Tom Wappel

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third set of petitions contains approximately 220 signatures from the Trenton area, my riding of Scarborough West, Kanata, Carleton Place, Ontario and from Vernon, British Columbia.

The petitioners call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions contains approximately 230 signatures, all from the Richmond, British Columbia area.

The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first petition deals with the Young Offenders Act. The petitioners, some 490 strong, from the metropolitan Toronto area ask Parliament to recognize that they wish stiffer penalties for young offenders convicted of violent crimes.

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer my thoughts on the bill presented by my friend and colleague from Cambridge, Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

I congratulate the member for Cambridge, first, for bringing forward the bill that would amend the Immigration Act and, second, for being able to convince the appropriate House committee that the matter is of such urgency that it should be a votable item. This demonstrates that the issue the hon. member has brought forward is one of concern to a significant number of people across Canada.

I congratulate the hon. member because he has brought an interesting perspective to the debate in the sense that he is an immigrant to the country. He had to comply with the rules and regulations that were in place at the time he came to Canada. He knows what a privilege it is to be a Canadian citizen and how lucky those of us who were born in Canada are.

The hon. member did something that I could never do. He chose his country. In choosing that country he knew what the rules and regulations were. His hard work in this country has been rewarded by the fact that he is sitting in the most august House of Commons and is able to represent his constituents on matters of concern to them.

The issues raised by the hon. member in his private member's bill are issues of concern not only to the people of Cambridge but also to the people of Scarborough West. I say with some certainty that they are the concerns of many Canadians across the land.

The reason I say this is that in the 34th Parliament I was the immigration critic for the Liberal Party for a period of time. In that capacity I was asked by my leader to travel across the country and speak with Canadians about immigration issues, which I did. Time after time after time, regardless of whether it was in Victoria, Moose Jaw, Halifax, St. John's or Scarborough, one issue that was raised was that of people who arrive in Canada, are not citizens, do not appreciate the privilege of being here and commit heinous crimes.

In my own riding there was a situation where someone came from a country and pistol whipped a McDonald's employee for the pure pleasure of pistol whipping this person. It was clearly identified in the evidence. He committed armed robbery. He was obviously armed with the pistol that he assaulted the person with. He was committed to jail for a period of time. Then through a series of legal manoeuvres over a period of five years, extending through the first period of time that I was a member of Parliament, he succeeded in thwarting the immigration system and the deportation system. He was able to use every so-called legal manoeuvre to remain here in spite of the fact that subsequent to being released from jail for the armed robbery he was caught, charged and convicted of trafficking in drugs. He was still allowed to remain here through a series of legal technicalities.

After persistent pushing by the immigration department through a series of frustrating events involving the meshing of the judicial system and the immigration system, about which the parliamentary secretary was talking earlier and which caused delay and frustrated the department of immigration, the person was finally deported at the end of 1994. It was to the great relief of everyone concerned about the activities he had been involved in, including the immigration department, myself and my constituents who were personally attacked by the individual who was nothing but a downright, low-down criminal that should have been thrown out of the country upon his first conviction.

This is a private member's bill. We have heard from others that private members' bills are never perfect. I speak from experience of private members' bills that have been accepted by the House. We do not have departmental officials and departmental awareness of the issue on a day to day basis to help us. We come up with a germ of an idea. We see if people generally like it and we try to get it approved in principle so that it can be looked at in committee and amended if necessary. This is precisely what the hon. member has done.

Let us look at the bill in the very short time that I have left. The purpose of the bill is to provide the following:

If a person is convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years imprisonment and is or is seeking permission to remain in Canada but is not yet a citizen, the court may, on application by the prosecution, order, in addition to any other sentence, that the person and anyone dependent on the person be removed from Canada.

I would be hard pressed to find a constituent of Scarborough West who on principle would disagree that a person who has committed a crime in this country, punishable by more than 10 years in prison, should not be deported. The proposition is the correct one. It is supported by the vast majority of Canadians, certainly those with whom I have interchanged on the subject.

We get into technicalities and that is true. We get into potential constitutional arguments and that is true. How do we even deal with the problem if we are afraid to bring something forward because it might possibly in the future contravene some section of the charter? We cannot operate like that. We have to do the best we can.

For example, it was brought up, and legitimately so, that there could be some constitutional arguments, such as how does the crown know anything about the immigration system. One potential amendment one could suggest immediately upon a cursory review of the bill might be in subclause 3(2) of this bill, dealing with section 32.1 of the Immigration Act, whereby one could put an amendment that the crown, on the recommendation of the immigration department, could make an application to the court to have the person deported.

