House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Petitions June 15th, 1995
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.
The petition containing 163 signatures calls 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.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under a little used section on Private Members' Business, could the Speaker indicate whether that private members' motion will be within the closing session of the next seven days.
Criminal Code June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-41.
I begin by voicing my absolute disgust with the government in its move to invoke time allocation on the bill. Bill C-41 is an important bill with serious implications. My constituents of Comox-Alberni deserve to have their opinions heard through their representative in the House. The government's move to silence MPs by preventing reasonable debate of legislation is undemocratic and unprincipled.
Bill C-41 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to restructure sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Code and rules for evidence and procedure for use in the sentencing process. Bill C-41 ensures harsher penalties are imposed for crimes motivated by hatred based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.
I agree with the concept that legislation should provide for victim impact statements to be used in court proceedings. The Reform Party has also been a strong advocate of victims' rights and it is high time this be given priority by the government. However, the bill before us hardly addresses the issue. Bill C-41 does little to protect victims' rights.
The bill provides only for written statements to be filed with the court, which is simply not adequate. The bill fails to provide for oral or written statements to be made directly to the court by the victim or by the victim's representative. With this provision the legislative proposals are virtually meaningless.
If the government is serious about victims' rights, provision to allow for both oral and written statements to be made directly to the court by either the victim or the victim's representative should be provided for.
When the Reform Party suggested a number of amendments to the bill at committee stage which would provide for these provisions, the lack of commitment by the government was demonstrated when all amendments were voted down by the Liberal majority in committee.
As much as I support provisions for victim's rights, I am dismayed to note that passing this legislation will hardly change the status quo.
The implications of victims' rights within the bill may be insignificant. However, I have serious reservations about the implications of section 717, which requires serious revision before it is passed by the House.
Section 717 proposes to make provisions for allowance to bypass court proceedings for those accused of offences. If an accused person admits to committing or to having involvement in an offence this section would eliminate the use of the courts to determine guilt or sentencing.
Reform supports the use of alternative measures for specific offences, particularly non-violent offences, but this clause is too open ended. Offences punishable by alternate measures are not specified and this needs to be spelled out more.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommended section 717 be amended to restrict the availability of the program to persons who have committed less serious offences as well as first time offenders. I support such an amendment before the bill becomes law.
In addition, the bill fails to give any indication of what will constitute an alternative measure. This must be spelled out. It is not enough to delegate responsibility to the provinces because even though provinces are given authority to design their own system there will be vast differences in measures from province to province.
When Reform proposed an amendment to clarify the situation the Liberal majority voted it down in committee. Without clarification the bill leaves the system of fair trial and punishment wide open to abuse.
I cannot support section 717 without the necessary amendments, which the government is unwilling to make. As it stands, section 717 should be scrapped.
Another section which needs serious revision is the controversial hate section 718.2. It has raised the ire and concern of many Canadians. Section 718.2 stipulates that a court which imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration that sentences should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.
Furthermore, the bill goes on to propose that sentences take into account that evidence the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim shall be deemed aggravating circumstances.
One problem with this section which has been raised by many Canadians is the loosely defined use of the term sexual orientation. Canadians have repeatedly attempted to get their concerns regarding this section heard by the government. Numerous petitions and calls in the House for a legal definition of the term sexual orientation in the bill have fallen on deaf ears. The government still insists proceeding with the section as it stands; so much for consulting the people.
Without a definition of sexual orientation the government is leaving itself wide open to a whole new era of legal challenges. The bill opens the door for the public and courts to define sexual orientation as they see fit. This could include legitimizing paedophiles' engaging in sexual activities with young children, suggesting that because it is their sexual orientation it is a legitimate activity. This is nonsense. It is a major concern. Canadians are aware there has been an active movement for paedophilia to be considered a legitimate sexual orientation. This has to be addressed.
Another problem with section 718.2 is it opens the door for all kinds of confusion before the courts. If a person who fits into any one of the categories has been assaulted, this person will have the right to insist the crown attorney show the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on sexual orientation of the victim.
Clearly bias, hate and prejudice against another person should not be tolerated. However, opening up this section as a basis for increased penalties opens a can of worms the government will not be able to close.
In determining appropriate sentences for crimes, courts should only consider the nature of the offence: Was it a robbery or a sexual assault? Was violence involved? Whether or not the offence was directed against a heterosexual or a homosexual, a Catholic or an atheist, a Caucasian or non-Caucasian is simply irrelevant. The whole concept of adding hatred threatens equal treatment under the law.
