Carolyn Parrish

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

I am sorry, I have been sitting here all evening listening to you stretch a bill-

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was not really prepared to speak this evening. Actually I do not even have House duty, and I have been sitting here since early this afternoon listening.

When we listen to things like this we really firm up our own beliefs and become very aware of how nasty human beings can get, how obtuse human beings can get, how they can purposely change things to suit themselves, and how they have obviously lived a life not subject to prejudice.

When I was a little girl my mom took me to kindergarten and registered me. I am a Polish kid. We went up to the desk and people said to her: "What is the name of the child you are registering?" She said "Carolyn". She looked at me for a minute. My maiden name was Janozeski. Because she had been beaten up and told she was a smelly polack from the time she was a small child, she changed instantly my last name to Janis. For many years I was functioning under a pseudonym.

The profound effect of being told she was a smelly polack and there was nothing she could do to defend herself against that accusation except scrub herself, change her clothing, make sure

she was always clean, was that when she took me to school when I was five years old she changed my name.

The thing that really bothers me is people who fit into this category that everyone is objecting to so strongly. They cannot scrub themselves, they cannot change their clothing, they cannot change the colour of their skin. But we can protect them against people who do not understand what goes on inside that skin.

It is very important that we keep very clear that this is a sentencing bill. It is not condoning any acts that seem so offensive to the people on the other side of the floor. It is saying to them that if you do not like the colour of someone's skin or if they happen to have the outward appearance of a different sexual orientation from yours, you cannot walk up to them on the street and punch their head in. There is nothing they can do to protect themselves against those types of accusations. Therein lies the frustration.

In a country like Canada we protect those people. We protect each other. In fact, if anybody you are protecting hits anybody for any reason, why are you protecting them? You do not need the categories.

Anybody who attacks somebody else in this country should feel the full force of the law. Anybody who gets into a bar room brawl and chooses to get into an argument with a neighbour is walking into it with their eyes wide open. The cases we have heard described are of people walking along the street and simply because of the way they walk, the way they wear their hair or the fact that they may be different from us, you are condoning people leaping out of a car and beating them to a pulp.

[Youth Sports, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize three young people from the city of Mississauga: Jane Lea, Michelle Lo and Frank Luisser. All three secondary students have been named athletes of the year for outstanding participation and ability in a wide variety of sports.

Today when the media seems to focus on troubled youth it is important to recognize adolescents who, from small children, have enthusiastically refined their skills to a superior calibre that is recognized by all. As individual athletes and successful

team players they have been recognized not only for their skills but for their positive outlook on life.

I congratulate their families who have spent many hours supporting and encouraging these superstars. I congratulate Jane, Michelle and Frank for being the best they can be.

[Poland, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians of Polish descent, I rise in the House today to commemorate the 204th anniversary of the Democratic Constitution of Poland and to join in the celebration of the re-emergence of democracy and liberty in that nation.

Poland has historically been blessed with citizens of extraordinary conviction; some even call us stubborn. They believe in an independent Poland as well as in the value of a truly democratic government. The enduring faith of those who recently witnessed the rebirth of democracy is an inspiration to many.

Too often, we who have the good fortune of living in a democratic society become complacent about our freedoms and opportunities. This anniversary is a reminder of the courage, commitment and vigilance which democracy requires.

Gratuluia calowa polska rodzina.

[Peacekeeping Act, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-295, an act to provide for the control of Canadian peacekeeping activities by Parliament and to amend the National Defence Act in consequence thereof.

I will take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about the context of the bill, namely the nature of Canada's current involvement in peacekeeping activities and the way in which we currently manage our participation in the operations. I should also like to look at a number of specific details in the bill and explain why I cannot support the changes the bill proposes.

Since World War II successive Canadian governments have argued that a safer, more secure international environment is key to Canada's own security and prosperity. As a responsible international participant and as a major trading nation, Canada is concerned with the dangers of a spillover of a localized strife and the threat it poses to the larger international community. At the same Canadians desire a reduction or end to the widespread human suffering in situations where there are strong indications that outside assistance can make a difference.

