Paul Szabo

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in debate on Bill C-41.

I want to comment as objectively as I can on section 718.2. This section has attracted more attention than any other aspect of the bill. There is a backlash of sorts that has conjured up a great deal of concern among a number of Canadians. The bill is referred to often as a hate crimes bill. It is a sentencing bill with some 60 or 70 pages and has a wide range of important amendments to guide our sentencing.

Section 718.2 as has been indicated by a number of prior speakers has attracted attention. Section 718.2 states:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor, or

(ii) evidence that the offender, in the committing offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim shall be deemed to be a aggravating circumstances;

To put that in English, section 718.2 basically says that when someone has been charged and convicted of a crime, prior to sentencing that person the courts must make an assessment and that assessment must be whether there is an aggravating circumstance.

Presently in the bill there are two different categories of aggravating circumstances. The first refers to bias, prejudice and hate. That goes on to be elaborated on by adding to it the so-called list for greater certainty. In other words that a bias, prejudice or hate was based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation would require a stiffer sentence.

The second aggravating circumstance has to do with abuse of positions of trust or authority. A position of trust would be in the character of a doctor over a patient, a teacher over a student, a babysitter over a child. Positions of authority might include such things as an elderly person in the care of a child or a child in the care of the parents.

One of the reasons the bill and this section have attracted so much attention is this list on which bias, prejudice and hate might be motivated is identical to the list in our charter of rights and freedoms. The only addition to the list are the words sexual orientation which have brought tremendous focus to this section. It has been the one reason the bill has been used as a proxy for the discussion of all sides of the story and the arguments with regard to sexual orientation.

I do not want to use much of my time to deal with this. The extent of concern within my community, and I have received many letters, indicates that basically we are all equal under our laws and that if there is any list it tends to indicate that someone has been left off the list. If our charter is to hold true the words bias, prejudice and hate should be sufficient. On that basis I will be supporting the report stage motion to eliminate the list.

I will now move on very briefly to my motion which is to add an aggravating circumstance to bias, prejudice and hate and the abuse of trust in authority positions.

According to the 1993 violence against women survey and Statistics Canada 29 per cent of women or 2.7 million who have ever been married or lived in a common law relationship have been physically or sexually assaulted by their partner at some point during the relationship. We are all painfully aware of the serious problems and the negative consequences not only to those involved but to society as a whole. We have been so overwhelmed by the tragic statistics and the pleas for help over so many years, I fear we have become desensitized to the severity of the problem.

As a result of those facts I have presented a report stage Motion No. 16 which asks the House to consider making spousal abuse a situation which would require stiffer sentences. It did take some time. The motion was submitted in April. It took a great deal of time to work through justice, to work with colleagues from all sides of the House.

I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of the motion and as a result of the support I received from all sides of the House the Minister of Justice has agreed to accept the situation of spousal abuse as an aggravating circumstance requiring a stiffer penalty. This is a very momentous situation for the House to stop giving merely moral support to the plight of abused women and children and to start giving tangible, legislative backbone to deal with the issue of spousal abuse.

Motion No. 17 presented by the minister will be addressed in the House in advance of my Motion No. 16. I will be supporting Motion No. 17. I believe it incorporates the intent of the motion I put forward.

I thank the minister and the justice officials and members of the House. I am sure all women in Canada thank all members for their support for abused women.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 8, the following:

"(i.1) evidence that the offender committed an indictable offence that consisted of a physical or sexual assault on or harm to the person of the offender's spouse or common law spouse or an attempt or threat to carry out such an offence; or".

[Petitions, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition that has been circulating across Canada.

This petition originates from the Surrey and Delta regions of Canada. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a couple of brief comments that I think are relevant to the debate as many Canadians are watching the deliberations of the House on Bill C-68.

The previous speaker mentioned that some 267 amendments would be considered at report stage. I took out the Order Paper and Notice Paper for today to find out the exact source of all the amendments. I found, even when reviewing the last 60, that some 45 of them were put before the House at report stage by two members of the Reform Party who were also members of the justice committee that dealt with the bill.

Motions at report stage are admissible if the committee has not dealt with the matter. I think there is another condition. However it raises an interesting question.

The previous speaker tended to indicate that all these items had to raised. If many of the amendments that have been raised before the House at report stage are still to be addressed by the House, it begs the question why members of the committee who were there to discuss the bill did not raise these questions and motions at the justice committee. Why are they now tying up the time of the House?

As I stated earlier, if all 267 motions were to be debated in the House with all the time members would want, we would be here until next Christmas. Frankly I think Canadians are saying that we have consulted more than enough on the gun control legislation.

