Roseanne Skoke

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

In the second petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners pray that Parliament not 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. I agree with this petition.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present to this honourable House three petitions from concerned constituents in my riding of Central Nova.

The first petition prays that Parliament 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. I support their stand with respect to this issue.

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that I made reference to the hon. member for Yellowknife and I wish to apologize if there were problems arising from that. It is the hon. member for Yellowhead. I apologize if there was any confusion there.

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I feel I have a right and an obligation to respond to the point of order. I point out to the Chair this is not a point of order that the member for Burnaby-Kingsway raises.

If any member has the right to rise on a point of order arising from our debates on the floor of the House on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, it would be me. I have a right as a parliamentarian to express unequivocally what I feel is appropriate on debate when scrutinizing legislation.

If anyone has any concerns it should be this member because of the comments made by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. In Hansard the Speaker will see where he refers to me making statements on the floor of the House that I did not in fact make on the floor of the House. He specifically makes reference to select words and uses the words out of context, words arising from a debate on May 15, 1994 on the CBC prime time news program ``On the Line''. The issue discussed and debated was what rights should gays be entitled to and questions were posed by both the commentator and the public at large.

The member for Burnaby-Kingsway stood on the floor of the House and used select words and put to other members of the House his opinion of what I said. I will quote specifically from Hansard at page 5913. He states: ``Will she now stand in her

place and retract those hateful comments?" He makes reference to words that I used on the floor of the House as being hateful.

Second, he indicates that I have no place in the Liberal Party. He then refers to me at page 5912 as "the hon. member, and I use those words advisedly". That is not proper parliamentary language.

At page 5916, speaking to another member when I was not present in the House, on four occasions in the same commentary he referred to me as "she". Not once did he refer to me as the member for Central Nova. I object to that. That is improper. He is a senior parliamentarian and I expect respect on the floor of the House, particularly when I am not present.

At page 5919 the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway in a commentary to the hon. member for Yellowknife said: "The hon. member was present in the House", referring to the member for Yellowknife, "when the Liberal member of Parliament for Central Nova made comments, among other things, suggesting that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural when she suggested that AIDS was a scourge to mankind which had been inflicted upon the country by homosexuals".

Nowhere in Hansard will it be seen that I made those comments on the floor of the House. I demand a public apology.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have probably squared off on this issue before. I stand here in my place as a member of Parliament and under no circumstances would I ever retract the statements I have made. I have a right as a Canadian. I have a right as a Christian to defend the values of our country and to defend the traditions and to exercise my right of freedom of expression on this issue.

My learned friend raised the issue that they were hateful comments. They are not hateful comments. They are true comments shared by the majority of Canadians with respect to issues regarding morality.

My learned friend talks about families. The sole purpose, the sole agenda behind the homosexualists in our country is with respect to redefinition of family. I oppose that. I will fight strongly against that and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I ask all Canadians to do the same.

Homosexualists enjoy the same rights as every other Canadian. They do not enjoy any special rights. I as a member of Parliament will work to ensure that the rights of the majority of Canadians and that the values and the morality of this country are upheld.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue which I think has to be and should be addressed on the floor of the House. Certainly it is an issue that I have not shied away from. It is not always a very comfortable issue to talk about.

My learned friend indicated 10 per cent of the population. We have the majority. We have a democracy. I am representing in my viewpoint the majority of Canadians. We have to concern ourselves with the fact that justice, law and morality are inseparable. We are legislators. When we are legislating and making laws we must ask ourselves whether our laws are just and moral.

Morality is constant. Morality does not change with the tide. We cannot change morality to adhere to a particular faction or special interest group or to adhere to the whims of 10 per cent of our population.

When we talk about sexual orientation we are talking about imposing upon and insisting that all Canadians condone what in my opinion is immoral and unnatural. We have natural law. I have gone on record as stating quite clearly that I am opposed to the inclusion of the words sexual orientation in our Criminal Code. I have also gone on record as saying in my speech that certainly in Canada we cannot and should not tolerate hatred of any kind toward any individual.

As far as the moral issues that are raised here, we have to be very concerned and considerate of the rights of families in Canada. Families have inherent rights. Families have existed before the church and families have existed before the state. The rights of families in my opinion are being undermined and are being eroded because of 10 per cent of the population that is promoting special rights and interests for homosexuals. I am strongly opposed to that. I will continue to be very vocal about it. I feel it is time the majority of Canadians stood and were counted.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a practising defence lawyer with 17 years experience in the criminal justice system I commend the Minister of Justice for introducing sentencing practices which are responsive to the concerns and values of Canadians and which address the many existing injustices inherent in the criminal procedure process and the practices of our criminal justice system.

Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to sentencing is a bill which reflects the government's commitment to a renewed criminal justice system that is balanced, fair, and encourages respect for the law.

Justice, law and equality are the fundamental elements required to maintain a balance within our criminal justice system. However, the determining factor is the human element.

It is the human element that determines the success or failure of our criminal justice system. The human element includes ourselves as individuals who are to be law-abiding citizens, the community at large which develops public opinion, the role of our law enforcers which is to enforce law, the role of our prosecutors administering justice within the system, the role of defence counsel defending and protecting rights of the accused, the role of the judiciary rendering a decision, the role of our probation officers, psychologists, social workers, health care professionals, penal institution employees, our clergymen regarding the rehabilitation of the accused, and the role of we here today, the legislators, enacting the law.

The success of the system does not primarily rely on legislation. The fundamental success of our criminal justice system relies on the ability of man to administer justice without abuse of authority and power, and the ability of man to administer justice coupled with equity and mercy.

Justice, law and morality are inseparable. If a moral society existed there would be no need for criminal sanction. It is a requirement for this criminal sanction in our society that necessitates government to deter, to punish, to rehabilitate its members of society.

Bill C-41 on sentencing reform introduces changes to the sentencing system while also reorganizing and rationalizing it. The reforms provide a balanced, sensible and broad range of options that address the public's need for safety, the victims' desire for restitution, and the important principle that serious offenders should be treated differently from minor or first-time offenders.

The amendments are the result of extensive consultations in co-operation with the provinces and territories that are responsible for administering the criminal justice system.

This bill provides the courts with more options to distinguish between serious violent crime requiring jail and less serious, non-violent crime that could be addressed more effectively at the community level.

For those Canadians who demand equity in sentencing, Bill C-41 addresses this concern by introducing a statement of purpose and principles of sentencing within the Criminal Code.

No statement of purpose and principles of sentencing currently exist in the Criminal Code. While court rulings have determined principles, these may vary from province to province. To date Parliament's role has largely been limited to setting maximum penalties for specific offences rather than dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.

Under the proposals, a statement of purpose in principles of sentencing will be added to the Criminal Code. This statement will provide direction to the courts and the fundamental purpose of sentencing to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

The statement describes the objectives of sentencing as follows: first, helping in the rehabilitation of offenders as law-abiding persons; second, separating offenders from society where necessary; third, providing restitution to individual victims or the community; fourth, promoting a sense of responsibility by offenders, including encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to victims or to the community at large; fifth, denouncing unlawful conduct; and sixth, deterring the offender and other people from committing offences.

In achieving these objectives the court will be guided by a number of fundamental principles: first, a sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence; second, the degree of responsibility of the offender; third, courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances; fourth, give similar sentences to offenders who have committed similar acts; fifth, when an offender receives more than one sentence, the total should not be unduly long or harsh; sixth, the offender should not be imprisoned if less restrictive alternatives are appropriate; and seventh, all reasonable alternatives should be considered when sentencing offenders.

The statement of purpose and principles will also note the importance of crime prevention to public safety. In addition, it will recognize that wherever appropriate, alternative measures designed to meet the special needs of aboriginal offenders should be used. The statements of purpose and principles in the Criminal Code will emphasize unity and coherence in the criminal justice system. These measures will ensure greater

consistency, balance and fairness within the criminal justice system as a whole.

Adding a statement of purpose and principles makes the sentencing process responsive to public concerns by ensuring that it is governed by principles set out by Parliament. Clearly defining the purpose of sentencing also makes the system more understandable, predictable and accessible to the public.

A national policy statement on sentencing will also provide the legal community with a more consistent direction on how to approach sentencing in Canada.

The proposed statement of principles also says that when an offence is motivated by hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation of the victim, this must be considered an aggravating circumstance.

Any offence motivated by hate against any individual in Canada should not be tolerated. I wish to reiterate this statement, that any offence motivated by hate against any individual in Canada should not be tolerated.