Hatred, bias and prejudice cannot be defined. The nature of the crime should be judged and punished accordingly, not the race, religion or sexual orientation of the victim or the perpetrator. It should not matter who or what kind of person the victim or perpetrator is when a crime is brought before the courts. Law has no business investigating or questioning these attributes. In doing so the proposed law will infringe on the civil rights and liberties of individuals.
Just as this government proposes to impose on civil rights and liberties of Canadians with its prejudicial hiring quotas in Bill C-64, the act to impose hiring equity, the government also proposes to entrench inequities through this bill. Just as all
Canadians should be able to compete equally for jobs irrespective of race, religion, gender or disability, so should all Canadians be able to defend themselves in a court of law regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
Canadians will not tolerate the big brother attitude of this government. The Liberals may be able to hide from Canadians the contents of their bills now by invoking closure on debate but Canadians will not be silent when their rights and liberties are threatened.
Over 71,000 Canadians have petitioned this House not to pass Bill C-41 as it stands. Over 10,000 letters opposing this bill were delivered to the justice minister last week. The justice minister has received over 70,000 letters opposing this bill. There is no question Canadians clearly do not agree with the Liberal government on this issue.
The minister states that he consulted with Canadians before implementing legislation, but with whom did he consult on Bill C-41? The growing arrogance of this government is becoming very apparent and Canadians simply will not continue to tolerate it.
Come next election the message of Canadians will be loud and clear. Just as the people spoke in the 1993 election, so they will speak in 1997. The government may be able to ignore and silence the will of Canadians today but no government is above the democratic voice of the people. The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them who did not listen to the people, will go down in flames.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member opposite on his speech, particularly since during his speech he referred to the Reform Party as the official opposition, which is what really has been happening in the House.
The member went into detail on his private life, particularly in terms of private individuals who are overly committed financially and how he would fix their situation. I find it rather ironic that if the federal government were in the same position as any business or individual, it would have been bankrupt a long, long time ago.
At a time when the provinces are balancing their budgets, one after the other all the way down the road, the member seems to think that the federal government is somehow different, that it does not have to balance its budget. It is off somewhere after a future election, off into the sunset somewhere, which is very much the old style promises of the old style politics.
Why does the member think that the federal government is different from the provinces which are balancing their budgets one after the other all the way down the line?
Petitions June 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes form all across Canada and contains 969 signatures, making a total of 5,069 to date.
The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a six-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.
These petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.
Petitions May 30th, 1995
The second petition, Madam Speaker, containing 50 signatures requests that Parliament immediately 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.
Petitions May 30th, 1995
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following two petitions from my riding. The first containing 53 signatures requests that Parliament ensure 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.
Justice May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has been stonewalling Patrick Kelly's application to review his case for a year and a half.
Kelly, a former RCMP officer, is in jail for allegedly killing his wife but now the key witness admits that she lied on the stand. The review of Kelly's case has dragged on and now the justice minister wants Kelly's lawyer, Clayton Ruby, to sign a gag order before documents key to Kelly's case will be released.
The justice minister said:
We will disclose all of those records that are relevant to the issues raised in the application and that will be done.
Now the minister is placing roadblocks in front of Kelly's lawyer.
Why the secrecy? The information being withheld from Mr. Kelly was collected at public expense by a public agency for use in a public prosecution. What are the Liberals trying to hide and what is in the documents that the Liberals are afraid of?
Why is there no justice in Mr. Kelly's case?
Minister Of The Environment May 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the environment minister said: "It is the first question on the environment in a year and a half".
We are now seeing why this minister has been such a failure as Minister of the Environment. She simply does not recognize an environmental question when she hears it.
How quickly the minister chooses to forget my recent questions regarding the clean-up of Canada's worst environmental disaster, the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia, or my colleagues' questions regarding MMT.
When is the Minister of the Environment going to take charge and quit whining that her failures are due to the opposition? When is the minister going to take charge of her own department and pass some meaningful environmental legislation?
It is little wonder that the Prime Minister will be shuffling this minister off into oblivion come this summer. She is simply ineffective.
Petitions May 2nd, 1995
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, which comes from all across Canada and contains 1,000 signatures, making a total of 4,100 signatures to date, states that the undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, the six-year-old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.
These petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to ensure conviction of offenders.