Where there is a will there is a way. It is that simple. Once we recognize that there is a principle that is worthy of proceeding with, it is simply a question of figuring out how to do it. If Bill

C-316 is the way, fine. If it is not the way, then we know the problem, we know what Canadians want, we know what the solution is, and it is the job of the people of this House to figure out the way to accomplish that solution.

That in itself is a reason for the hon. member to be commended. I agree with the parliamentary secretary that this government should be commended for having dealt with part of these issues in the bill that we recently passed in this House. I agree that that bill will help, but it is not by itself the answer.

I dare say, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you would be too hard pressed to find anyone in Canada who would not say as a starting principle that if you are not a citizen of the country and have committed a serious offence in which you could be sentenced to 10 years or more, out you go, and you had better have a mighty good reason to convince Canadians that you should stay.

The bill provides for that. It provides for an opportunity for the potential deportee to have counsel and to speak. It provides for the appeal mechanism. It also provides for the situation where someone perhaps came here at age five and for all intents and purposes is a Canadian, has forgotten for technical reasons to apply for Canadian citizenship, has not been involved with the law before and perhaps at age 30 commits an offence. The person for all intents and purposes is a Canadian citizen except technically. The bill deals with that. It provides that it would not apply to circumstances of that nature.

In brief and in closing, I simply want to congratulate the member again for identifying a problem that certainly irritates Canadians-Canadians who are tolerant, Canadians who are by and large either immigrants themselves or the descendants of immigrants, who tolerate and want immigration, who are happy to see immigration to this country and who realize that immigrants are a benefit to this country.

We know as surely as we stand here that for every person who is convicted of an offence and abuses the hospitality of the country, there are 10,000 who would come here tomorrow and never even get a parking ticket.

I say that we have to look at those people who are prepared to come here and abide by the laws of this country and have very little tolerance for those who abuse our hospitality.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, finally I have a petition signed by approximately 900 Canadians on the issue of euthanasia.

They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have another petition bearing the signatures of almost 800 Canadians primarily from my riding and surrounding ridings in the Scarborough area. They are asking Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first petition is signed by 485 Canadians primarily from the Trenton, Ontario area but also from various other locations. It calls upon Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Hungary-Slovakia Treaty, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on March 20 of this year the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic signed an historic treaty in Paris. One highlight of the treaty is an agreement between Hungary and Slovakia to refrain from the threat or use of force against one another's territorial integrity and political independence.

Another highlight of the treaty is the confirmation that the protection of national minorities and the rights and freedoms of individuals belonging to a national minority are a matter of international human rights. In this sense the problems of minorities are not exclusively an internal affair of states but rather a matter of legitimate interest for the international community.

This treaty sets an example for all the world. From African nations to the former Yugoslavia the world is witnessing a dangerous rise of ethnic conflicts. This treaty provides an example of what nations can achieve with negotiations, not guns; with discussion, not destruction.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

No, that is not the end.

Let us talk about what will happen if common sense prevails and we send this bill to committee. The bill is not perfect. Nothing that is written in this House is perfect. There are problems with the bill. The Minister of Justice acknowledged in a press release that he would like the committee to consider at least three amendments.

One deals with relics and whether they can be passed on from generation to generation. The second one is how we deal with prohibited classes of weapons that are used for competition. That is a legitimate thing. We can deal with prohibited weapons that might be used for competition. We can put an amendment to the bill that would permit such a use. There is nothing wrong or impossible about that. The minister has also asked us to look at black powder historical re-enactments.

There are a couple of problems I would like to look at before I have an opportunity to put forward my amendments. I acknowledge that I have an opportunity which is not available to most members. I am a member of the justice committee and I can put forward all kinds of amendments at committee. Then I can put forward more amendments in the House at report stage. I really have two cracks at it, unlike most members, and I acknowledge that.

One problem I have with the bill as it currently stands is the possibility of confiscation without compensation. This is anathema, unliberal. We have to deal with it. We have to look at what the bill actually says and make some hard decisions. In my view, there should be compensation for property that is legally acquired and is subsequently confiscated for the greater public good, if that is what this House decides. We do it with real estate. There is no reason that we cannot do it in this situation.

I would like to hear some evidence on that. I would like to hear the pros and cons. I would like to hear all those people who wish to come to the justice committee to tell us what is wrong or right with it.

I have some problem with the mandatory sentencing. Let us pick a section arbitrarily. Let us pick proposed section 244, which is found in clause 138 of the bill which reads in part:

1. Every person who, with intent

(a) to wound, maim or disfigure any person,

(b) to endanger the life of any person, or

(c) to prevent the arrest or detention of any person,

discharges a firearm at any person-is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

What does that mean from a legal point of view? Does that mean if they wound somebody, they will get a sentence for the wounding, then an additional four year consecutive sentence? Or does it mean that if they wound someone and they are found to have wounded someone under that section they will get a sentence of a minimum of four years? There is a huge difference. We have to hear from the justice department officials and other people in the legal field as to exactly what that means.

