Jim Pankiw

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-516, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of this bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence).

The purpose of this bill is to require that a sentence for the commission of certain serious offences be supplemented if a firearm is used, The additional sentence is to be served consecutively to the other sentence and is to be a further minimum punishment of 10 years imprisonment if the firearm is not discharged, 20 years if it is discharged, and 25 years if it is discharged and as a result a person other than an accomplice is wounded, maimed or disfigured.

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

[Medically Unnecessary Abortion Referendum Act, June 2nd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-515, an act to provide for a referendum to determine whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions to be insured services under the Canada Health Act and to amend the Referendum Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of my bill entitled an act to provide for a referendum to determine whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions to be insured services under the Canada Health Act and to amend the Referendum Act.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for a referendum to be held on the question of whether public funds should be used for medically unnecessary abortions.

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

[Saskatchewan Nurses, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as a former health care practitioner and now as a member of parliament from Saskatchewan, I am appalled by the undemocratic and arrogant action taken by NDP Premier Roy Romanow to end the nurses strike in our province.

While refusing to represent the interests of health care workers, the Saskatchewan government has rammed through back to work legislation in just six hours. Now the NDP is threatening the provinces nurses with fines and jail time if they do not comply.

The actions of Saskatchewan's NDP premier are causing hospital closures and forcing patients to seek treatment out of province. This is because the NDP will not bargain in good faith with nurses and the government refuses to enter binding arbitration. Consequently, nurses are being forced to accept unfair wages. As a result, the nursing shortage and poor working conditions will continue.

Hopefully Saskatchewan voters, just like their counterparts did in Ontario and as they will soon do in British Columbia, will vote to remove yet another out of touch, socialist NDP government.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from Kamloops for his well thought out speech and I appreciate his attempt to have this private member's bill deemed votable, as I did myself. Clearly he has far more respect for the democratic process than any Liberal MP in this House, which brings to me to the comments of the member for Scarborough East who stated that the bill is a waste of time.

That comment is insulting and is typical of Liberal arrogance. More importantly, it underscores their soft on crime approach and their reluctance and unwillingness to deal with the criminal element in our society.

Why do they insist on protecting criminals instead of law-abiding citizens? Why will they not enact legislation which makes our communities and our society safer?

We have been pressuring them to remove section 745. It is the provision that allows first degree murderers to be released on to the street after serving only 15 years in prison. That is a Liberal policy. The conditional sentences say to criminals who have committed violent acts “Just don't do it again and we will let you go”.

Then there is the Young Offenders Act. The member for Mississauga West ranted on and on about how radical the Reform Party is for wanting to have young offenders named.

I live in a nice community in Saskatoon. I submit that I have a right to know if some youth who lives on my street is a criminal. If one of my neighbour's kids engages in some criminal activity, breaking into people's houses, stealing cars or is trafficking drugs, I have a right to know because I have a family. It is shameful that the Liberal member for Mississauga West would stand in this House and say it is okay to deny Canadians the right to know when people living beside them are criminals.

He also said that it was his preference to defer to judicial discretion, which is also the preference of all Liberal members of parliament. As we know, recently a court in British Columbia ruled that it is a violation of our constitutional rights to not be allowed to possess child pornography. As we know, Reform Party members found that absolutely disgraceful and we urged the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the judge in that case because possession of child pornography is a crime and it must be considered a crime. Did the Liberals stand to defend the children who are the victims of child pornography? No.

Sixty-eight Liberals signed a letter asking the Prime Minister to do exactly the same thing which we asked for two weeks later in the House, but the Prime Minister cracked his whip and the backbench flock of sheep stepped into line. Their approach to crime is absolutely disgraceful and all Canadians ought to know that this Liberal government is refusing to act to make our streets safer.

My private member's bill today is a simple, straightforward attempt to target the criminal use of firearms. What could be simpler? What could be more straightforward?

The member for Scarborough East said that it panders to our emotions of fear. We do have fear. I talk to elderly people all the time who say that at night they are scared to walk down the street. When they see a group of young people approaching, they get scared.

What kind of culture have we created in our society? Why do we not act now to implement laws which change that? Why do we not enact laws that target the criminal use of firearms instead of law-abiding citizens who use firearms for legitimate purposes?