The member also referred to the government ramming legislation through. It has been almost a year since the discussion documents were tabled by the justice minister. He has travelled from coast to coast. He has talked to Canadians about the issues. As a result of the committee work the justice minister has brought forward many extremely important amendments that respond to the concerns of Canadians. One example would be with regard to first time offenders and the non-registration of weapons. Those were positive and constructive changes with regard to the messages the justice minister heard.

Throughout the day I have seen the justice minister in the House and in the lobby. He has followed the debate very closely. He has listened to all hon. members whether it was in committee or in the House. He has certainly listened to Canadians.

I had an opportunity to be with the minister in Toronto. We went to Regent Park, a subsidized housing development, where there were ordinary people from a number of walks of life, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, who all had an opportunity to speak. It was a very interesting meeting. We heard from the people in that community that it was commonplace for them to hear a gunshot at night when their children were playing in the streets. They were very scared and concerned about what was happening to safety in our communities.

Considering the priorities of Canadians, community safety is certainly an important issue. One issue I keep hearing about from members of the Reform Party is the issue of registration. They proposed initially that registration and addressing the crime element should be separated, but the minister has explained clearly that there is an important and integral relationship between registration and crime control. One example concerns the importation of firearms.

Recently in Toronto there was a case where a gun dealer legally imported firearms but subsequently marketed them on the black market. Registration under the legislation, for instance, would require that on importation the weapons would be registered by the importer. There would be a clear trail of the weapons from the time they enter the country.

Another aspect concerns the importance of the relationship between Canada and the United States. Many members have suggested that we have to go after the criminals and those who are smuggling in firearms from the United States. Members know well that some 1,400 guns are reported lost, missing or stolen each year by Canadians. We can imagine how many weapons are actually lost, missing or stolen. Clearly those weapons are in the hands of the criminal element.

Therefore it is important to ensure that all Canadians who have firearms and register them are well aware of their responsibilities. In talking with gun clubs and other large gun owners I have found that the educational aspect of the consultative process has been extremely valuable to the Canadian public. Only about 10 per cent of Canadians actually own firearms. The other 90 per cent are probably not very familiar with the rules regarding firearms.

The comfort level of Canadians at large has been improved substantially because of education, knowing that there is licensing, knowing that there are courses, knowing that there are restrictions on transportation and ammunition sales, and knowing that registration will ensure gun owners have an opportunity to show they support law, order and safety in communities.

The whole issue of crime control comes down to whether we wait until we have a problem in Canada with regard to safety and crime in our communities or whether we respond proactively. If we took into account that for every one incident of a firearms related crime in Canada there are 100 incidents in the United States, and if we took into account the population differential of ten to one, for every incident in Canada there are ten in the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Could we imagine what the reaction of the Canadian public would be if the crime rate due to guns in Canada were to double? That would mean there would be only one incident for every five in the U.S. I dare say that most certainly the Canadian public would be extremely upset about the decay within society.

We have something in Canada of which we are very proud and must protect, that is safety in our communities. As we all know, the Prime Minister has boasted about safety in Canada. We can safely walk in our parks. As a result of initiatives such as this one we will ensure that Canada remains a safe country in which to live and a safe country for our children.

I do not think the honest hunter, gun collector or target shooter will be impacted in any material way by the legislation. The cost is not an issue. Ten dollars for 10 guns for five years is not an issue.

People in my own riding have come to see me and I have asked them how it would affect them. After we got over the cost issue it got down to the issue of confiscation. There are questions about confiscation. My constituents continue to raise the spectre that the government wants to register guns because it wants to take their guns away.

The justice minister has made it very clear that confiscation is absolutely not an objective of the government. Canada has a very vibrant economy in hunting, target shooting and collecting that will remain. When it gets down to paramilitary weapons, automatic weapons and guns that have absolutely no purpose except to hurt people, they are the ones Canadians say should be off the streets and out of the hands of those most likely to cause harm to our community.

It is clear the amendments brought forward by the committee are constructive. The vast majority of the 267 amendments presented by the Reform Party at report stage are nothing more than a disruption of the House of Commons.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to address these motions. At report stage there are some 267 motions to amend the legislation.

I will address the time element because as members begin to talk we lose sight of the fact that there has been a great deal of discussion about Bill C-68. It has been happening now for well over a year. Members have had discussion papers and briefing documents. It has taken a great deal of time and now is the time to move forward.

If the House had to debate each amendment with the appropriate time allocation we would be here until next Christmas. The government has to move forward. We have had a great deal of time to discuss this. The allegation of some members that somehow this is ramming something through is quite to the contrary.

The hon. member for Wild Rose said the government's position on Bill C-68 is simply the whim of a few. Yet, as we well know, more than two-thirds of Canadians actively support this piece of legislation.