However, I wish to go on record today as taking exception to the specific inclusion of the wording of "sexual orientation" in the Criminal Code amendment. The inclusion of this wording in effect gives special rights, special consideration, to homosexuals. The reference to sexual orientation in the code and its proposed inclusion in the human rights legislation gives recognition to a faction in our society which is undermining and destroying our Canadian values and Christian morality. Such a special recognition of sexual orientation in our federal legislation is an overt condonation of the practice of homosexuality which is being imposed on Canadians. It has the effect of legislating a morality that is not supported by our Canadian and Christian morals and values.

Canadians do not have to accept homosexuality as being natural and moral. Homosexuality is not natural, it is immoral and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of our Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned.

The public expresses legitimate concerns for victims of crime. Bill C-41 provides enhanced provisions for victims. Some courts have excluded victim information from being considered at section 745 hearings because this information was felt to be a form of victim impact statement, which according to the Criminal Code can only be heard at sentencing hearings.

The amendments to the Criminal Code would allow victim information at section 745 hearings. This would ensure that a victim has the opportunity to speak about the harm done by the offender and that the victim's experience is taken into account in determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced.

Bill C-41 addresses the concerns of Canadians with respect to the issue of restitution. The bill contains proposals that were developed co-operatively by the federal government and the provinces. They would allow judges to consider restitution to cover property and personal injury.

Expanded restitution would also be available in situations where a person acting in good faith unwittingly becomes the victim of criminal activities by, for example, unknowingly buying stolen property that is later confiscated by police.

Provision is made to ensure restitution orders can be enforced by the civil courts. Victims will also be notified of restitution orders. As well the code would specifically state that any restitution order by a criminal court would not limit a victim's right to sue for damages in a civil court.

Bill C-41 also addresses payment of fines. Currently one-third of adult offenders in jails in Canada are there because they did not pay a fine. Research shows that aboriginal people are especially likely to be jailed due to non-payment of fines. To ensure that fewer persons are ordered to pay fines they cannot afford, the proposals would require courts to determine that an offender can pay the fine being considered.

Offenders who cannot pay can instead be subject to other options such as community service or probation. A number of measures are also being proposed to help the provinces in collecting fines. These include authorizing the provinces to use the same mechanisms that they use enforcing fines imposed under federal statute.

Designate officers of the court such as the clerk or registrar to enforce fines rather than the court itself allows for more cost efficient administration with respect to the collection of fines.

Ultimately these proposals would result in less crowded, safer prisons as well as decrease costs. They would also lessen the potentially damaging effect of imprisonment on people unable to pay fines. However, maintaining prison as a last resort for people who can pay fines will ensure that the law is respected.

Another important issue the bill addresses is with respect to reform regarding probation. The probation provisions of the Criminal Code have been changed to encourage better information for the court. Together with greater penalties for breach of probation this is intended to increase confidence in this widely used sentence.

Under the proposals the Criminal Code would be intended to specify the basic information that must be included in a pre-sentence report. The provinces will also be given the flexibility to include in their own regulations any other information they wish to have included in this pre-sentence report.

The criminal justice system often fails Canadians and therefore we need alternatives in Canada to court proceedings. Alternative measures are ways that disputes and minor offences can be dealt with rather than using expensive and unnecessary formal court proceedings.

Alternative measures have two central aims: to prevent more criminal behaviour and to lessen the harm that can sometimes be done when minor offenders are dealt with through the courts.

They also involve the community and put greater emphasis on victim-offender reconciliation than do formal court proceedings. At present the Criminal Code contains no provisions for alternative measures.

The bill would allow the use of alternative measures for adults by permitting each province to set up and administer its own alternative measures program. This proposal is similar to one successfully used in various jurisdictions for young offenders. As a result first time and less serious offenders could be diverted from the courts. This would promote protection of the public by lessening the negative impact of incarceration on less serious offenders while freeing up valuable and scarce resources to deal with the more serious cases. Canadians should know that the bill would add a new sanction called a conditional sentence to the Criminal Code. Courts would be permitted to use conditional sentences when the jail term that would otherwise be imposed will be less than two years.

A judge would impose certain conditions on an offender similar to the conditions of a probation order. At the same time the judge would impose a jail term but suspend it as long as the offender meets the conditions that had been imposed.

Offenders who do not comply with these conditions can be summoned back to court to explain and to demonstrate why they should not be incarcerated. The court can cancel the suspension of the sentence and send the offender to jail for the remainder of the sentence, or it can impose new conditions.

