drugs in a small community in my riding. Everybody cheers because students in the area are the ones who were being supplied by the individual. They are glad he has finally been caught. However, there is something terribly wrong when three weeks later, after going to court and being charged under due process of law, he is out in the same town doing the same thing. It is just one example of thousands: a little tap on the wrist and "don't do that again".

I will repeat. If the government had the political will, the courage and the guts, I guarantee it would have the approval of the Canadian people to take action. The government should get with it. I will join it and be pleased to work with it to come up with documents that will make sense and put an end to this problem. This is not a Liberal problem. This is not a Reform problem or a Bloc problem. This is a Canadian problem affecting our youth. When brain burning drugs are free and easy in our society it is time we started doing something about it.

I had the privilege of going on prison missions once every month for a number of years. The prison where I served my missions was the Bowden Institute in my riding, a federal maximum security prison. I find it amazing that in our penal system it is easier to get access to drugs than it is on the streets. When I went on missions to the prison sometimes it was very difficult to counsel some of the individuals I was scheduled to counsel. They were already high or had come down off of a high because of drugs they had been using while in prison. They are readily available to them.

Sometimes we as politicians continually challenge our penal system to rehabilitate, to fix these fellows up. Instead of turning out rehabilitated people from these prisons we are turning out more addicted individuals into society, saying that they have been in the penal system and should be able to walk out into society and function well. However they are already addicted.

What kind of a system would allow that to continue? It should never be a Canadian system. It can be fixed and we need to fix it. But do we have the courage? Does the government have the will? So far I have not seen an example of it.

I am waiting for somebody to do something other than come down with a massive document that is full of irregularities, full of things that will cause nothing but more grief and more problems. Would it be possible to break this document down so that we have a judicial section and a health section?

I would imagine it would drive the health committee right up the wall when it comes to dealing with the judicial aspect. Being on the judicial committee, I certainly would not be comfortable dealing with this document when it comes to all the health aspects. It is a quick and easy way to brush it aside. They can make sure they take care of it and then go out and brag to everybody in their ridings about the wonderful bill they have passed. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It accomplishes nothing toward long-term drug rehabilitation and putting a stop to illegal selling and trafficking.

When a country has billions of dollars in revenues from activities such as illegal drugs, is it something to be proud of? Do members want to run to another country somewhere and say that they are from Canada and our fourth biggest industry is drugs? Is that wonderful? Wherever it fits in, members can be assured it is very high on the ladder.

Are members going to do their jobs in Parliament as people who have been asked to address these problems on behalf of Canadians throughout the country? Members could do it. For once they could focus on the victims and potential victims out there, waiting to fall into the trap created by the crime that is going on.

I looked at certain areas throughout the world. Singapore was one. I understand from the statistics that it is down to 5 per cent. In my last year of school I was fortunate to have a 17-year old exchange student from Singapore for six weeks. I asked him whether there was a drug problem in Singapore schools. He said: "Not on your life. If you get caught with drugs, bang, you are dead". I said: "Really?" It sounds pretty barbaric, does it not? Singapore has a 5 per cent problem or hardly any problem. There is no problem in the schools. It certainly is not causing a health problem. Traffickers are fearful of being in that country.

However I am afraid trafficking in this country is very inviting. When I visited the prison at Drumheller I was amazed by the numbers of drug traffickers from other countries who were there for short terms. For some of them to open their mouths and say the reason they are in Canada is that it is a haven for traffickers ought to be a message. They believe the easiest and most logical place to work is in a country like Canada that has namby-pamby rules when it comes to catching people like them.

They can do something about it. Do they have the will? Do they have the courage? May God grant it to them because it needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

It has even been suggested to me by a few that the real answer to our problems is that we need to legalize some of these drugs. Hogwash. Who would ever suggest such an idea? They should shake their heads and think again. Then they come back and say: "But prohibition never worked". Maybe it did not, to whatever extent they are talking about, but I can guarantee that when alcohol was finally legalized-and I do not think anybody would have to work too hard to research and verify this-it was one of the problems that caused more divorces than anything else.

What is causing more financial breakups? Alcohol. What is causing more bankruptcies? Alcohol. Why are more people in prison than ever before, 70 to 80 per cent of them? Alcohol. Was it a great and wonderful deal to legalize alcohol? Were we good? Now we want to turn around and consider doing the same kind of thing to these other drugs.

To those who would even suggest that we consider legalizing these kinds of drugs I say: "Move away from me immediately or we will have a serious argument". There is no way, after seeing what I have seen through the experiences I have had with the youth of the country, that I would say for a single second legalization of drugs is what we need.

In Canada we need law and order. We need legislators who will say it is time to make the country safer. We can do it and they are the people to do it. They had better find the courage and guts to do it. If it is not done it will continually get worse and we will regret the day that members of the 35th Parliament sat back in their chairs like all other Parliaments have done and let it go. It does not matter if we are left or right; we can write a common sense bill. We can look at it, think about it and then think of our children.

I doubt seriously if there is one of the 295 members in the House who could stand and say: "It really does not apply to me because drugs have never had an effect on my life". If we look at grandchildren, nephews, nieces, friends and families all around us we will find somebody. I guarantee it. That is how widespread it is. Yet we are making it better and better for those who want to sell, traffic or make a living in bringing these drugs into our country.

I hope the words I have said today do not fall upon deaf ears. I can guarantee that most of the ridings I visited prior to the election and after are worried about the economy, about the deficit, about the jobless, and about many other things. However right behind their first worry is their worry about the safety of their children and their grandchildren, their grandmothers and their grandfathers.

Only last week I appeared on a talk show in Calgary where it was suggested to me that crime was not nearly as bad as it used to be. However the very first phone call was from Catherine, 83 years of age, living in Calgary which really does not have a high rate of crime, violence or things of that nature. She said: "I live alone; I only have my cat. All I want for the rest of my days in this world is to have a little peace and security but I cannot even sleep at night because I am so afraid". She lives in a community where the seniors are totally afraid that any day somebody is going to break in, bash them over the head and steal what they have. Most of the time that is done to support some kind of drug addiction.

In the rural community of Wild Rose, in the smaller communities police service is not available because they are quite far out. These are towns and communities of 200 or 300. I invite members to come and look at the bars on the doors and the windows of the businesses and homes. Behind the bars are law-abiding citizens. That is the only way they can protect their property in that part of the country.

I wonder where have we come to when law-abiding citizens are locked behind bars and the rest are out running around. It does not make sense to me and it is time that we did something about it.

For crying out loud, take a good look at Bill C-7. Do not brag about what a wonderful thing it is until you do so. If you cannot see what I have seen going through that, I suggest that you go to an eye doctor and have the doctor take a good look at your eyes because that piece of paper will not solve the problems that this country needs solved.

I encourage members to vote down this bill and then go back and get serious about addressing these problems. Be prepared to go out into the country and the communities and say to the people that you are going to draft some legislation that is going to stop protecting the criminal. We are going to put a stop to you being a potential victim because we are going to start concentrating on the criminal from another aspect. Instead of seeing what we can do to keep him safe and to make sure his rights are looked after, we are going to see what we can do about putting him away where he belongs so you as a law-abiding citizen can enjoy a little peace and security in your own land.

We can do it. Let us do it. But we are not going to do it with Bill C-7.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time you have given me today. This is serious. Some members may not want to take it so seriously. It is more fun to make noise on that side than it is to get serious, but they had better be serious because this is killing this country.

[Parole System, February 18th, 1994]

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister agree that a major contributor to this incompetence is based on patronage appointments rather than stringent criteria that checks the qualifications of such a board?