I want to address the issue of registration. That is certainly one of the areas where members have brought forward their concerns. In my riding people have asked questions concerning registration. I think it is fair to ask the question and to explain how registration and crime reduction go hand in hand and cannot be split, as hon. members might suggest.

Many members have asked why we are going after law-abiding citizens and not criminals. Law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens until they are convicted. There are no shades of grey in between.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recently came out with a report. I thought it was very useful. Today the law requires all handguns to be registered, and law-abiding citizens have them registered.

One of the interesting facts was that 40 per cent of the crimes committed with these guns were registered. That is very significant. Members in the Reform Party continue to say law-abiding citizens, those who register their firearms, do not commit crime. Yet 40 per cent of the crimes committed with handguns presently required to be registered were committed by registered firearms.

This legislation will ask that all firearms now be registered including long arms, shotguns and rifles. I found out another interesting statistic from this report, that 47 per cent of all firearms crimes committed in Canada involved long arms. That is the reason long arms should also be registered.

I do not think Canadians have to look too far for the facts that encourage them to tell their members of Parliament that we do value safety. Canadians hear statistics all the time about the realities of gun crime; 200 children are shot by guns every year. This is appalling to Canadians. There is a problem to be dealt with.

There a were some 1,400 firearms deaths last year, some 77 per cent of which were suicides. Only 3 per cent of those firearms deaths had anything to do with self-defence. These are facts which indicate clearly there are problems we can address to ensure our communities remain safe.

Unlike the platitudes and rhetoric I have been hearing from the Reform I will give more facts. The Prime Minister was recently in the United States. He was asked why people in the UN thought Canada was the best country in the world. He said the global economy is making us more and more alike. He said there were two things that really made Canada distinctive. The first is our medicare system. I do not have to explain to hon. members how important that is to Canadians. The second is that we can walk in our parks safely, unlike in the United States.

In the United States there are more gun shops than there are gas stations. There are private security officers in the United States than there are real police. For every one crime with a firearm in Canada there are 100 in the United States. When we take into account the 10 to 1 population differential that means the situation is 10 times worse in the United States than in Canada.

With such a vast majority of our population being so close to the U.S. border why has the gun problem not moved more fully into Canada? There are a couple of reasons. One has to do with the American constitution which has effectively the right to bear arms, whereas in Canada we do not have that right enshrined in our constitution. Ownership of a gun in Canada is a privilege subject to certain rules. Those are some of the reasons we have such a low relative crime rate with guns.

The real question has to do with crime. The members repeat the question about what the bill will do about crime. It is an excellent question. The importance of the question is how we approach it. Do we wait until after we have a problem and then start to deal with it or do we do things in advance anticipating forces in our society which may result in a greater level of crime?

We spend 75 per cent of what we do on remedial health care and only 25 per cent on prevention. To make sure our health care remains affordable and accessible, we have to deal more on the preventative side. This bill has an awful lot to do with preventing crime. It is not reducing crime; it is preventing crime and it results in the same effect.

Since the mid-seventies about 64,000 firearms were reported lost, missing or stolen in Canada. We wonder how many guns were actually lost, missing or stolen but not reported. This fact alone indicates that members who would suggest criminals get their firearms only through smuggling really failed to understand the facts. So-called law-abiding gun owners are major suppliers of firearms to the criminal element. Some 1,400 firearms last year were reported lost, missing or stolen.

The cost issue has come up in my riding and in the House. The parliamentary secretary has done an excellent job to make sure Canadians know despite the rhetoric we have heard from others that cost is not a major item here. Registration will begin on January 1, 1998 and does not have to be fully implemented until the year 2003. In the initial phases it will cost something like $10 for up to 10 guns for a five year period. Clearly in the first period as we go through this process of transitioning to registration of our firearms cost should not be a major problem for Canadians.

With regard to the issue of what gun control will do about crime, the most important element is public education. Now that we have discussed the issue of crime and firearms for well over a year now, more and more Canadians know what a serious responsibility it is to own a firearm. They know now they have to have a licence, that they have to register, that there are restrictions on storage and mandatory criteria for ammunition, transportation, et cetera. It is a very serious responsibility.

One of the things I am finding from talking to a number of serious gun owners and club shooters is they are finding there are an awful lot of guns now for sale to collectors and to clubs and other owners. A large number of people in Canada who have acquired firearms either through an inheritance or on a whim really are not very serious. Recent statistics show 60 per cent of firearms owners have not shot their guns in the last year and some 40 per cent have not shot their guns in the last five years.

A lot of people with firearms in their homes probably were not totally familiar with the rules and regulations. Now through this education process, now that more and more Canadians understand the important responsibility of owning a firearm, they are getting rid of those guns. That is good in terms of reducing the probability of firearms being dumped into the criminal markets.