The perception may be among some in the community that a mandatory four year sentence means four years on top of any sentence for the crime. Others might think it is four years in total. That is called the totality principle. These are legitimate concerns and questions.

There is another legitimate concern. That is the one expressed by members of the Reform Party as to the actual purposes registration would serve. Would registration serve the purpose

of reducing firearm related crimes? How can we know unless we hear from the experts?

We can sit in committee and listen to people on both sides, the Ontario Handgun Association, the National Rifle Association or the firearms people. We can listen to the Canadian chiefs of police. Our friends from the Reform Party can ask them about the grants that have been going on for one or two decades. Never mind their innuendoes about the chiefs of police. They are not appointed by the federal government but by their own municipalities. These innuendoes are insulting to the chiefs of police.

In any event, these questions can be put directly. We can ask if there is any correlation between registration and the curtailment of handgun or firearm related crimes. If not, then it may be necessary to consider other reasons that we might want the registration circumstances.

It is inconceivable to me that a reasonable person would not want this matter studied in depth at the justice committee. All groups and people across Canada who want to provide input on this legislation would have the opportunity to do so. For the Reform Party to say anything but the fact that its motion would kill this bill is utter nonsense.

In conclusion, I want to say something to the people of my own riding of Scarborough West. I have discussed this issue with them on numerous occasions. I have put out a householder which contains a survey. It will be in their mailboxes within two weeks. I ask for their direct input and answers to the questions I have asked on gun control.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-68 today.

I have a distinct advantage over many of the members of this House because I am a member of the justice committee. As a member of the justice committee, when this bill is referred to the justice committee I will have many days and hours, many opportunities, to ask witnesses very pointed questions. I will have an opportunity not only to examine witnesses but to cross-examine witnesses and inquire about certain facts that my friends in the Reform Party, for example, have suggested are not facts and to ask certain questions that they want to ask.

My intervention today will not be to answer or attempt to answer the questions that my friends in the Reform Party have brought up, generally speaking. My purpose in standing today and speaking is to examine and to try to help Canadians understand precisely what it is that is going to happen today. What I object to, quite frankly, is the misinformation that my friends in the Reform Party are attempting to spread across Canada with respect to what would happen if we were to support their motion today.

What I want to talk about is the actual legalities of what would occur if one were to support the Reform Party motion, and then let us let Canadians decide what the Reform Party has been saying and let us let them decide whether it is in fact what would occur.

We are being asked to consider the government's motion. It is a very simple motion. We may not agree with the bill or the principles, but the motion is very simple. It states "that the bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs". The government is simply saying, all right, let us refer this to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that they can hear witnesses and hear all of these people who wish to either support or object to the bill.

My friends in the Reform Party have put forward a very specific amendment. They are trying to tell people that their amendment splits the bill. That is not the case. The motion is very specific. All words after the word "that" are to be removed. Remember that the original motion says that the bill be read a second time and referred to committee. Reform members want that passage to be removed. What do they want to substitute it with? Do they want to substitute a motion that says that the bill be split into two separate sections? No. This is what they want to do:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.

Maybe they should be addressed separately, but if this motion were passed it would not allow the House to address those two questions separately. If we passed this motion, we would not be dealing with Bill C-68, period. The House would not read Bill C-68 a second time. The House would not refer Bill C-68 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Consequently, there would be no Bill C-68 and therefore, there would be nothing to split and nothing to discuss.

In my respectful view, it is improper for members of the Reform Party to suggest that their motion would split this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their motion would have the effect of killing this bill, not splitting it. So let us talk facts.

Members of the Reform Party have made a point of saying that they are talking straight to the people. Then be straight with the people. If they are going to bring a motion that says to kill Bill C-68, then tell people that is the kind of motion they are bringing forward, not that it is a motion to split the bill. That is utter parliamentary nonsense.

Anyone who votes in favour of the amendment thinking that the bill will be split is sadly misinformed. The actual effect of voting for the amendment will be to kill Bill C-68.

If we were to kill Bill C-68 the justice committee would have absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to consider the merits of the bill. It would have no opportunity whatsoever to consider any amendments that could be put forward. It would have no opportunity whatsoever to try to excise some portions of the bill.

Let us be honest with Canadians. If members do not like the bill, then say so. If you do not like the bill, tell Canadians that the amendment would throw the bill out. Do not tell Canadians the bill would be split because that is not the fact.