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as all members of the House know, the purpose in passing the Firearms Act was not to crack down on crime; it was to confiscate legally owned firearms from all citizens in Canada.

I want to conclude by saying that it is very unfortunate that the undemocratic Liberal members of parliament refuse to allow my proposal for a 10-20-life law to come to a vote in the House.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is very unfortunate for many reasons.

The Liberal government is refusing to enact legislation that will make our streets, our communities, our society a safer place and which will send a message to the criminal element that using firearms to commit serious crimes is not something we are prepared to tolerate in our society.

The Liberals should not care that it is a Reform member who introduced the bill. I do not think that is relevant. They should look at the issue and understand the facts and say this is a good idea.

Why are they refusing to allow this bill to be votable? Are they ashamed that their own justice minister did not think of it? Or are they ashamed that their own justice minister refuses to get tough on crime and instead engages in namby-pamby bills such as the young offenders amendments that we were speaking about today in the House? The changes to the Young Offenders Act are merely a paint job on the old act but will still do nothing to target the deficiencies in that act.

Or is their reason because they are obsessed with alienating Canadians? On Tuesday we debated in the House all day the alienation of the regions in the country. I spoke on behalf of the residents of Saskatchewan and I spoke about the Liberal alienation committee.

Here we have yet another example of alienation. A member from Saskatoon, myself, has introduced a get tough on crime bill in the House. It is a law that would improve our society by getting tougher on criminals who use firearms instead of targeting the law-abiding citizens like the Liberals are so intent on doing with former Bill C-68, the firearms registration act. They do not allow the committee to deem it a votable item and they do not even allow me the consent in the House.

For the benefit of Canadians watching, the significance of that is at the end of this hour, debate on this bill will collapse and that will be the end of it. They will not have to vote on it. That is probably another reason that they refuse to allow this to be deemed a votable bill. They do not want to stand up and let Canadians from coast to coast watch them vote against a bill which targets the criminal use of firearms. They seem to be intent on firearms registration, targeting law-abiding firearms owners.

Today we spent the day in the House of Commons debating some very flimsy changes to the Young Offenders Act. Why is the Liberal justice minister so preoccupied with bringing useless legislation before the House instead of meaningful legislation like the 10-20 life law? Why does she not introduce bills like that?

Instead of tinkering with the Young Offenders Act, why does she not introduce a victims bill of rights? Why does she not establish that the rights of victims supersede any rights that a criminal has? I will answer that question. It is because the Liberal soft approach to crime is something they are obsessed with and they refuse to let it go.

Canadians will not get proper legislation dealing with criminals and fair legislation dealing with private ownership of firearms until we have a Reform government.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-484, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to lead the debate on Bill C-484. The purpose of my private member's bill is to amend the Criminal Code so that any individual who uses a firearm in the commission of certain criminal offences will receive an additional sentence of incarceration, that being a consecutive sentence.

The bill is referred to as the 10-20-life law, so the consecutive sentences that I refer to would be 10 years if a firearm is used in the commission of one of the named offences that I will list shortly; 20 years if in the commission of that offence the firearm is discharged; and a life sentence to be added consecutively to the sentence that the individual receives for the crime they commit if the discharge of that firearm causes bodily harm to anyone other than the perpetrator of the crime or an accomplice.

The list of the specific criminal offences to which this 10-20- life law would apply are the following: murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

Currently section 85 of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum sentence of 14 years for the commission of an indictable offence. In the case of a second offence, a minimum of three years and a maximum of 14 years applies.

Those sentences referred to in section 85 currently are to be served consecutively. That is the current law, but these provisions apply to all indictable offences, including the ones I listed. The significance is that the most violent offences are treated the same as all other indictable offences. My bill lists the most serious violent crimes and subjects them to the provisions of the 10-20-life law.

In other jurisdictions similar laws are being passed. Most notably, in 1997 the governor of California signed into law an act amending California's state penal code to include a 10-20-life provision. Prior to that time there existed a similar section of the California penal code which meted out three, four or ten years for felony offences. It was actually four, five or ten years in the case of carjacking, and five, six or ten years if the firearm used was classified as an assault weapon.

The significance is that the changes which were made in 1997 in California were in response to the success the law had in deterring carjacking within that state. Carjackers knew they would be subject to very stiff consecutive sentences for the specific act of carjacking, which was a strong deterrent and the number of carjackings dropped substantially.

