Speech (committee meeting)

{
    "time": "2012-04-03 11:15:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"2793724\" data-originallang=\"en\">Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are three things that I wish to say.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793725\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The first relates to Professor Kaiser. I'll begin by saying that I found his observations, as far as they went, to be intelligent and thoughtful, and I appreciated them. What I noticed was that he did not address what I perceive to be the main point of the bill.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793726\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Second, unlike my colleagues who have just spoken, I'm not at all convinced that the main point of this bill is deterrence. I believe it is more about denunciation. As a Parliament, we wish to send a message to Canadians that this conduct is abhorrent. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793727\" data-originallang=\"en\">I've often thought, when I listen to submissions on the bills that we deal with, that people don't address the issue of denunciation. Perhaps it's because they don't feel that there is a point to denunciation, but it is a principle of law that has been around at least as long as I've been involved with the law. To my knowledge, no one has repudiated it. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793728\" data-originallang=\"en\">I take this bill from that point of view and not so much from the point of view that it will necessarily deter anyone who is drunk; you can't deter drunks unless you take the booze and drugs away from them. We wish to ensure that the message is out there, for the sake of the veterans and others who are affected by these offences, that we denounce this behaviour.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793729\" data-originallang=\"en\">With regard to synagogues, my view is that we're living in an age in which religion is more and more disrespected, so I'm pleased to hear my friends from the NDP standing up for those of us who have religious convictions. I'm not at all sure that we, in our Criminal Code, have deliberately set out to provide little or no denunciation or sentencing to support religious institutions that suffer damage in the manner that has been described, such as swastikas on synagogues or other kinds of very undeserving, unbecoming conduct. I think if we put our minds to it, we might indeed feel that those kinds of offences are deserving of denunciation. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793730\" data-originallang=\"en\">I go back to what was said in the course of one of the witnesses' submissions, which was that we should approach things on a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, I think that a swastika on a synagogue is worthy of a denunciatory sentence and legislation. However, to try to amend a private member's bill to include that kind of protection is not appropriate. Perhaps the government will revisit that issue in the future.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793731\" data-originallang=\"en\">Lastly, regarding the amendment before us, I have a number of reasons for not being in a position to support it. I'm going to state what I perceive to be the most obvious one. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793732\" data-originallang=\"en\">Even if what the members opposite said was true about first offenders\u2014that they do something as a matter of drunkenness or stupidity and they express remorse and therefore are not deserving of a mandatory sentence and the record that goes with it\u2014and even if all of that were to be accepted, I can't see how it would apply to someone who did it two or three times or why we wouldn't want to have a mandatory minimum penalty for someone who repeated this kind of conduct. It might be useful for personal deterrence, if not general deterrence. I just can't go along with the proposition that we should sweep all of the mandatory minimums out of this bill, even if what the members opposite said about first offenders was true. I cannot support the amendment for that reason alone, although there are other reasons.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793733\" data-originallang=\"en\">Thank you.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"2793724\" data-originallang=\"en\">Merci, monsieur le pr\u00e9sident. Je souhaite aborder trois questions.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793725\" data-originallang=\"en\">Tout d'abord, je remercie M. Kaiser de ses observations intelligentes et r\u00e9fl\u00e9chies. Mais selon moi, il a oubli\u00e9 l'essentiel du projet de loi.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793726\" data-originallang=\"en\">Contrairement \u00e0 mes coll\u00e8gues qui viennent de s'exprimer, je suis loin d'\u00eatre convaincu que l'essentiel du projet de loi est la dissuasion. Je crois que c'est plut\u00f4t la r\u00e9probation. Le Parlement doit indiquer aux Canadiens que de tels m\u00e9faits sont r\u00e9pugnants.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793727\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les commentaires sur les projets de loi que nous \u00e9tudions m'ont souvent amen\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que les gens ne tenaient pas compte de la r\u00e9probation. On estime peut-\u00eatre que c'est inutile, mais il s'agit d'un principe de loi mis qui s'applique au moins depuis que j'examine les lois. \u00c0 ma connaissance, personne n'a rejet\u00e9 ce principe.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793728\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je ne pense pas que le projet de loi va forc\u00e9ment dissuader les gens so\u00fbls; la seule fa\u00e7on d'y arriver, c'est de les emp\u00eacher de consommer de l'alcool et des drogues. Il faut d\u00e9noncer ces m\u00e9faits au nom des anciens combattants et ceux qui en font les frais.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793729\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u00c0 propos des synagogues, je pense que nous vivons \u00e0 une \u00e9poque o\u00f9 la religion est de moins en moins respect\u00e9e. Je suis donc content que mes amis du NDP d\u00e9fendent ceux qui ont des convictions religieuses. Je suis loin d'\u00eatre s\u00fbr que l'absence de r\u00e9probation ou de peine dans le Code criminel pour appuyer les institutions religieuses qui subissent des dommages, comme l'inscription de croix gamm\u00e9es sur les synagogues ou d'autres m\u00e9faits inadmissibles, est volontaire. Je pense que, si on y songe bien, ce genre d'infractions m\u00e9ritent d'\u00eatre d\u00e9nonc\u00e9es.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793730\" data-originallang=\"en\">Pour reprendre les dires d'un t\u00e9moin, c'est une question de principe. Je pense que la personne qui inscrit un swastika sur une synagogue m\u00e9rite une peine exemplaire pr\u00e9vue par la loi. C'est inappropri\u00e9 d'inclure une telle protection dans ce projet de loi d'initiative parlementaire. Le gouvernement examinera peut-\u00eatre la question.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793731\" data-originallang=\"en\">Enfin, un certain nombre de raisons expliquent pourquoi je ne peux pas appuyer l'amendement. Voici la raison la plus \u00e9vidente.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793732\" data-originallang=\"en\">M\u00eame si les d\u00e9put\u00e9s de l'opposition avaient raison d'affirmer que ceux qui commettent un tel m\u00e9fait, parce qu'ils \u00e9taient so\u00fbls ou par stupidit\u00e9, qui en sont \u00e0 leur premi\u00e8re infraction, qui \u00e9mettent des remords, etc. ne m\u00e9ritent pas une peine minimale obligatoire et un casier judiciaire, je ne vois pas pourquoi une telle peine ne s'appliquerait pas aux r\u00e9cidivistes. Cette sanction pourrait avoir un effet dissuasif sur les d\u00e9linquants, si ce n'est sur toute la population. M\u00eame si les d\u00e9put\u00e9s de l'opposition avaient raison concernant ceux qui commettent une premi\u00e8re infraction, je ne peux simplement pas accepter la proposition de rejeter toutes les peines minimales obligatoires du projet de loi. M\u00eame s'il y en a d'autres, cette raison m'am\u00e8ne \u00e0 rejeter l'amendement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2793733\" data-originallang=\"en\">Merci.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/committees/justice/41-1/30/stephen-woodworth-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/stephen-woodworth/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1230/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "7296106",
    "document_url": "/committees/justice/41-1/30/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Fjustice%2F41-1%2F30%2F"
    }
}