Elwin Hermanson

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great patience to the debate unfold this evening. I have my speaking points here. As a matter of fact I even have the Liberal speaking points for Bill C-41, their strategy to try to win the debate and to out-talk the opposition. I have heard the arguments of all the lawyers on both sides of the House and on both sides of the issue. If anything, it has given me more of a prejudice or a bias against lawyers, perhaps because I am a bit troubled with this bill.

I see in the Liberal speaking points that it states: "Bill C-41 will not be the subject of a free vote". It concerns me that the Liberal powers had to send a note to all of their members suggesting that they dare not suggest a free vote on this issue. That is very disconcerting.

I probably have had just about as much mail on this issue as I have had on gun control. They have been running neck and neck. I think actually the gun control issue won the day, but hundreds of letters have poured into my office expressing concern. Most of the letters were handwritten or typed. Very few letters were duplicated, photocopied or photostatted. A lot of the letters expressed serious concerns about C-41. Unfortunately, it all bore down on this particular portion that deals with the hate section. This bill is rather large and I am sure there are a lot more weaknesses in this bill than just the area we are discussing in this section of report stage.

I want to talk a little bit about the whole process of hate, bias, and prejudice. Raised out in the prairies, I was taught that we were to love our enemies. I was taught that hate was wrong. I believe with all my heart that hate is wrong. It is very difficult to know when you are loved or hated. You cannot always tell. Mr. Speaker, when you look at me I do not sense that you hate me. I expect you do not, and I assure you I do not hate you. Perhaps I would and I was hiding it. This bill attempts to play god by looking into people's heads and deciding whether or not they hate and whether or not the crime they committed was based on their hate, prejudice or bias. The words prejudice and bias concern me even more than the word hate in this legislation.

A crime is a crime. If someone commits an assault against me it is a criminal action and the Criminal Code allows the justice system to deal with that action. Whether that person hates me or not, it is a crime and needs to be dealt with.

What is morality and what is immorality? That is very difficult to determine. What if somebody knocks me on the head because they want to see if I have some money in my wallet? That is a crime, an assault. It is immoral because that person wants the money in my wallet. That is just as immoral as if the person hated me because I am white or because I am a heterosexual.

It is wrong. There are laws in place to deal with that offence, whether the person is committing an immoral act of knocking me over the head to commit a theft of my money or whether he is knocking me over the head because he hates me for some reason. Put forward in the bill is my gender, my sexual preference, my physical disability if I should have any. It is a crime and our Criminal Code has to deal with crimes because they are crimes, not because of who committed them or why they were committed. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

The bill is causing great division and great concern that our justice system will begin to look into people's heads and convict them based on playing the role of god in determining whether or not they hate, are prejudiced or biased. That is wrong. That is why the legislation is wrong and it should be defeated.

The Holocaust was a hateful, terrible blight on human history. It was wrong and all the perpetrators should have been brought to justice for that terrible atrocity against humanity. It was wrong. It was criminal. It was hateful.

If someone kicks, beats or attacks a person because they are not white, that is wrong. There are provisions in the Criminal Code already to deal with that hateful, wrong crime and I applaud that. If a person is attacked for some other reason other than those on the short list in Bill C-41, it is just as wrong and needs to be punished just as severely.

This follows along the lines of the Charlottetown accord where winners and losers were picked. One group is especially set aside and included in the legislation. Somehow it is given more pre-eminence by the judicial system. Those who are not on the list are nobodys. They are not nearly as important. The justice system needs to deal fairly with criminal acts. So what if it was theft? Let us just give a light sentence; it was not a hate crime. That thinking is wrong. This legislation is wrong and should be defeated. It does not need to be passed in this form.

I have biases and prejudices and I do not make apologies for those. Some are positive biases and some may be considered to be negative biases. I have a negative bias toward the Liberal Party because of the legislation it put forward. I do not hate Liberals but I have a bias against them and that is why I did not run as a Liberal. That is fair and just. There is nothing wrong with that. I have a bias in favour of my wife. That is why I married her. I thought she was wonderful. I see other people I would never want to be married to. I may have a bias against them but I do not hate them. That is not a criminal action.