To this end Canada has worked with other countries to create a stable international environment. One of the instruments we have used in this effort has been peacekeeping, a technique of multilateral conflict management and resolution that has proven exceedingly useful over the years, and at which Canada has excelled.

Canada's contribution to peacekeeping is rooted in the belief that a stable international order sustained by substantial multinational consensus is the best foundation for Canada's long term peace and security. Hence, we willingly make available well trained and suitably equipped military personnel for peacekeeping and related operations.

However, our commitment to peacekeeping cannot be taken for granted. Canada carefully examines all requests for peacekeeping assistance and turns down those it regards as inappropriate. Our record of support is unparalleled, but that does mean our decision to take part in such missions is automatic. Canada has declined opportunities to participate in the third UN Angola verification mission, the UN Aouzou Strip observer group and the UN observer missions in Georgia and in Liberia. In recent years Canada has also significantly reduced or withdrawn contingents from Cyprus, Western Sahara, Somalia and El Salvador.

Traditionally the international community has turned to Canada for peacekeeping resources, not only because our foreign policy has been inclined to support involvement but also because our armed forces are flexible, multipurpose and combat capable. Our personnel are well trained, suitably equipped and have a very impressive track record. The world has come to depend on Canada for peacekeeping.

Canadian participation must always be placed in a larger international context. Our decision to join in a mission is a unilateral one and any changes to the way we operate would also be unilateral. However, the actual mission is always multilateral and complex. With many partners affecting our understanding we become team players when we join. This is an important consideration because UN Security Council resolutions are not always absolutely precise in specifying all the aims, duties or roles of a mission. Decisions evolve as circumstances change.

I should like to turn now to a discussion of some specific provisions of Bill C-295 which in my mind are not workable.

Clause 8 of Bill C-295 requires that once the aims of a particular mission have been achieved the Canadian contribution is to be terminated. The bill is not clear as to how the UN objectives or those expressed in the resolution might be reconciled. Yet the withdrawal of a Canadian contingent based upon an arbitrary expiry date would have two undesirable effects. First, the entire Canadian contribution might prove pointless if withdrawn too early. The second and more serious impact is that withdrawal could be counterproductive to the mission as a whole and thereby in itself threaten peace and security.

I also question those provisions of the bill related to active service. This bill would deem members of the Canadian forces assigned to peacekeeping missions to be on active service for all purposes. The bill proposes that the National Defence Act be amended so that an officer or non-commissioned member assigned to a mission that is subject to the proposed peacekeeping act shall be deemed to be on active service for all purposes.

Quite simply, this proposal is unnecessary. Pursuant to an order in council dated April 6, 1989, all regular force members anywhere in or beyond Canada and all reserve force members beyond Canada are currently on active service. Moreover, all members of the regular force have in fact been on active service continually since 1950.

There is therefore no legal requirement for individual orders in council placing members on active service as a consequence of a particular peacekeeping operation. These orders in council are simply a parliamentary convention. But convention though they may be, the practice certainly reflects the government's desire to consult more frequently with Parliament concerning the general thrust of Canada's peacekeeping policy and practice.

As members well know, there have been two substantial debates on international peacekeeping commitments since this government came into power, the first on September 21, 1994 and the second just recently on March 29.

Bill C-295 does not adequately address the scope of UN peacekeeping operations or chapter 7 action taken by the UN Security Council. This is the third element of the bill with which I have serious concerns.

The definitions and structure imposed by the bill do not accord with international treaties and the UN charter obligations. In trying to encompass the broad range of operations that may be authorized or directed by a UN Security Council resolution, the definition of a peacekeeping service in clause 2 of the bill is very imprecise.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in his June 1992 report to the Security Council defined four terms: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding, all of which contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Each of these UN concepts can, and most often do, entail the use of military force. However, civilian personnel such as elections officials and civilian police are also becoming common in UN peacekeeping operations. The problem with Bill C-295 is that it does not provide a clear delineation of which operations are covered, nor does it offer any specific rationale for applying such regulations only to Canadian forces.

