Werner Schmidt

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 10th, 1997]

With 1.5 million unemployed.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this second amendment to Bill C-17, which has been granted to us to look at, study and think about, has not just suddenly appeared out of the clear blue sky. Somehow it seems as if this is a brand new idea that has just hit us.

This idea has been around for a long time. The victims who have had crimes perpetrated against them are people like you and me. In

our discussion of this amendment we should ask ourselves who the victims are. It is usually assumed that the person against whom a crime is perpetrated is the victim. We have extended it now to include the family. We should also include friends and neighbours. If we really want to come to grips with this issue we have to recognize that with any violent crime we are all victims. Directly or indirectly it affects every single one of us.

I will refer to two incidents that happened in my riding. In the first case a man came home and stabbed his wife repeatedly until she died. That victim could not speak and tell of the impact that had. That person was dead. There was no right for that victim anymore. That right had been taken away by the person who stabbed her. But she had a sister and her sister was very much involved in that family because there were children she wanted to train in the way they should walk and so on. Here was her brother-in-law who had been allowed to stab his wife, and the consequence was a minimal jail sentence.

Who was the victim in this case? The wife was stabbed and killed but the sister in training her family was deeply involved in this case as well.

I want to relate to another case that happened in our community, the case of Mindy Tran. Mindy Tran was a little girl who was abducted from her home and killed. Probably the most terrifying event for me was to listen to a parent describe what happened on the way to school as they were driving down the street to take their child to kindergarten class. This kindergarten child who was sitting in the car was watching another child who was walking down the street alone. She said: "Mommy, look, that girl is walking alone. She should not be doing that. That is what happened to Mindy Tran. She was alone and she was killed. Shouldn't we stop and pick her up?"

Who is the victim here? That child's life is forever affected by somebody else, a person she did not know but knew about because she had been killed. What about the mother of this child who had to listen to her daughter say "shouldn't we pick up that child?". This child who was in this car had more empathy for justice and protection of society than the judge who dealt with the case of a man like Mr. Stone who stabbed and killed his wife.

These are serious offences. These are serious implications for the victims against whom crime has been perpetrated.

Let me go one step further. Much has been made in the last couple of months of the Clifford Olson case, on the Bernardo and Homolka case. Should these people even have access to the press? In many ways one would say of course they should have access to the press, but these people have taken away the right of certain people to ever express themselves again. Many of the people who were associated with the victims whose life has been taken will not speak in public. Why? They will not speak because they do not want to relive the terror and the emotion that they experienced the first time around. They are people who care.

We as parliamentarians are in the position of being the guardians of the safety of the life and the protection of the property of law-abiding citizens. When we have minimal sentences offered and when we even suggest that there should be victim impact statements, as was the case earlier, and as a very strong demonstration of how inept and how incompetent in many areas this government is, now as a sort of last minute the government says that should be in there. It is obvious that it should be in there.

When will our judgment system become one that will take into account not only the violence and the heinousness of the crime but will also recognize that there are real people with real lives, with real emotions who have been affected and their lives forever changed because of this crime that has been perpetrated in their neighbourhoods, in their families or against their wives or their husbands?

We have never dealt with a more serious issue than the matter of justice in our society. When will we recognize that to do things like this, to commit the kinds of crimes that Clifford Olson committed, the kinds of crimes that Bernardo committed, the kinds of crimes by the person who killed Mindy Tran, or those of Mr. Stone who stabbed his wife, when will we recognize that the time has come that the consequences for these kinds of acts are more than a slap on the wrist, are more than temporary incarceration and actually do not create the kind of protection for the victims who remain?

Even though we do not live in that community we can identify, we can understand the fear, we can understand the terror, the pain, the emotion and the anger that wells up in people when these kinds of things happen.

Should that not have an impact? Should that not be a message to the rest of us to say that the time has come to introduce programs where we do have consequences for these kinds of acts? Far more important is the generation of a set of values that tells people that kind of behaviour is wrong, it ought to be stopped and there are serious consequences.

We need to reintroduce a clear definition of what is right and what is wrong in our society. Our children should know what is right and what is wrong. This Parliament should make it clear to judges what we believe is right and what is wrong. It is right to recognize that the rights of victims are more important than the rights of criminals.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

They don't even go to jail.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I feel pleased and I feel sad about feeling compelled to rise in the debate on this issue. The good part of it is that I think this is moving in the right direction. The sad part of it is that it puts absolutely no restrictions on the environment or on the conditions under which a person can be released into society.

I would like to focus this in terms of several questions. First, the amendment says that the judge be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. The first question very obviously is what would constitute evidence or support for a judge to suggest he is satisfied that releasing this particular offender into the community will not put into jeopardy or endanger the safety of that community? Could it be that we send the offender out for an experimental period and then if he is okay for five days, six days, seven days it is all right?