The proposal would mean that less serious and first time offenders who otherwise would be in jail could serve their sentences under tight controls in the community. This promotes protection of the public by seeking to separate more serious offenders from the community while providing less serious offenders with effective community based alternatives. It could also mean that scarce funds could be used for incarcerating and treating more serious offenders.

As a defence lawyer I have great concern with respect to the existing rules of evidence and procedure for the sentencing hearing. At present there are no clear guidelines in the law governing the sentencing hearing to indicate when information should be made available to the court, what powers the court should have to obtain that information, or how that information should be assessed in determining sentences. Previous court rulings may be referred to but they do not cover all situations and may differ significantly from province to province.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to clarify how sentences should be handled in the courts. The bill also requires every judge to present reasons for their sentences in cases. These amendments bring greater consistency and fairness to the sentencing process.

The Criminal Code of Canada as a statute requires restructuring and in particular the restructuring of part 23 of the Criminal Code. Our current legislation with amendments leaves us with a piecemeal approach to our Criminal Code. The bill would amend part 23 so that most matters dealing with sentencing would be consolidated within this part of the Criminal Code rather than scattered throughout. Because of the restructuring in such a logical way our Criminal Code would be more understandable and accessible to criminal justice professionals and to the public at large.

Often injustices arise in a criminal justice system on the basis of technicalities. Technical amendments are required and Bill C-41 addresses this point. A variety of technical issues are either not addressed by our current legislation or are being confused. These include when a probation order should begin, how a judge can direct the manner in which escape sentences are to be served in relation to previously imposed sentences, what happens to a sentence while an inmate is unlawfully at large and who can authorize the transfer of a probationer from one province to another. The bill intends to clarify some of these issues.

In conclusion the reform and the renewal of the criminal justice system in Canada must be priorities with our government. Canadians demand justice and equity. They must be reflected within the criminal practices, procedure and process in our criminal justice system.

The sentencing amendments proposed by Bill C-41 affords Canadians sentencing practices and procedures that are just and equitable throughout Canada.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition which has been duly executed by constituents residing in the municipality of Victoria, British Columbia.

The petition opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide and prays that Parliament will not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code.

I support the petition and now table it with the honourable House.

[Right To Life, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the House private member's Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code relevant to the issue of abortion introduced by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The purpose of the bill is to make it a criminal offence to require a physician, nurse, staff member or employee of a hospital or health facility to perform or participate in an abortion procedure.

The bill would also make it a criminal offence to discriminate against any of these persons for refusing to perform or participate in an abortion procedure.

It is time Parliament exercised its jurisdiction to enact legislation to protect and safeguard the rights and life of a child ventre sa mere, the child within the womb.

Enact legislation now to guarantee the right to life at all stages from the moment of conception until natural death.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion today. I congratulate the hon. member on behalf of Canadians families for taking the initiative to bring this bill forward.

Tax treatment of child support is not merely an issue of taxation. The tax treatment of child support goes to the fundamental principles of justice and equity. The paramount consideration in determining the issue of tax treatment of child support must be in the best interest of our children and in the best interest of the family, not the legal or economic considerations which are often the determining factors in taxation issues.

Fundamental to this legislative debate here today are the principles of equity and fairness. To tax child support payments is inequitable. To give a tax deduction to the payer of child support is inequitable.

During my 17 years of practice in the field of family law I saw the burdens that exist as a result of the inequities both economic and social and that are still existing today due to the marriage breakdown and the breakdown of families and family life.

The economic and social inequity is borne by the custodial parent who is left without the burden to provide the financial and the non-financial contribution to the support of the children as a result of marriage breakdown.

I draw the attention of the House to the Moge and Moge Supreme Court of Canada case and its reasoned judgment which gives details of the hardship, the economic disparities, poverty and inequities that exist as a result of marriage breakdown in our society today. I also draw attention to the allocation of child support, the quantum and the inequities that exist throughout

our country. I recommend this decision to members for their reading for background information.

Another inequity that exists is that a payer of child support should be rewarded with a taxation deduction to provide an incentive to support one's very own family. We should question the underlying issues of morality and equity and ask why Canada is the only country in the world to tax child support payments and to provide such a deduction to the payer.

Another inequity in the present system is that the families that stay together and are united in marriage are not provided a tax deduction or allowed income splitting to provide economic equity for our stay at home mothers or one income families.

In conclusion, in keeping with the fundamental principles of justice and equity and to afford legal, economic and social protection of our families as they exist today, all the inequities that are raised in this bill must be addressed without delay.