I would also like to question the section dealing with the rules of engagement. Bill C-295 creates overly simplistic legal obligations for rules of engagement and the use of force. Rules of engagement are always issued to armed Canadian forces personnel participating in international operations. They often operate under UN rules of engagement, although these are always drafted in conjunction with the Canadian forces staff at National Defence Headquarters as well as the Canadian contingent commander.

In this way, UN rules of engagement reflect a distinctly Canadian approach in structure, terminology, and interpretation of the mandate within which the rules operate. Occasionally, when the UN is slow to produce an acceptable set of rules of engagement, Canadian forces will operate under Canadian rules while permitting the UN to maintain overall control of an international operation.

Clause 5(3) of the bill restricts the use of force to self-defence. However, this restriction cannot, unless specifically authorized by a UN Security Council resolution, extend to the protection of civilians, even if they are subject to the actual or immediate threat of deadly force or if they are threatened with a serious abuse of human rights. All rules of engagement must be carefully analysed, taking into account the specifics of the mandate. That mandate could require troop-contributing states to use force for reasons other than those specified in the bill.

The issue of neutrality in Bill C-259 is also insupportable. The blanket requirement in subclause 5(1) that Canadian forces be neutral and not engage in combat is itself contradicted later in paragraphs 5(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the bill. The authorization this later subclause gives would violate the neutrality provisions because force could be used to protect one civilian group against the actions of another. There may be cases in which combat is the only means of restoring peace. Once again, this bill, if implemented, would restrict the flexibility of our Canadian forces in what are often very fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

In conclusion, I think that the same argument could be applied to the bill as a whole. The provisions of Bill C-259 foreclose options and restrict the flexibility of the Government of Canada to direct and manage the peacekeeping operations it undertakes.

I urge all members of the House to give careful consideration to how this bill would affect the ability of our Canadian forces to perform the tasks they have been assigned. This bill, however well meaning in its intent, would, in my view, have a detrimental effect on Canada's ability to undertake peace operations.

Out of respect for the admirable work that our Canadian forces are doing on a day to day basis and with their interests in mind, I cannot support this bill.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Dorothy Polhill of Mississauga West.

In it the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[The Budget, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today with pride and some dismay.

I am proud of the Minister of Finance who has proposed in this year's budget the most dramatic comprehensive changes in government since World War II.

I am proud to be part of a government that has met, and will continue to meet, the objectives necessary to wrestle the deficit and debt that are damaging the country to the ground.

My dismay has mounted over the past several weeks while I listen to the members of the third party refuse to join us on this

side of the House, however grudgingly, and working for the future prosperity of this beautiful country.

They ran on the concept of a new type of politics that does not follow the old partisan ritual and dogma. Why then are they voting no to the challenge we now face?

Why is their leader currently communing with the spiritual leader of the new right wing of the United States, being tutored in barbaric doctrines which slash seniors pensions and allow orphans to be institutionalized? Why is the leader of the third party not participating in this country's rebirth instead of observing the machinations of an evil, bitter monster to the south?

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it amusing that Reform members opposite tend to turn the conversation away from what we are trying to deal with and into their favourite locations.

I believe that violent criminals in this society will be dealt with in a reasoned and planned fashion by the minister, as he has done with the gun legislation. I think you cannot look at one incident or one piece of legislation and keep it separate from others.

I have absolute faith in the Minister of Justice that in the course of his term he will address all of your concerns and all of my concerns.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite and I am sorry that customs officers joke about such serious things as gun smuggling, drug smuggling and alcohol smuggling.

I do not think smuggling is a joking matter and I do not wish to correct the hon. member opposite but I did not say it would dry it up literally and immediately. I think it is a step in the right direction.

