Dick Harris

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of talk there.

I want to address the first thing the member said. She said that the judges do not have an obligation. Judges are put in a position to preside over criminal cases. They are in fact entrusted with the responsibility and with the obligation to deal in the sentencing of people who are found guilty of committing crimes in this country. They do have the obligation. They clearly have an obligation. The problem is when we get politicians who do not allow them to do their job and want to try to influence them for politically correct reasons or for politically expedient reasons. They interfere with the justice system.

If judges were left alone to do their job without the outside influence from politicians and political parties who believe that people who commit crimes should not be convicted, we would have a safer society.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member. The answer to his last questions are yes, yes, yes, and yes.

However, here we have a bill that has a lot of similarities to Bill C-68 where it has some perfectly good legislation in it. At the same time, because of the way the Liberals operate, it has some terribly bad legislation in it.

This is just like Bill C-68, when we said: "Listen, why do you not split the bill. We will be glad to support you on the part dealing with stiffer penalties, but we cannot support you on the registration". We made amendments to this bill to try to delete some of the bad legislation that we thought was going to cause a lot of problems. It is interesting that so did some of the members over here. The government whip and the justice minister said no, it has to go through.

What is happening is that we are permitted to try to take out bad legislation here, which we have done. The member for Crowfoot made a ton of amendments to try to get this thing so it was acceptable by leaving the good parts and getting rid of the bad parts. I know the hon. member made a lot of amendments himself trying to do exactly the same thing.

However, the fact is that the justice minister, cheered on by the Prime Minister, had an agenda and just tried to ram this thing through and God help anyone in this party who votes against it, because they are going to answer to the whip over the summer.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

He was given one year banishment. He was to go out into a remote area for a year and be counselled by some elders.

I saw an article on that in a Halifax newspaper while going home. By the time I reached Prince George, B.C. it had hit the Prince George Citizen the next day. My phone started ringing off the hook and people were asking me: Is everyone crazy out there?'' I said to them:No, just the Liberals''.

This is the type of justice that Liberals seem to embrace. An individual is responsible for a crime which he or she commits. But Liberals do not believe in placing the responsibility on the individual who commits the crime. No. The Liberal philosophy says that it is society which is to blame. Let us penalize society. Society turned this person that way. They are not to blame.

The fact is there are provisions in the Criminal Code to deal with serious crimes, even the hate crimes which are pointed out in section 718.2. We have penalties on the books now.

I want to get back to sentencing. Section 718.2(c) states:

where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

When I read that I see Pierre Elliott Trudeau and I see his former justice minister, the one responsible for section 745. It is the rallying cry of bleeding heart liberalism personified in the bill. Far be it for the courts to suggest that criminals should be punished for a crime.

Many Canadians are wondering about the existence of concurrent sentences. Why should a criminal convicted of several crimes serve his sentences concurrently so that he ends up serving a sentence for only one of the crimes?

This fashion of sentencing, consecutive and concurrent, is the number one contributor to plea bargaining, to deal making outside the courts. The lawyers get together, have a cup of coffee and say: "If you want to play golf this afternoon let's cop a plea and we will get this thing over with".

People read in the paper about someone who has been convicted of a serious crime and got a slap on the wrist. Most times the judge takes a bad rap for that because the lawyers had made the deal outside the courtroom before it even got to the judge. I have a decent enough regard for lawyers. They have to make a living too. We took the bounty off them in our party, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberals have it all wrong in Bill C-41. They are simply reacting to pressure from the interest groups which supported them during the election. The Liberals are famous for that. Mr. Trudeau probably did the best job at gathering together people from different categories and from different groups so that when the election came along they did not have to start talking to people individually, they just talked to the leaders and the rest of the people followed behind.

Our country is on a dangerous path. We would be negligent as parliamentarians if we dared to forget that the people of Canada have a right to decide what kind of society they want to live in. As long as the government refuses to listen to a broad spectrum of the Canadian people to hear their ideas and concerns, then anything it attempts to do with the criminal justice system is going to serve only the people who support it.