The previous speaker has indicated that we want to rehabilitate our criminals. Of course we want to do that. Of course we want people to obey the law. Of course we want them to behave in a reasonable way. But that is not what this is all about.

This suggests that the judge use some common sense. Has it really come to the point where our justice system, our legal system is in such a depraved condition that we have to legislate to use common sense? It should be obvious that we use our common sense.

That is essentially what this amendment does. I am not at all satisfied that this will deal with the problem of criminal offenders in our society.

There was an amendment that was proposed by members of the Reform Party. It had several Liberal backbenchers as well supporting it. It was that the use of alternate measures be limited to non-violent offenders.

This amendment does not do anything of that sort. It allows any person to be considered for alternate measures. To give an example of how these alternate measures have been used, let me quote from

a news article: "A Gatineau man was recently convicted for repeatedly forcing his young step sons to perform sexual acts on their hypnotized mother. The crimes ended by the early 1970s, and in the years that followed he was by all accounts a solid citizen. The judge let him go without serving a day in prison. Two decades of good behaviour obviously should count for something".

What does this tell people who offend the law? It means go ahead, commit the crime and behave yourself after that and there are no consequences. If we did that to the law of gravity and said that we did not think that the law of gravity operates and then walked along the top of a building, the consequence would not be delayed for 20 years, it would be immediate. That is exactly what should happen in our justice system.

Too many people are beginning to recognize that our legal system is nothing but a system of technicalities to get people away from the consequences that would normally be expected for breaking the law. That would be a common sense application of the law. Deal with the consequences and we must accept the consequences if we break the law.

Instead of that we have legal technicalities that allow people to avoid the consequences of breaking the law. What we need to do in this society is create a legal system that is a justice system.

Where is the intent of Parliament? Is it really true that all the members of this House want from the justice people in this country is to use their common sense? Is that all the judges need to do? Or are they to use their imagination by telling someone that for this crime there is this consequence but for that crime there is another consequence? The sentencing does not really matter because it is all up to the judge. It is a free for all depending on what the situation is.

That is what has brought disrespect for the justice system. That is what has brought disrespect for lawyers. It has allowed them to use technicalities when they know full well that somebody has broken the law and is guilty of a heinous crime but on a technicality walks away free. That is a miscarriage of justice and is not in the interest of society.

It goes on. Where is the confidence that needs to be generated in our justice system if there are no consequences of breaking the law? Our young people need to develop strong personalities and strong characters from good examples. They do not need a father who takes his step son and forces him to commit sexual acts on his hypnotized mother. That is the opposite of the kind of example we want.

What we need are strong families, families that have integrated into the lives of the children the values that clearly demonstrate what is right and what is wrong. It has come to the point where it is almost as if there is no difference between what is right and what is wrong. When will we be able to inculcate into the lives of our children, the thinking of our children and the consciences of our children that says this is right and this is wrong? We support that which is right and we have consequences for that which is wrong and they are not good.

I want to go one step further. It has to do with the victims who are involved here. We have had much said about the rights of victims. We have had much said about the rights of offenders. However, when the two rights come in conflict, the rights of the victim on the one hand and the rights of the offender on the other, the rights of the victim ought to take precedence over the rights of the offender.

Let us now put into perspective the situation of allowing into a community someone who has committed a violent offence. The consequence should be incarceration or some serious punishment for someone who has committed a violent crime. However, when someone is released into the community to serve the sentence what have we done to the victims? We have created an environment of fear for them. Instead of the offender being in prison, the victims find themselves in fear of going out on to the streets. They are afraid to leave their homes. Who is suffering the consequence of this crime? It is not the person who offended but the person who is the victim and continues to be victimized, not just the one against whom the crime was perpetrated but also all others in the neighbourhood who cower in fear and are afraid to go out on to the streets.

I asked a number of people at a recent meeting if they felt safer today than they did three and a half years ago. They answered no. I asked them why. They said it was because our legal system is not a justice system but a technical system. Parliament has not given clear direction to our judges as to how punishment should be administered. We do not like to hear stories like this where a father can do this kind of thing.

Let me give another example. In British Columbia a man was convicted for abducting and sodomizing a single mother. The actions were described to the court by a psychologist as aggressive, angry, controlling and sadistic. The judge, however, was impressed that the man's behaviour while on bail was exemplary and psychological assessments indicated that he was unlikely to reoffend. Although a convicted rapist he will never see the inside of a prison.

That is what our justice system has come to. What does this amendment do to solve that kind of situation? Nothing. It moves in the direction but it does not indicate to a judge that we want persons who commit heinous and violent crimes to be subjected to serious consequences somewhat equal to the crimes committed.

