Bill C-20 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act

Supply

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, this is the second time that I have the opportunity to present the estimates for the Department of Justice. I must say that I still find this quite an interesting exercise. Every time, colleagues and members of Parliament have had some constructive input to offer.

I am pleased to present the spending estimates of the Department of Justice Canada to the House.

As I just said, this is the second time I appear before you to deal with the estimates. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight our current priorities and to discuss the latest achievements of the Department of Justice. I would also like to go over some of the challenges we are facing.

First, as we have seen today, one of the priorities of my department is the reform of the cannabis legislation, which I have tabled as the cannabis reform bill.

I want to be clear from the beginning that we are not legalizing marijuana and I have no plans to do so. Marijuana remains a controlled substance and offenders will continue to be punished by law.

What we are changing is the way we prosecute certain offences of possession through the use of alternative penalties.

The bill I introduced earlier today amends the legal provisions with respect to the possession of small amounts of marihuana, which will become a ticketing offence instead of leading to criminal prosecutions.

While introducing these new legal provisions, the Government of Canada will continue to proactively implement its renewed drug strategy to discourage young people from using drugs and to go after traffickers in order to reduce both the demand and supply for illegal drugs.

Through the renewed Canada's Drug Strategy, we will review the legislation to take into consideration the modern viewpoints of Canadians. The strategy seeks to ensure that the provisions concerning possession offences are more consistently enforced and that the penalties fit the seriousness of the crime.

In order to promote health, the use of marihuana must be discouraged and cannabis possession will remain illegal in Canada. However, the new measures reflect the opinion of the majority of Canadians who no longer accept the permanent stigma of a criminal record or a prison sentence that the people found guilty of possessing small amounts of cannabis have to bear.

The debate over modernizing our marijuana laws has been on and off the public agenda for three decades now. The time has come to act. We need strong, enforceable laws that make sense for Canadians and make sense internationally, laws that will send a strong message to our young people, a message saying that marijuana is harmful and will remain illegal.

This reform will address the current lack of consistency in the enforcement of cannabis possession offences across the country and ensure that enforcement resources are focused on where they are most needed by allowing police to enforce the law, but without the complications of going before the courts for minor offences.

The decision to reform the law was not taken lightly. It came as the result of an enormous amount of research, consultation and debate. Cannabis consumption is a complex issue and is first and foremost a health matter. However, one thing is clear, the time has come for us to reform our laws in this area.

The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs recommended that cannabis be decriminalized. The Senate special committee on illegal drugs recommended that the production and sale of cannabis be legalized.

Recent polling indicates that a majority of Canadians believe that convictions for possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use should not result in criminal penalties.

Again I want to be clear that the government has no plans to legalize the possession of this drug but clearly the current laws do not serve the public good.

However, the commercial growing of marijuana is no doubt a serious indictable offence that has serious and negative consequences on society. Commercial growers generate huge profits for criminal organizations and other stakeholders in this trade.

These growers are everywhere in cities and in houses rented in the suburbs, among other places, and often the owners are not aware of these illegal activities.

Marijuana growers resort to water and electricity meter jumping, which means they rob public utilities and pose a serious threat of fire.

Several law enforcement agencies have found very sophisticated traps designed to endanger the lives of competitors, police officers and firefighters. We must obviously protect the lives of women and men who represent our first line of defence.

I believe that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was recently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, will effectively serve as a deterrent. Indeed, it would amend section 247 of the Criminal Code regarding the placing of traps that are likely to cause death. The amendment would provide that, if a trap is used for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, the term of imprisonment would go from five to ten years.

If bodily harm is caused to a person, the term of imprisonment would be 14 years and, if the person dies, the maximum penalty would be life imprisonment, whether the place was used for the purpose of committing an indictable offence or not.

Bill C-32 would also ensure that our laws keep pace with the rapid evolution of the Internet. The amendments in the bill would allow citizens and businesses to take reasonable steps to protect their computer systems and the valuable information that they contain against computer hackers and sly electronic communications that might contain viruses.

The amendments to the Divorce Act contained in Bill C-22 address a top priority of Canadians, ensuring that the best interests of the child remain paramount in decisions made following their parent's divorce or separation. I understand that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expects to resume hearings on C-22 shortly.