This is the underlying purpose of the bill. It is not to try to address crime in a meaningful way, but rather to placate the special interest groups that are giving the government a lot of problems right now.

I cannot in any way support a bill like this. I have had probably in excess of 15,000 pieces of mail from my riding all saying: "You are our member of Parliament for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. We implore you to vote against Bill C-41 particularly against section 718.2" which attempts to categorize certain types of crime based on the categories that the Liberal Party wants there.

In response to the people who sent me here to represent them I will most assuredly vote against Bill C-41 and comply with the wishes of my constituents, something that the party opposite is not able to do.

Let me rephrase that. In all fairness there are members of the party opposite, and I apologize to them publicly now, who have had the guts to stand up and say, I am going to represent my constituency. That is what I was sent here to do. That is what I am going to do. I congratulate them and I condemn the whip. I condemn the Prime Minister for the things he has said about the people who have had the guts to stand up and vote in a democratic fashion representing their constituents.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that becomes abundantly clear in this whole debate is the Liberal Party appears to be very uncomfortable with section 718.2.

We on this side know the bill is some 75 pages long. Some of the Liberal members have pointed out the bill is some 75 pages long. However, invariably every one of the Liberal speakers tonight has zeroed in on 718.2. Why is that? The reason is they are uncomfortable with it. They are finding themselves being put into a position of having to defend it over and over again and their case is getting weaker and weaker.

Now we find in this debate, which has been happening since the bill was first introduced, the speakers becoming proactive in jumping into 718.2 in order to fend off some questions from the other side. If I were not comfortable with 718.2 had I presented it as part of the government I would probably be doing the same thing.

Tens of thousands of letters, cards and names on petitions have come into Parliament, to members, by people who have taken the time to read Bill C-41. They have taken the time to get an understanding of what section 718.2 really means, what kind of precedent it can set and what it may lead to in the future when we come to defining some of the categories mentioned in it.

Let us not forget if this legislation passes, the term sexual orientation will appear for the first time in any Canadian legislation ever passed in the House. People are very concerned about that.

I understand the Liberals' current proactiveness in zeroing in on 718.2 because they want to deflect some of the questions over here.

They are uncomfortable with it. They know it is flawed. They know there has been a huge uprising of concern from the Canadian people, not from the special interest groups they have been talking to, but from rank and file Canadians across the country concerned about this clause in the bill as well.

They all have the letters. They have the cards. They have seen the petitions. Our Criminal Code tries to demonstrate the things we hold dear and what penalties should be dealt should these things be violated.

The government of the day and parliamentarians have an obligation to listen to the Canadian people, to a broad range of Canadian people to get the feel of the average person so when amendments are made to the Criminal Code they will best represent society's perception or views on what direction we should be going in when we deal with changes to the Criminal Code.

Bill C-41 does not reflect the views of the average Canadian because the Liberals did not pursue a broad sampling of the views of average Canadians. That is not their style. Instead they selected people to attend the committees, to submit briefs from groups and organizations, not individual views, so they could mould them into the real Liberal agenda in the bill, something politically expedient for that party.

This is one of the many bills the Liberals have introduced this session that do not address the real views of the Canadian people. I want to talk about criminal justice for a moment and tell members about a survey so there is no mistake on some of the things I may say tonight as to whether I am representing the views of my constituents. Above all, unlike the views of the leader of the Liberal Party, I am here to represent the constituents who voted and sent me here to represent them.

I did a survey on criminal justice and I wanted to get a broad range of views from right across my constituency. I asked 30,000 households about their views on the death penalty. Eighty-eight per cent of the people who returned the questionnaire said they wanted to have the death penalty returned for first degree murder. Of those 88 per cent affirming the return of the death penalty, 58 per cent suggested it should be extended to child molesters. Fifty-four per cent said it should be extended to rapists. Forty-five per cent said it should be extended to drug dealers. I think members are getting an idea of the views of the people I represent. They are my views as well.