If this bill were passed, who knows how the courts might interpret the legislation? It is rather frightening because the bill is not just talking about assaults. It is talking about all criminal actions.

I could talk about a lot of issues but before my time runs out, I want to talk about whether laws like this create solutions or whether they exacerbate the problem.

There is another category of people who are not looked upon very highly. I happen to be one of them. That is the category we all fit into on these benches, the category of politicians. Politicians are not included in this legislation. I know all of us have heard people say that they should take all politicians, put them in a boat, take them to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and sink the thing.

That is terrible. I would be one of them. I would be sunk. That could be considered hateful and wrong. So what should we do? Should we include politicians in this legislation as well? Is that going to solve the problem? Will people suddenly think we are wonderful because we put a law in place that says you must not say that politicians should be put in a boat, sailed out to the middle of the ocean and sunk? That would exacerbate the problem. People would say: "Aha, we were right. They should be put in a boat, taken to the middle of the ocean and sunk". This is creating a worse problem because it is bringing these groups into prominence.

In summation, let me give an example. This House wants to pass a bill that will give MPs a special pension. Is that not wonderful, a special law just for MPs. That is going to endear us to the public, is it not? It is far richer than any pension in the private sector. Is that going to make people love us more? No, it will do the opposite. People are going to say: "Those politicians, they have to have a special pension plan just for them. They have to have special laws just for them. They want to be above the common people. They need special consideration". People then begin to have negative feelings. They have biases and prejudices, perhaps even hatred against politicians. That is wrong.

The philosophy behind this bill is wrong. It needs to be defeated and I will be voting against it.

[Liberal Party Of Canada, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, along with millions of Canadians I am angry at the Liberal government for its frequent use of undemocratic tactics regarding firearms, employment equity, sentencing for hate crimes, and MP pension bills.

The Liberals are proving that they are no different from Mulroney's Tories who used procedural trickery to ram through the GST. Liberals have equaled Brian Mulroney when it comes to lack of fairness, honesty and integrity in the House.

What is worse, Liberals have got into bed with the separatists to expedite the hijacking of Parliament. They struck a deal with the Bloc so sovereignty could start by St. Jean Baptiste weekend.

Now it seems that the PQ-BQ alliance treats its members as ruthlessly as the Liberal government. Mr. Parizeau punished one of his members for voting against the PQ budget, just as the member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was punished for voting against the Liberal budget and three other Liberals were punished for voting against gun control.

It is clear the Liberals and the Bloc-PQ parties are old style political parties cut from the same cloth. They have no sense of fairness or democracy and are arrogant in the extreme.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very personal matter because the pension affects us. I am trying to abide by the rules of the House and I appreciate your consideration of that.

Should Bill C-85 be passed by the House, the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain, a somewhat older member, would receive about a quarter of a million dollars.

Then there is the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River who is a much younger member. Should he live to be age 75 he will receive $.83 million should he remain a backbencher for the rest of his career.

The NDP and the Liberal MPs from Saskatchewan, there are about ten, would have benefits approximating $1 million each. They would siphon out of the taxpayers' pockets approximately $10 million.

In Saskatchewan we are hard working, industrious and honest people. We work hard for our money and we are quite proud of what we have received as a result of our labours. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people of Saskatchewan do not approve of the pension plan. I heard it wherever I went. I had calls and letters from people in my province thanking me for agreeing to opt out of the plan. They said I am doing the right thing. They have been very encouraging. It encourages me to plan the next election campaign not only for Saskatchewan but for the entire country, whenever the government has the nerve to call an election. We will go out there and bring more Reformers into the House who will reject these types of unreasonable personal gains at the taxpayers' expense.

