Peter Milliken

[Motions For Papers, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important weekly event but I would ask that all motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 174 and 178.

Question No. 174-Mr. Robinson:

Does the government plan to participate with NORAD or NATO allies in joint research initiatives examining ballistic missile defence as proposed in the 1994 defence white paper and, if so, (a) what previous Canadian defence research, will the government propose to use as a basis for such joint research (b) will the Canadian government use previous research into an EHF space-based radar system as a basis for further joint research, and (c) what kind of new research will the government propose to initiate as a part of such joint research efforts?

[Committees Of The House, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the 82nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

I may say, just by way of explanation, that this very modest change to the standing orders of the House simply makes it possible to file petitions where there has been an interlineation on the petition but not in the text of it.

[Committees Of The House, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 82nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding a change to Standing Order 36 in relation to the acceptability of petitions.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 82nd report later this day.

I also have the honour to table the 83rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs relating to the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.

In accordance with that standing order the report is deemed adopted on presentation.

[Government Response To Petitions, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

I have more. I can see, Mr. Speaker, that they are a little overwrought.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

That is what this bill is for. It will put them in prison. They will get a longer sentence if they have committed this kind of offence.

Why would members opposite take such exception to this? Who are they trying to protect by fighting this bill? The thugs who go about beating up these people. That is who they are trying to protect. Why do they have any interest in protecting those people? Surely they should be ashamed of protecting those kinds of people.

A little while ago I had reference to the fact that I represented a lot of people in prison in Kingston. I do and I am proud to represent them, but I do not expect that they would get lighter sentences because they go beating people up. I expect that they get punished for it.

This bill only asks that in taking into account what sentence is appropriate a judge consider certain aggravating circumstances. One of those aggravating circumstances is stated to be evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a number of factors. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I can understand an argument that says we should have equality of treatment. An assault is an assault is an assault. If somebody gets bumped on the head whether it is because the person is out to beat him up because he is black, gay, Catholic,

Jewish, or whatever, okay, maybe that should not be treated differently. I understand that argument and that appears to be the argument Reform Party members are advancing although they are doing it in the most cumbersome fashion imaginable. They are putting all kinds of other things in the bill.

If that is the only argument, surely it is not unreasonable to have passed a bill that does not specify a minimum offence, that does not specify that the penalty must be heavier but does provide that in considering the sentence to be given, the judge must take that factor into account.

This has nothing to do with juries. This is a matter of sentencing which is in the exclusive purview of a judge under our system. Juries will not be deciding sentences for criminals based on this section. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West in his remarks implicated juries in the whole thing, which again is a gross distortion of the facts.

I am really having trouble understanding how it is that members of this House could possibly misconstrue this bill. This is an extremely minor change in the law. It has nothing to do with the commission of offences. It only has to do with penalties.

One of my colleagues got a call from a constituent about this one night asking why he was supporting this bill. He made it very clear by saying: "Why would I not? Unless you are raising a bunch of gay bashers in your house you will not have any worry about this bill either. It will not have anything to do with you". He was absolutely right. The only people who will be affected by the bill are the thugs who are running around communities beating up people. If those are the people Reform Party members are defending, I say to them that they should be ashamed of themselves.

I am not surprised and I think it appropriate to read something more from the little book of reform. One can derive some basis for the thoughts of members of the Reform Party on this issue when one hears their views on certain social issues. I would like to read some now.

The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville had better be careful; he is in this book too. I want to read a quote from the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, that enlightened patriarch of Canada's social system who said: "Old age security is welfare for the aged". Those are words of wisdom. That is what he said. Imagine.

We have the hon. member for Beaver River who is frequently quoted as an authority on this kind of subject. She said: "We feel that medicare is for the sick and not for the poor".

Then of course we have the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound, also well known as the father and architect of Canada's social programs, who said: "Having programs in support of single mothers causes mothers to be single and need support". My goodness. De profundis, Mr. Speaker.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

If it is already in place, why are these minority groups crying out for this protection? They are saying people are beating them up with impunity. That is why. They are getting away with it or they get light sentences. This is exactly what they say.

Minority groups came to the committee. The hon. member was on the committee as far as I know. I was not, but I heard about it in the media. They cried out for help saying that judges do not believe they are being beaten up just because they are members of these minority groups. Judges give a light sentence as though it were a normal case of assault that just happened on the street. In fact minority groups are of the view, and this view is widely shared by members of this party, that gangs are going around looking for members of minority groups to beat them up.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

I am going to interpret it. I am going to tell the hon. member what it means with the hope I can get it through his head. This seems to have been a real problem tonight.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster said people would be convicted because of their hatred which is totally false. There is nothing in this bill dealing with hatred that changes the rules in respect of hatred. It does in respect of sentence, not in respect of the commission of an offence. There is a significant difference in law between those two.

A person will be convicted on the basis of the law as it stands. There is no change in the provisions in this act respecting hatred and conviction. A person is convicted of an offence against the law as it stands. This bill makes the sentence different from what it would otherwise be.

There is quite a difference between conviction and sentence. Sentence follows conviction; it does not precede it. A person does not get sentenced until he or she is convicted. A person must be convicted and will not be convicted under this law in any way which is different from that under the existing law. The new law will provide for a different sentence after conviction based on hate, if that is judged to be the basis of the crime.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West went further in his remarks. He suggested this was going to change things and give all kinds of protection to pedophiles and other serious offenders. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to find that in this section of the act or indeed in this whole bill. Where is there any protection for anyone? This increases the severity of the sentence. That is not protection but increased offence and increased penalty. There is no change here that lets people off. It increases penalties for offences.

It says if you discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation you will get a harsher penalty. It does not say that persons who commit sexual offences get lighter penalties. That is what the hon. member for Fraser Valley West said in his speech. I have never heard such rubbish in my life. It is totally false, misleading and wrong. He should be ashamed to have made such a stupid comment.

We have heard dozens of them tonight, gross misrepresentations of this bill. I hear them in here and I get them in letters from constituents, particularly from British Columbia. They come floating into my office obviously stirred up by members of the Reform Party going out there and spouting this nonsense to their electors. Nothing could be further from the truth. This just is not right.

This bill does not do anything like what is being suggested in this House. All it deals with is sentencing. A person is convicted under the current law and then is sentenced. This provides a slightly heavier penalty for those who commit hate offences. That is all this does. This is not a case of revamping the law in relation to any minority groups. It provides for a stiffer penalty. What is wrong with that?