The point is we have a Criminal Code which our courts are obligated to operate under. In the sentencing provisions judges are given sentencing latitudes. The penalties, quite frankly, with the exception of capital punishment which is not in there, thanks to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce a few years ago, are in the criminal justice system already. It is not the problem of the penalties. It is a problem with the administration of the penalties by the judges. It is the sentencing that is the problem. The judges have latitude and they are not giving out the penalties.

An assault is an assault is an assault, whether it is against one person or another person, regardless of what people's differences may be. A physical assault is a vicious crime. A sexual assault is a more vicious crime. An assault that causes a lifetime injury, a disability, is a very vicious crime. There are penalties on the books to deal with these crimes. But a government like this one does not have the guts to encourage the judges to deal with them in a manner that rationalizes the sentences they should be giving. That is the

problem. We do not need changes to sentencing provisions. They are already there but they are not being used. This is frustrating Canadians all across the country.

A section in the bill deals with the treatment of offenders of aboriginal descent. About two weeks ago a native Indian was convicted of sexual assault. At the same time he issued a death threat against his victim. The fellow went to court and was found guilty. That is a very serious crime in my book and would be considered so by most Canadians.

Even some of the bleeding heart Liberals across the way would agree with me that sexual assault is a very serious crime. Saying: "If you do not co-operate, I am going to kill you", is a very serious offence as well.

The person was found guilty. The evidence in court showed that the person had prior arrest and convictions for armed robbery. However, the judge with his creative thinking or because of political pressure or the influencing forces to make politically correct decisions, decided that instead of dealing with the crime as one that has a specified punishment in the Criminal Code, to have a sentencing circle. That is something new that is coming into the country when dealing with aboriginals.

The sentencing circle of elders determined that this man who was convicted of sexual assault and while assaulting his victim said: "If you do not co-operate with me, I will kill you", who had previous sentences for armed robberies which is a serious crime, whether your gun is registered or not, was given a sentence of one year banishment.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a city in central British Columbia where we have a tremendous problem right now. Some young people that hang around together think it is fun to walk down the street and beat people. They do not take time to discriminate and find out what colour the person is. They do not take time to determine if the person happens to be a homosexual or take the time to check out the religion of their victim. They just beat people up.

Members of the Reform Party have been trying to say that the assaults they are committing are of no less severity than if they take the time to find out what religion their victims are, whether it is a homosexual or some other little group the government wants to put people into.

The member is trying to tell us that indiscriminate beating on someone just for the sake of beating, because they happen to like beating someone up, is not as severe an action if it had been someone who fits conveniently into some Liberal category. This is absolute nonsense.

I am led to believe that the member is apparently an intelligent person. How on earth can the member stand and tell us because a victim fits into some category the Liberal government wants to dream up because special interest groups got to it, that an assault in that category can be any more severe than an assault on any other category?

The problem is, when the Liberals were on their so-called fact finding mission, they took the time to invite every special interest group they could possibly think of to come and talk to them about the criminal justice system. They forgot one thing. They forgot to talk about Canadians as a whole. I use the word Canadian proudly. Everyone who lives in this country is a Canadian and is entitled to equal justice under the law no matter what colour or religion, whether they are homosexual, a Protestant or a Catholic.

For the government to suggest that because of a person's preference or religion or whatever, that a crime committed against them should be more severe than a crime committed against someone who is an ordinary Canadian is absolutely ludicrous and serves only to garner favour with special interest groups that put the government in power. Average Canadians are going to throw the government out in the next election.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On this important debate, I just wanted to ask the Speaker to check and determine whether quorum is present in the House.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an experience in the House today listening to Liberal members trying to defend this indefensible gun control legislation, Bill C-68.

We in the Reform Party, the hon. member would be surprised to know, understand the recognition of aboriginal rights contained within the Constitution. We certainly can read although he may doubt that sometimes.

Recognizing that in the Constitution hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights are protected for aboriginal people, the Constitution does not specifically refer to methods of hunting, trapping or fishing. We are not talking about entrenched treaty rights in the application of Bill C-68 to aboriginal people. We are talking about the use of an implement to carry out their hunting, fishing and trapping rights.