Our first and foremost consideration is to preserve the health, welfare, lives and property of law-abiding citizens and not to prefer the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim.

We will support the amendment. However, when will the minister and the justice system reach the point of recognizing the worth and freedom of individuals and rather than imprisoning the victims imprisoning the people who committed the offence in the first place.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

I thought that was your speech.

[Elvis Stojko, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to earlier news reports Elvis is very much alive and has not left the building.

Last night in Lausanne, Switzerland, Canadian figure skating champion Elvis Stojko reclaimed his world championship title, his third in four years. Elvis was in fourth place after the short program earlier this week, but last night he delivered a masterful performance that included the first quad-triple combination to be landed in world championship competition.

Elvis is indeed god of the quad. His performance included not only the quad but eight other triple jumps and a virtually flawless performance that led to his come from behind victory against stiff competition from the reigning U.S. champ and strong Russian contingent.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan Centre, all members of the House and all Canadians, I congratulate Elvis.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague to explain an area that he probably has not touched on directly, but I think ties into the categories of fisheries which have apparently been created.

I wonder whether within this mismanagement, this lack of planning, there is some sort of perpetuation of inequality among Canadians, of one group of Canadians getting one kind of advantage at the expense of others.

In the time that is left, I wonder if the member could talk about that a little bit because I think equality before the law is a very significant issue. It attacks the very unity of the country.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge mentioned a lot of things about Quebec, the Constitution, the security of Canada and unity. Those are very significant issues. However another area that has been of concern to me has to do with the promise to create jobs.

Could the member give us some examples of measures in the last two budgets which gave encouragement to young people in the area of job creation?

The Reform Party, with its fresh start program, is telling young people that there is hope. There is a vision for Canada which will give them job security, stability and hope. It will give them the things they want for their families and their future.

Could he say a few words about that?

[The Budget, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, $800 million brags the government about the new Canada Foundation for Innovation fund. Look what we have done.

The science community says the concept for the fund is bold. This budget clearly recognizes investment in science and technology as critical to our economic development, but since coming to

power the Liberals have cut spending on S and T by almost $1 billion. Science and technology are fundamental to Canada's competitiveness.

The Liberals may brag but this budget still leaves science and technology $100 million short of where it was when the government took office.

Like a person who has suffered repeatedly from being beaten, it feels so good when the beatings stop, but there are many broken bones that remain to be healed. And so it is with cuts to science and technology.

It will take more than just $800 million to restore the damage. We must do much more to advance Canada's competitiveness in the world.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for introducing Bill C-353. I certainly do not want to go on record as saying that the

Government of Canada should now get into the lottery business on the Internet. I do not think that is the issue here. The issue is quite a different one.

We need to recognize the significance of the Internet in our contemporary society. It affects virtually every part of our daily life. We can do all kinds of things on the Internet. I made a brief list of some of the things that can be done on the Internet.

We can buy, sell, trade, travel, read newspapers and magazines, play the stock market, do banking, talk to politicians, sign out a book at the library and upgrade a computer. We can send a postcard or a greeting. Many other things can be done on the Internet. All of them can be done by text, voice or even video.

Introduced in this area now is Internet gaming; this is now a very real thing. Internet gaming is appearing in many jurisdictions around the world, usually in those jurisdictions where the gaming laws are not nearly as fixed as they are in Canada. Let us look at the situation of Internet gaming in the world today.

The key to success on the Internet and all other casinos is traffic. In other words, a lot of people must participate in the business. Worldwide gambling in recent years has gone from a $500 billion a year industry to over a trillion dollars. That is a rather significant increase. Worldwide it has been estimated that in excess of a trillion dollars is wagered annually on various forms of gambling.

For example in Great Britain over 90 per cent of the population participates in some form of legalized gambling. Australians wager almost $2,700 per capita annually on gaming entertainment.

Conservative estimates for the Internet gaming market in the United States projected a total potential market of $8.25 billion in 1996 and it will grow to $22 billion by 1998. Internationally, market estimates for Europe and the Far East predict potential markets by 1998 of $29.2 billion. This is the market opportunity.

The Internet is a worldwide telecommunications network that allows the users to communicate with one another with no geographic boundaries. That is the issue. As a result of this tremendous flexibility of communications, it has become the next frontier for commerce.

The major inroad envisioned by business in the Internet is the ability to perform large scale, large dollar transactions over the network. That is seen by many as the true power of the Internet, where costs can be substantially reduced for businesses, allowing them to advertise and sell to practically millions of consumers and businesses worldwide.