I challenge Liberals from Saskatchewan to do the right thing and get out of the plan. They can, they have the option, they do not have to stay in the plan, not one of them. If they want to really please their constituents I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they have no choice but to get out of the pension plan. I commit to the House today to do everything in my power to keep them from being re-elected if they do not do the right thing and opt out of the plan.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly sad to have to speak to legislation as deplorable as Bill C-85, the pension bill.

It could be described with many words. I could use the words ignorant, arrogant, indefensible. I think those words probably describe the authors of this legislation as well but they do not even adequately describe how terrible it is. The words it takes to describe the legislation are unparliamentary; I cannot use them. What really troubles me is the government is embarrassed about the legislation and will not even allow a proper debate.

I sat across the table from the Solicitor General of Canada, the government House leader, and he looked me in the eye and said the government will very rarely use closure. He gave me his word we would see the government use time allocation and closure far less than its predecessor, the arrogant Mulroney regime.

Being a new and maybe idealistic member of Parliament, I took the solicitor general's statement to heart that perhaps we were to see a new era in Canadian politics. Perhaps we were to see some progress in this place where we could work together and build a country worthy of the people we are supposed to represent. I was wrong, terribly disappointed.

The government has introduced time allocation and closure far more than the Mulroney government which it vigorously criticized for that undemocratic procedure. The government has introduced in only 19 months a far greater percentage of closure motions regarding bills than the Mulroney administration. That is deplorable and disappointing.

It is particularly disappointing that the government would use such a draconian measure on a bill that gives us personal gain. It is unconscionable, it is wrong. I cannot think of words I can use in the House to adequately describe how troubled I am by the measures the government is taking and the lengths it will go to impose its will on me as a member of Parliament vigorously opposed to the legislation and on Canadians who in no uncertain terms told every member of the House, Liberals as well as Block and Reform members, the pension plan needed to be reformed to that of the private sector on a one to one basis or a self-funded pension plan.

The government has introduced a bill in which it will not allow future MPs to opt out and which is illegal under the income tax act. It will have to put special legislation in place to allow the plan to be legal. The draconian measures it is implementing to get the bill through are truly disappointing. I feel bad for Canadians who will receive such bad representation and bad legislation from the Liberal government.

I am not sure if NDP members will accept this plan. I challenge them to go back to their roots. They came of an agrarian movement, the CCF movement in Saskatchewan. I challenge them to go back to those roots of simple, hard working people who believed a dollar gained was a dollar that should have been earned, and they would not stoop to the levels this bill would impose on them if they agreed to opt into the pension plan.

To the hon. members for Mackenzie and Regina-Qu'Appelle, Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, Regina-Lumsden and The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, I challenge them to opt out of the pension plan as the Reform MPs from Saskatchewan are to do.

I will focus my few remaining minutes on the Liberal members from Saskatchewan. At the top of the list is the cabinet representative from Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Regina-Wascana. He was here years ago and has come back. He was put into cabinet. He is a lawyer. I do not think he understands agriculture very well but he certainly knows how to make money on a pension plan because by the age of 75 he will qualify for $1.64 million. He does not even apologize for that outrageous amount.

Then there is the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. It is rather embarrassing this member was even nominated in her constituency. She had to be anointed by the leader of the Liberal Party. She did not even have support in her own constituency. They had to cancel the nomination meeting and bypass the democratic process so she would be the candidate who would run in Saskatoon-Humboldt. She will receive almost $1 million from the pension plan should she live to the age of 75. That is assuming, and I think it is a fairly safe assumption, she will never become a Cabinet minister. It would certainly be higher if she did.

Then there is the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain-

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

And it is not a skinny dip.

[Points Of Order, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring a procedural matter to your attention.

Bill C-68 was tabled on February 14 with a royal recommendation. The Standing Committee on Justice did not rule a government amendment calling for the appropriation of funds from consolidated revenues out of order. However, on June 5, 1995, the chairman, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, ruled a series of amendments moved by the member for Hamilton Mountain on behalf of the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury out of order as an expenditure of funds that would be necessary to affect the provisions.