This same instrument is used by many non-natives in northern hinterland areas. I assume these non-natives who hunt for sustenance enjoy the same or similar hunting rights as aboriginals. I find it questionable that the government in its amendments to this bill has not recognized hunting for sustenance activities of non-natives who live in remote northern areas.

I ask the hon. minister of Indian affairs whether his government specifically sees a difference between a remote residential aboriginal hunting for sustenance and a non-aboriginal who lives in a remote district of Canada and hunts for sustenance. Why would one under the proposed legislation be required to comply with all the regulations of Bill C-68 and yet a special provision might be given to another?

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all of Canada heard it from this hon. member and the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who preceded him. Let it be known the Liberal government has made a statement today on two occasions that it is not a right to own a firearm but rather a privilege. Liberal members have made the judgment that a citizen is privileged to own property. Will they extend that philosophy to the right or privilege of Canadians to own cars, houses, boats, to go on a vacation, to vote freely? Is it a right or a privilege?

I would like the hon. member to stand in the House, look right into the television camera and tell every aboriginal person it is not a right for them to own a gun but a privilege.

The member said that in rural Canada a person has twice the chance of being injured by a firearm, that where firearms are present there is five times the chance of suicide and that where firearms are present there is three times the chance of homicide. We have asked the government time and time again during this debate and I ask this member now to give us one substantive, specific piece of evidence that if a firearm were registered these statistics would be different.

We have asked the government on many occasions and it has not supplied to the House one substantive piece of evidence to support its claim that registration of firearms will cut down on accidents, crime or suicides. Registration will not affect this.

I have talked to many law enforcement officers across the country specifically about officers attending the scene of a domestic disturbance. They have told me to the number that any police officer who attempts to enter a residence where there is a reported domestic disturbance and who does not first and foremost assume automatically there could be a firearm in there will not be on that beat tomorrow.

The member told about this grand plan that the police officers would know in advance whether there is a firearm there. Now they automatically assume there is a firearm and have been doing that for many years. Many of police officers have told me the reason they are staying alive today is they assume and take precautions which is part of their training.

I ask the member to stand up, face the cameras and tell all of Canada including aboriginal peoples that owning a firearm is a privilege extended to them by the Liberal Government of Canada.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I fail to see a quorum in the House. I am wondering whether it is because Liberal members are not interested in this motion.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we listened to the hon. member articulate in his presentation numerous statistics, figures, rationale, justification for the Liberal Party's budget, a budget that fails miserably in meeting what this country needs.

The average Canadian trying to support a family is interested in only one thing. When on earth will there be some tax relief? The Liberals presented a budget that is to add another $100 billion to the debt. It is to add another $10 billion in interest paid on the debt. At the end of three years, according to their figures which are not exactly believable they will still end up with a $25 billion deficit.

I would like the hon. member to tell me how he explains to a pulp mill worker in Prince George, B.C. who is paying in excess of 60 per cent of his gross income in taxes of all forms, how a budget like this, a budget that is to increase the debt, that is to increase the interest on the debt that must be paid out of taxes, can expect in the near future to have more disposable income in his pocket so that he can provide for his family.

Also, I would like the hon. member to explain to me and to the corporations and private business in Canada how the Liberal government appreciates the role they play when in the budget it increases corporate taxes. They are the ones who create real, long lasting, good paying jobs. How is he to explain to them that the Liberal government is on their side and that their government wants them to provide more jobs, expand and invest in the country when there is no certainty whatsoever in the taxation levels that corporate Canada is to pay?

At the same time that the hon. member is rationalizing all the plans of the Liberal budget, how will he explain to Canadians the 1.5 cent a litre gasoline tax that affects everyone in the country whether they are private citizens or corporations that rely on the transfer of freight or vehicles running, flying in the air, taking trains? How will he explain that the government had to raise gasoline and fuel taxes by 1.5 cents a litre?

The average citizen is interested in only one thing. When will my taxes be brought down? When will overspending in the annual budget stop? The figures that the member just quoted might be for our benefit because we have access to all the details in the budget but the average Canadian citizen is not blessed with having all the details.

They are asking only the one question. I would like the hon. member to tell me how he is going to answer the average Canadian taxpaying citizen.