The Minister of Justice has listened to Canadians. The amendments are constructive and address the concerns of many Canadians.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member said something I agree with and that I think all members agree with. When we ran to become the elected representatives of our constituents and to serve in this place we did so because we wanted to make a contribution. We wanted to do what we could to make Canada a better place.

The hon. member discussed what he felt was a number of deficiencies. Gun control came up, that registration will do nothing. I will share examples of how registration will help to

reduce crime. Some 47 per cent of crimes involving firearms in Canada are committed with long arms, as reported by the Canadian chiefs of police.

Today we have registration of handguns and this piece of legislation will now bring all firearms under registration. A specific example has to do with imported guns. Today a legitimate importer does not have to register the guns. In a case recently in Toronto guns imported were then turned around and black marketed to the criminal element.

Under this legislation imported guns must be registered at the time of importation. As a result those weapons now cannot be very easily sold to the criminal element and used in criminal activity. That registration element alone will help to reduce the number of weapons getting out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The member also made reference to Bill C-41. He referred to it as the sexual orientation bill and the hate bill when he knows full well it is a sentencing bill. There are some important things in that bill. I have a motion at report stage, which I hope all members will support, concerning sentencing provisions as they relate to aggravating circumstances. There are two circumstances, first where bias, prejudice or hate is involved and second where there is an abuse of trust or authority relationships. The motion I have raised with all parties and all members is to provide stiffer sentences for spousal abusers.

This is an important element of the bill and I have asked all members and particularly this member for support on a very important issue. Bill C-41 is not about one issue. It is a sentencing bill, an extremely important bill that will help deal with crime in Canada.

The member referred to the member for Calgary Centre's saying we should eliminate all forms of alternative compensation for members of Parliament and that members of Parliament should be paid $150,000 a year instead. This unacceptable.

The member also said he may have used the wrong number. He has used the wrong number. What he has failed to recognize is that if we incorporate legitimate business expenses in income grossed up those expenses also become deductible on a tax return and there would be no limit. The tax act presently says all expenses directly or indirectly associated with earning income will be deductible. As a result there would be virtually no limits on what members could spend for what purposes. If $150,000 a year is not the number, what is the number?

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, like most members I would like to get on with the business of the House. However since the member thought to take up 20 minutes of House time to babble on about a number of things which he obviously knows nothing about, I want to question him on a couple of matters.

First, the member said that the House should be talking about matters such as tax reductions. Why is it that his party when it proposed its budget to the House did not include any tax reductions in its plans and simply cut social programs?

Another reason I think the member knows nothing about what he was talking about is his comments to do with the proposal for a $2 coin. He somehow trivialized the proposal for the $2 coin. The member ought to know because it has been presented and debated in this House that the introduction of a $2 coin will save Canada $250 million over a 20-year period, simply because of the savings on reprinting $2 bills which erode. It is a very simple reason.

The impact to the Canadian economy, to small business people who operate coin vending machines, is also going to be very substantial. The member has trivialized a move that will save Canadians $250 million. He has trivialized the impact on small business, all for partisan and opportunistic purposes. This member should explain himself.

[Children, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for some time now I have been speaking in the House of the importance of direct parental care for preschool children.

Research done by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the National Foundation for Family Research and Education has shown clearly that poor quality care means a higher likelihood of problems in the health, social and criminal justice areas.

In 1961, 65 per cent of families with preschool children had one parent in the home. That figure reduced to only 12 per cent in 1991. What is the impact of reduced parental care? One example is that the suicide rate for youth between the ages of 15 and 19 has increased by 600 per cent over the same period of time.

We must invest in our children. An investment in our children today is an investment in the future of all Canadians.

[Privilege, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of what was being debated. One hon. member as a result of the debate in the House was not satisfied. She had made her points wanted to carry on and did come to this spot. I was sitting here beside where the event took place between the two members.

There is a very important point to clarify. I agree fully with the facts as laid out by the hon. member. Her comment was to the Reform Party whip, not to the member as the member said. The member is incorrect. The member for Madawaska-Victoria had indicated to the Reform Party whip to get her out of here because I had got your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rise because of the sound level of the conversation. The member was clearly aware that it was not going anywhere and tried to leave the conversation. She very calmly tried to leave the conversation, at which point the member for Beaver River in all fairness and with due respect for the member, was not going to allow the matter to finish and wanted to impose her position even further on the member.

I was quite disturbed with the whole incident. Although I am not a lawyer my impression of what went on here was that the member for Beaver River had come to harass and impose herself upon the member who has made this complaint and was not prepared to let it go until she had won and imposed her view. I think that is the issue before us. There was a physical contact. There was an attempt to carry on something the member clearly wanted to just get out of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite disturbed that the member would make a personal attack on a member who is not here and impugn somehow that she has done something wrong.