The member talked earlier about the success of a casino depending upon traffic and many, many people. The Internet has magnified the number of participants tremendously. Therefore, there is a very real potential for people who are interested in this particular business.

Let us look at a couple of facts and figures. Worldwide the gaming market, as we have just indicated, is a trillion dollars plus. In the U.S. it is $400 billion. Earnings of legal U.S. casinos-and we are talking about not only the Internet now, we are talking about all gaming-were $188 billion in 1995. Earnings of traditional illegal bookies were $60 billion in 1995. The market outside the United States is more than $500 billion per year. If we add those numbers up, we will see that a tremendous amount of money is going into the gaming business.

In the Internet there are 50,000 computer networks involving 90 countries. Internet users worldwide are some 175 million, which is expected to grow in the next two years to about 200 million. It becomes very clear that this is a very significant issue.

Who are these people on the Internet? It is rather interesting to look at the demographics of the people who are involved. The typical Internet user is male and 44 years of age. Thirty-nine per cent of them have a college degree and an annual income of about $48,000.

If we compare those statistics to the typical Las Vegas/Atlantic City casino gambler, the proportion of males is 51 per cent compared to 60 per cent on the Internet. The median age is 48 compared to 44 on the Internet. The percentage with college degrees who gamble on land based casinos is 29 compared to 39 per cent on the Internet. The percentage of people with college degrees is much greater in those using the Internet and gambling on the Internet than is otherwise the case. The average income is $43,000 for those using land based casinos compared to $48,000 for those using the Internet. It is a very interesting group of people which is involved in this issue.

Has this become a serious issue in a variety of places? Yes, it has. In fact the Interactive Gaming Council has been formed in the United States to come to grips with this particular issue. What is its role? That new industry organization, the Interactive Gaming Council, has been formed to represent the burgeoning interactive gaming industry. It is currently establishing a framework to address defined issues. It recently met in Scottsdale, Arizona on January 19, 1997.

An assistant attorney general, Mr. Alan R. Kesner from Wisconsin, was the guest speaker. He reconfirmed that law enforcement agencies and regulators need input and guidelines in order to fully understand Internet gaming and to go forward with ideas on regulation and taxation. Mr. Kesner's remarks indicated that there

is an enormous public demand for gaming entertainment as proved by the huge proliferation of gaming throughout the United States and Internet gaming will probably be just another venue.

However, the public must be protected from those Internet casinos which would take advantage of them with all sorts of unfair practices. The hon. member just gave us a rundown, almost a catalogue, of some of the things that ought to be covered. It is a real issue. Here in Canada the question is not whether we will have this, but rather when.

Again I want to underline that I am not necessarily a proponent of gaming of any kind. In fact, I am not. I believe it has some very negative connotations. On the other hand, there are many people who do use it. It is a way in which a lot of charitable organizations and non-profit organizations raise funds and do tremendous good in various communities by supporting junior hockey and a variety of service clubs. So I suppose there is some merit in this area.

Canadians are already gambling on the Internet and money is leaving the country. We need to ask ourselves where the responsibility lies to make sure that if there is going to be Internet gaming that it be done in a way which is more or less controlled, to eliminate fraud, to eliminate abuse and to protect the consumers who are involved.

Just before I got up to speak one of my colleagues on this side of the House said: "If you want to control the Internet, good luck". I think that is true. It is a tough one to control. I am not so sure anybody can, but we do have to take steps to try to do it.

If the committee will come to grips at least with that part, it will have made a major dent into the question because it is very significant. It has to do with the whole issue of privacy which is very significant also. It directly involves our banking community and other financial institutions that use the Internet to transfer huge sums of money from institution to institution and also across international and national boundaries. If nothing else, this bill will have a spin-off in another very significant area.

I want to commend the hon. member who was the parliamentary secretary. And by the way I will interject here to say I wish he were still a parliamentary secretary, but that is none of my business. That is between him and his boss, I suppose.

Is there a responsibility for Bill C-353 for Canada and for the federal government? Yes, I believe there is. The hon. member reviewed some of those provisions, so I will not go into them now. The question is one where we need to distinguish-oh, my goodness, I only have one minute left and this is such an important bill, Mr. Speaker.

I want then to indicate rather significantly that I believe if the government is going to regulate it should not get involved in the actual running of a casino itself. That ought not to be in the bill. If there is any suggestion, and I think there is, that the government might have that permission, the bill should be amended so that it does not do that, but that it can license private persons or private corporations to do it. Regulate them so that the consumers' interests are protected and that money is transferred without getting involved in the laundering business and things of that sort.

In conclusion, we do support the principle of the bill. There are some suggestions and it has the opportunity of moving us forward to truly becoming a leader in the Internet business and on the information highway.