I think if we do not begin somewhere we might as well all throw our hands up and say open the borders and let everybody bring whatever they want in.

The President of the United States visited here on Thursday and congratulated us on an amazing start in the direction of cleaning up illegal guns. I am very proud to be part of a team that is doing this.

My father on his deathbed talked about guns. He talked about the danger. He came home one night very sad because a rookie cop had gone up the stairs ahead of him to a domestic dispute and a shotgun blast had come through the door. It did not kill him. It knocked his eye right out. My father has always believed that if you register guns you can at least make the people who have lost them or have allowed them to be stolen out of their homes responsible for that loss.

Again, I believe this is a beginning. No one has the perfect solution. I will reiterate what I said. We cannot be frozen into inactivity by the overwhelming concern of the problem.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, legislation which addresses the fundamental right of all Canadians to a safe, non-violent, non-threatening society. I am speaking in support of legislative reforms carefully crafted and presented by the Minister of Justice involving amendments to the Criminal Code and the creation of a new firearms act.

For many years Canadians have watched in horror the increasing use of handguns, assault weapons and rifles in the commission of crimes. In recent years our North American society has become increasingly immune to daily doses of violence, death and injury. Television newscasts and videos feed Canadian viewers a steady stream of carnage. Some of us are shocked; many have become numb as we grow accustomed to the daily onslaught.

In the United States thousands of people are killed each year by handguns. Hundreds of thousands are injured and many are permanently disabled. Yet Americans strangely cling to the notion of a frontier mentality and the right to settle arguments with a gun. A new handgun is produced every 20 seconds in the United States to feed a voracious demand.

Our society is awash in American imagery and attitudes. The U.S. media has slowly changed our long established tradition of law, order and peaceful tolerance. The locked doors and barred windows of the United States have crept north as has the American fascination with handguns.

Thirty years ago a domestic dispute in the city of Toronto would rarely if ever involve a handgun. Now police approach every situation as potentially lethal. Thirty years ago police officers did not need SWAT teams, bullet-proof vests or increasingly powerful service revolvers against suspects who are routinely better equipped with the latest weaponry. Just this past week metro Toronto police received permission to carry shotguns inside their cruisers instead of in the trunks of their cars.

There is no doubt whatsoever that our society is becoming more violent than Canadians will tolerate. But how are we different from our friends to the south? What makes us want to take charge of this situation and return order to Canadian streets?

Fortunately, the vast majority of Canadians continue to abhor violence in all its forms. We are still shockable. We can still be touched. We are still willing to fight back. We are not ready to install metal detectors in our schools or huddle behind locked gates and barred windows after dark. From across Canada, this government and every member of this House has heard the message: Get the guns off the streets.

Ninety-six per cent of Canadians support increased penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. This bill addresses those Canadians. Ninety per cent favour the registration of all firearms. This bill addresses those Canadians. Fully 70 per cent want tighter gun control laws, restricted access to ammunition and a complete ban on civilian ownership of handguns. This legislation addresses those Canadians.

The issue of violence affects each of us in a profound way. My late father, Ed Janozeski, was a sharpshooter, a gun instructor and a dedicated metro Toronto police officer for 37 years. He watched the use of firearms increase, especially in his last years on the force. He grew increasingly frustrated as legislators seemed unwilling to do anything about it.

Each member of this House knows of an instance where friends, family or acquaintances have been devastated by the misuse of firearms. Every year 1,400 Canadians die as a result of gunshot wounds and another 1,200 are injured. Sadly, the majority are suicides, impulsive acts committed by those who have easy access to guns. Fifty women are killed each year, shot in their own homes by a family member.

Surprisingly, homicide rates from firearms are 50 per cent higher in rural Canada. One hundred persons die accidentally each year while hunting or otherwise handling a firearm. Some of these people are children.

Three million Canadians own seven million firearms, 1.2 million in the restricted category. Vast numbers of illegal, smuggled and unregistered guns add to this arsenal. Between 1974 and 1993, 65,000 firearms were reported missing, lost or stolen and have never been recovered.