I would submit to the House that the same principle applies, as it clearly does, to the 10-20-life law. Criminals should know that the use of a firearm will automatically add 10 years to the sentence for the commission of one of these serious offences. The discharge of that firearm in the commission of an offence will automatically result in a consecutive sentence applied to their original sentence for the commission of that crime, of 20 years, and if the discharge of that firearm causes someone bodily harm they will be the recipient of an additional life sentence to the original sentence for the crime they committed.

I do not want to become mired down in a lot of statistics, but there are a couple of relevant statistics I would like to quote.

Between 1991 and 1995 half of all homicides in Canada involved the use of a handgun. That number is 75% when looking only at Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.

In 1995, 33% of violent crimes committed with a firearm resulted in the victim being injured. In the case of assault or sexual assault, the percentage of incidents in which the victim was injured was over 50%.

Since 1934 in Canada we have had a handgun registry. It has been a requirement that legally owned handguns be registered. We can safely deduce from the statistics I have quoted that the handgun registry has been an abject failure. It has not acted as a deterrent to the criminal use of those handguns in any way, shape or form. That is a very important point because what we need to understand and what the Liberal government fails to understand is that it is not the registration of a firearm that deters criminal use, but rather the resulting consequence of using that firearm to commit a serious violent crime.

In keeping with Reform Party policies and principles, we seek to not target law-abiding firearms owners but the criminal use of firearms. I have drafted this bill with the intent for it to serve as a deterrent to the criminal use of a firearm. There are three main points I would like the Liberal government to understand.

The first point is that unlike firearm registration this 10-20 life law does target the criminal element within our society. It targets those who use firearms in the commission of an offence against another person. That will have the effect of a deterrent, contrary to what the registration of firearms would do. We need look only as far as the handgun registry to see that.

The second point is the harsher sentencing provisions, not firearms registration, but harsher sentences acting as a deterrent to the criminal use of firearms.

The third point is this law would serve the purpose of highlighting that using a firearm to commit a violent crime is abhorrent to society. It is the will of Canadians that stronger punitive sanctions be attached to those sections of the Criminal Code.

I was very disappointed that the subcommittee which dealt with my private member's bill did not deem it to be votable. For the reasons I have just explained to the House, the obvious benefit that a 10-20 life law would have in tightening the provisions of the Criminal Code and therefore making our communities safer, our society safer and establishing a clear understanding in society that the criminal use of a firearm will not be tolerated and that severe penalties will result, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to deem my private member's bill votable.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the question and answer period for the honourable and well respected member for Wild Rose for 10 minutes.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The hon. member to which he referred was me and I did not say a thousand needles. I said hot needles. I would just like to correct that.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken to several accountants and accounting firms to find out how many farmers are actually filling out their forms. As near as I can tell it will be about 15%, and about 20% of them will actually qualify for assistance. Only a small fraction of farmers harmed by the failure of the Liberal government to address the trade deficiencies internationally by which all farmers are harmed will actually receive any compensation.

The end result of what my hon. colleague refers to is that western alienation will increase, and calls for Senate reform and for the heads of Liberal MPs will continue to increase.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, his first question was whether the decision of the CFI was a good decision. I assume that it must have been because I believe an independent arm's length body made the decision. Since this has been done and it is an independent arm's length decision, why do Liberal MPs have to be there to try to take the credit for it?

People in Saskatoon are not stupid. They saw right through that. It is insulting for them to have even been there. Why did they not send the officials from the CFI to make the announcement, as it should be?

On that topic I point out that basic scientific research funding is a reasonable role of government. It is something that private industry cannot do or is unwilling to do.

When government spends $500 million to fund special interest groups, the grants and giveaways to all its millennium projects and regional development funds that it hands out all the time, that is not a legitimate role of government. That is another source of western alienation: the size of government and the waste of money. More money could be spent on good projects like the Synchroton light source if the government did not mismanage its finances such as it does.

His second question with respect to the Official Languages Act asked whether I realized that some of the money was spent for translation purposes and doing business with other countries, et cetera. Of course I do and I think that is wonderful. We should go to whatever extent we can to accommodate members in the House whose first language is not English. That is not a problem, but does it have to cost $250 million a year? The hon. member knows full well that only a small fraction of that money is spent on legitimate government language services.