Canadians have already stated clearly that changes to the law are not enough. Improvements must also be made to services, such as mediation and education. Canadians have also demanded a simpler, more efficient court system to accommodate the needs of parents and families struggling with separation and divorce.

In December we responded by proposing the child centre family justice strategy. Together with the provinces, territories and non-government organizations, we have embarked on an ambitious and multi-faceted program of change that includes increased funding for family justice services, expansion of successful initiatives, such as unified family courts, and legislative amendments, such as Bill C-22.

The Department of Justice will make substantial investments in this strategy. In December I announced $163 million over five years to modernize the family justice system in Canada.

Now, another very important issue raised by Bill C-20.

This bill deals with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons. Protecting children is obviously a high priority for Canadians, and the government is listening to them.

Bill C-20, which was introduced recently, provides better protection for children against all forms of exploitation. It reflects the broad consultations and close cooperation with the provinces, the territories, non-governmental organizations and the general public.

The proposed reforms are designed to give children better protection against all forms of exploitation, including sexual abuse and child pornography, and to meet the needs of children and other vulnerable persons, such as victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, more effectively.

Canada's criminal laws against sexual abuse of children, including child pornography, are among the strictest in the world. Bill C-20 will go even further in strengthening our prohibitions with regard to child pornography. It also proposes creating a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation for those who are between 14 and 18, which will require the courts to examine the nature and the circumstances of the relationship, including the age difference.

Another purpose of Bill C-20 is to make it easier for young victims and witnesses to testify. It proposes to strengthen their ability to provide a clear, complete and accurate description of the events while ensuring that the rights of the accused will be protected and respected.

Another topic that I would like to talk about concerns the protection of Canada's capital markets. I believe that improving the fairness of our system extends well beyond matters of liability and into our capital market. Recent scandals involving corporate malfeasance in the United States have spurred officials in my department to review Canadian laws. I hope to table a bill on this matter in the very near future.

My department will be investing resources and playing a significant role in the integrated enforcement teams that will be investigating and prosecuting the most serious corporate frauds and market illegalities. Justice officials will partner with their peers in finance, industry and the office of the Solicitor General in this coordinated approach.

The other important topic I would like to talk about now is the criminal liability of corporations. Improving fairness in our justice system is indeed an ongoing priority.

The Department of Justice has been working very hard to draft new legislative provisions on corporate criminal liability taking into account the recommendations made by the many commissions and studies on the Westray mine disaster. A series of amendments to the Criminal Code would make business executives more responsible for the safety of their employees.

Another important topic I would like to raise here is access to justice; as we have said, this has been an ongoing priority of my department, which wants to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live, can use the official language of their choice in all their dealings with federal legislation. This is the whole issue of official languages.

We have made great strides in that respect, working closely with our governmental and non-governmental partners in the provinces and territories, and I am confident we can still improve access to justice in both official languages.

Under the government's action plan on official languages, my department will invest $27 million over the next five years to meet its obligations under the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act and the Federal Court's decision on the Contraventions Act.

Another $18.5 million will also be invested in a fund in support of access to justice in both official languages. Together, these initiatives represent a $45.5 million investment in the area of access to justice in both official languages.

Legal aid is another significant component of the access to justice. The government is strongly committed to ensuring that economically disadvantaged Canadians have equitable access to criminal legal aid. I am pleased to report significant progress on initiating criminal legal aid renewal.

The recent federal budget announced increases to the criminal legal aid base fund and committed additional funds for innovative programs developed and implemented by the provinces and territories. Federal funding for criminal legal aid will increase by $89 million in the new criminal legal aid agreement. Of this amount, $83 million will go directly to the provinces and territories.

Over the next three years the government will invest $379.2 million in legal aid. These funds will help ensure that economically disadvantaged Canadians have access to justice.

Now let me deal with another important topic, crime prevention. To work effectively, our justice system must be relevant to all Canadians. It must be directly connected to and be an integral and familiar part of every community.

I am convinced that a relevant system must help citizens recommend, develop and implement effective solutions to community problems. Even though such solutions may go beyond the regular limits of case law, often they are powerful engines of social change.