On June 1, 1995, the vice-chairperson, the member for London West, with what appears to be without advice from the clerk of the committee, permitted clauses 98, 99, 100, 101, and 101.1 to be amended to replace certain duties of police officers in making the duties of firearms inspectors.

The parliamentary secretary stated that while police officers will also in some cases carry out the function of inspectors, in some areas the police are fully employed at present. These officers do not have the luxury to assume additional demands on their time. In those circumstances, inspectors will be hired and trained to enforce the Firearms Act.

I quote from the transcript of the committee proceedings:

Inspectors wouldn't be police officers. They may be in some smaller communities where the police officer could do this role, but in most communities the police officers' time is so taken up right now that to give the police officers these additional tasks would not be reasonable. In most cases they would be separate. New inspectors would be hired and trained to fulfil the role.

Obviously this new provision in the bill will result in an expenditure of funds. The Governor General has not provided the House with the required recommendation in this regard. I would quote from citation 598 of Beauchesne's:

No cases can be found of any private member receiving the authority of the Crown to propose a bill or motion involving either the expenditure of public money or an increase in taxation.

The royal recommendation included in Bill C-68 did not contemplate the appropriation of public revenue for the expenditure outlined in the government amendments G-41, G-42, G-43, G-44, and G-46.

Furthermore, the Constitution Act of 1867, section 54, states:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

I will not take the time of the House, but I could also quote from citations 595 and 596 of Beauchesne's, which also verify this requirement.

The first government amendment was not ruled out of order by the vice-chair of the committee. Whether that was due to lack of experience or the lack of procedural advice from the clerk is no longer at issue here. With respect, what is at issue is Bill C-68, as reported to this House on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, is not lawful.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to review the minutes of the committee to verify that what I have presented to you is absolutely correct and accurate.

I have one short additional comment. This bill was reported yesterday. The government has not even seen all of the amendments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I bring two points to your attention. Drafters have not had time to draft amendments, so they have not all been tabled. In spite of this, the government has moved time allocation and closure on this bill. If this is not illegal, it is certainly immoral.

Second, I believe that it is not only imperative but it is your duty, Mr. Speaker, to not permit debate on Bill C-68 until you have ruled on this matter.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Langham area in the Kindersley-Lloydminister constituency.

The petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, states that the existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms' owners are more than enough to ensure public safety.

It goes on to say that the target of all gun control laws in the Criminal Code of Canada must be criminals who are either a danger to the safety of the public or those who have criminal intent, not law-abiding citizens.

No amount of gun control has ever succeeded in preventing criminals from acquiring guns. Therefore, the petitioners request three things of Parliament. First, that we support laws which would severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of crimes. Second, that we support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms. Third, the petitioners support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion the government has brought forward. There has been consultation with all parties in the House. Recognition that we may have been sitting here all night without even being able to vote to reduce the estimates brought to the attention of all of us the need to review the standing orders with a view to finding reforms to make this process meaningful so that we can adequately represent Canadians in the whole process of reviewing the expenditures of the government.

[Liberal Party Of Canada, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a very poor record of keeping its promises on open government, independence of members, and the integrity of Parliament. We will soon see if the Liberal brass respects the right of members to vote freely in the House, or if it considers them to be nothing more than trained seals expected to show up just to make up the needed members and then bark yea or nay as they are told.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has expressed some real concerns about the federal budget. While I do not share his specific concerns I support his right to vote freely in the House to keep the promises he and the Liberals made in the red book, the promises the Liberals are now breaking.

It is unfortunate the Liberals do not support this right. We have already seen three Liberals punished for not toeing the party line. Page 92 of the failing Liberal red book talks of parliamentary reform. It says that open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program. It would be a shame if the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was punished by his own party for keeping his promise when his Liberal masters are breaking theirs.

[Petitions, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition has 36 signatures.

It states that Canada has enacted legislation providing for two official languages, English and French, in Canada and it calls on Parliament to provide for a referendum of the people, binding on Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and people of Canada, the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendment to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.