Even with all legal weapons registered, criminals will still find handguns. Accidents and suicides will still occur. Are these sensible, rational arguments for doing nothing?

Acceptance of the status quo is acceptance of defeat. The enormity of the task cannot freeze us into inaction. If we start today the net result over time will be significantly fewer handguns in private hands. Those handguns will be in the safer hands of legitimate sport shooters, hunters and collectors.

A highly efficient computerized system will distinguish legal from illegal firearms and will track them. Police officers when approaching a reported domestic dispute will know if there are weapons in the house. Responsible safe storage by registered gun owners will become a necessity.

Will violent crime cease immediately? No one is foolish enough to believe that. Criminals will not register their firearms or produce a licence to purchase ammunition. But the underground market fed to a great extent by smuggled and stolen firearms will begin to dry up. Registration will permit tracking of imported guns and seizure of unregistered ones. Registration will also encourage safe storage and the availability of fewer stolen firearms.

Through a series of new hard hitting penalties this government is also saying loudly and clearly: Use a weapon and you will face the stiffest penalties in the western world, a minimum of four years in jail for the use of a firearm in any of 10 specific offences.

Police will have a law with teeth enabling them to lock up criminals in possession of stolen firearms before a crime occurs. Those attempting to use replicas to intimidate and terrorize will face a minimum one year sentence.

Our border, the longest unprotected border in the world, will no longer be an easy entry for those trafficking in firearms. Now you will face 10 years in jail and forfeit all vehicles used in the commission of this crime.

The new legislation will outlaw 60 per cent of all handguns currently available for purchase in Canada, all assault-type military and paramilitary weapons, many of which are designed for concealment and terrorist activities. They have absolutely no place in Canadian society.

To acquire and keep handguns, owners will have to provide one of only two valid reasons for doing so: to add to a legitimate collection, or to use in sport or target shooting. This would have to be justified every five years. The single most objectionable requirement in the eyes of the gun lobby is simple: all firearms and all owners of firearms will have to be registered. Contrary to popular myth, the registration of weapons is not new to Canada.

The first nationwide permit system was introduced in 1892, the registration of handguns in 1932.

Of 1.2 million handguns registered to 560,000 Canadians, only 10 per cent have applied for a permit which allows for transportation of a handgun to and from a shooting club. Canadians are apparently more interested in owning than in using these firearms.

The registration of 5.8 million firearms will be phased in over seven years. Frankly, the tired old argument that registration failed in New Zealand does not hold. Modern computer technology will make this task efficient, simple and cost effective. We routinely register automobiles, mortgages, driver's licences, building permits and dogs. To argue that a national registration system would be onerous is to ignore the electronic advancement of our generation.

Registration should not pose any threat to legitimate, responsible gun owners. In fact, they should welcome it. Only the most paranoid of individuals have expressed the fear that big brother is watching.

In reality, orderly registration will deter theft and smuggling and will assist police. Ultimately, registration will bring the responsible gun owner into a partnership with the enforcement agencies. It will be a partnership based on trust, competence, access to information and accountability.

I know much has been said of the opposition to this legislation. Change is not always easy to accept. We live in an increasingly hostile and violent society. We cannot abandon it to the spiral of violence that will fundamentally change Canada for generations to come. We must take the strongest and most effective measures possible to respond to those of us who want a peaceful, safe and tolerant society.

My colleague from across the floor, the hon. member for Calgary Centre recently said in the House that if you identify your problem correctly, 60 per cent of your solution is before you. I believe Canadians have identified the problem. This legislation is an effective and necessary beginning, moving us well on the way to a 100 per cent solution.

It is a great honour for me to speak today. I have had a rather motley political career because I have always been labelled an idealist. Sometimes things happen in politics because it is doable rather than because it is right. I am very proud of our minister and to be part of this Liberal government because I believe today we are doing what is right.