Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue which my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap has brought to this House. This is an issue
which is very critical in this day an age: should federal inmates have the right to vote.
We just heard from the Liberal member that the government has filed an appeal to Judge Wetston's decision that inmates should have the right to vote. I find that very interesting because it was not too long ago that a judge in this country made the decision that the use or abuse of cocaine and alcohol were an excuse for murder. These very same Liberals came back into the House in a hurry to reverse that decision. Now the member stands up and says that gee whiz, they are going to have to file an appeal and they will see if it works and so on. The fact is that they just do not have the intestinal fortitude to turn that decision around.
Should federal inmates have the right to vote is the big question. There are some questions which have to be answered here and I am going to make an attempt at that. Why are we at this stage today? Why are we even discussing this here when it could have been a votable issue? And why is this not votable? Why are we discussing Motion No. 143 on a non-votable basis? I will cover that in a moment. Another question relative to federal inmates having a vote in this country today is: When will this government start putting the affairs and issues that are relative to victims in this country on the front plate instead of those affairs relative to criminals?
Why is this motion not votable? The solicitor general said on the day this issue broke that the government believes that withholding the right to vote is reasonable. If the solicitor general believes that withholding the right to vote from federal inmates is reasonable, then why is it that this motion could not have been voted on tonight in the affirmative? Why is that so unreasonable? What is most obvious is that there is no will to do so in the federal government.
Why are we at this stage today? Why is it that judges appear to be making decisions that are not in the best interests of the country and not in the best interests of victims?
One of the Liberal members is suggesting that we whip the judges. We can understand the methodology and the logic coming from over there.
Let me give these folks across the way a little lesson in some of the decisions judges are making today. I ask whether judges are making rational decisions today and whether decisions like that of Judge Wetston to allow criminals, federal inmates, the right to vote is a good one.
Let us hear what B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sherman Hood said before acquitting a man of sexually assaulting a North Vancouver waitress: "No sometimes means maybe or wait a while". That is a judicial decision in this country which will be used as jurisprudence in other decisions. Does that make any sense? That is supposed to be a rational decision coming from this country's judiciary.
Northwest circuit Judge Michael Bourassa on sexual assaults in the Northwest Territories said: "Sexual assaults occur when the woman is drunk and passed out; the man comes along, sees a pair of hips and helps himself". That is another judicial decision that is a total avoidance of the protection of victims. The government, just like on the issue of the right of federal inmates to vote, does absolutely nothing about it. Government members sit here and pass rhetoric off as though we were supposed to buy it.
I will give another example. Members are asking over there how is this relevant. It is relevant because judges are making bad decisions and Justice Wetston made a terrible decision. Members over there just do not like to hear this.
In my province in February 1996: "Port Hardy, British Columbia provincial court Judge Brian Saunderson gave 57-year old Vernon Logan `an absolute discharge' even though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The judge said the law banning child pornography violates the charter of rights", it sounds familiar, "because it is an infringement of one's freedom of thought, belief or opinion as unfettered access to reading material is necessary to exercise those freedoms".
With this kind of charter of rights decision by a judge to let off someone who possesses or is dealing in pornography, the very criminal act he was charged with, because it is a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how far is this government going to allow this to go? That is the question.
David Snow was charged in Vancouver with kidnapping two women and trying to strangle a third. The judge declared: "I cannot conclude that the placing of the wire around the neck of the victim and the placing of the plastic over her head are sufficient enough to establish intent to kill".
I ask that group, which is somewhat more quiet now, are these kinds of decisions made by judges, including the decision to allow federal inmates the right to vote, in the best interests of law-abiding Canadian citizens? The answer is no.
If the solicitor general is to be believed, if he says he believes that withholding the right to vote is reasonable, then why does this government not come in here and do it? What is wrong? The fact is this government, those people who are speaking on the other side of the House, believe it is fair.
Let us deal with what criminals are getting today. Are we going too far to the left where the Liberals are? What do criminals have?
We know they get their conjugal visits. We know they get GST rebates. We all know they are getting the Canada pension plan-