The national crime prevention strategy has proven to be especially successful at improving the relevance of Canada's justice system. This strategy involves providing financial support for innovative local projects that reduce crime and victimization, and target issues of local concern.

For example, in Surrey, British Columbia, a literacy project would enable disadvantaged Canadians to acquire new skills and jobs. In Fort McPherson, a summer camp program would help instill a new sense of pride in young people at risk. In Ontario, a partnership project with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would help combat auto theft by educating youth about the negative consequences of that act.

These projects are just a few current examples of our collaborative approach to crime prevention, an approach that has succeeded in enlisting an increasing number of Canadians in the fight against crime. These projects also establish vital links between Canadians and their system of justice. I am pleased to say that over the next three years the national crime prevention strategy will invest $225 million to make our communities safer.

In conclusion, while I am pleased with the accomplishments of my department, I recognize that much work remains to be done to create a system that is fair, accessible and relevant to all. We must broaden our collaboration with the provinces, territories, and with individual Canadians to improve our justice system, prevent crime, and reduce the effect of victimization.

Petitions

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asserts that Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act does not go far enough to protect children in Canada.

It calls upon the government to split Bill C-20 so that child pornography can be voted on separately from anything else in the bill. Again, this is signed by several hundred residents in my area.

Supply

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as legislators, where do we fit in the entire perspective of the charter? As a government, what we are doing now is what we will continue to do, and as I stated in the House today, we are very clear. We do not disagree with the fact that child pornography is wrong. We are against child pornography.

However what we are trying do, within this legislature, is to find an effective way that meets a number of interests. I know that sometimes people look at the way in which we are approaching it in Bill C-20. They refer to the fact that we are using and have put in the only defence, a public good defence. They look at that and ask how anything about pornography can be good. I do not disagree with that. There is no good in pornography itself.

The question that we are really struggling with is freedom of expression. How do we deal with the ability of, for example, those who teach in a university, to teach about pornography? How do we do that if in fact it is absolutely and completely illegal to even talk about pornography? It cannot be discussed. The police officers would not be permitted to deal with it.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that probably a big majority of Canadians are quite fond of the Charter of Rights and the principle of it, and it is certainly supported across the land. I support those principles.

I was also pleased that the 20 people or so who put this document together were wise enough to remember that there could be times when the public values, and the public in general, could be in conflict with the decisions that the courts made based on the charter. Recognizing that possibility, they put in section 33, the notwithstanding clause.

If I have heard it once, I have heard it a hundred times, and strongly from that side, that it was deplorable to even think about using section 33 in regard to the charter. However the public has risen up and tabled thousands of signatures begging Parliament to literally put an end to child pornography, to close the loopholes. They are demanding this and asking for it. However the courts make a decisions that leave the loopholes. Obviously the government is not going to change the law because it has not done it with Bill C-20. In its feeble attempt, it left “public good” in legislation as another loophole.

When do we use section 33? Should it never be used? Members of the Liberal party said that today. It will be quoted in Hansard over and over. When are we going to recognize, that yes in a judicial sense the Supreme Court is the highest court of the system, but Parliament is the highest court of the land and it is run by the people of Canada, not by me, not by that member or by you, Mr. Speaker. It is run by those who elected us.

They are demanding, and there is no doubt about it, that the safety of our children be top priority and that child pornography be stamped out . Why is the government so reluctant to do that? Why does it to continue to hide under the decisions of the court and under the idea that there could be some artistic merit or public good, or whatever, to child pornography? It just does not make sense.

I would think that the member has relatives, children of some kind, in his household. Does he not believe that our most elemental duty is to make every effort possible and to make absolutely certain that we do our utmost to protect the little ones in the land? What is wrong with that? I think there is nothing wrong with that and the public thinks there is nothing wrong with that. However I can guarantee, based on what I have heard throughout the day, the government will not even consider clause 33. It seems to be very reluctant to go against any decisions that the courts make. Why?

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member did a pretty good job of answering the question himself when he said that the number of convictions was zero. Other countries, Sweden for one and Australia for another, have programs in place following these kinds of activities. They are making arrests, convicting and sending criminals to jail. They are getting them off the streets to protect society as a whole. It can be done.

I do not know why the government sits idly by and does not engage in these kinds of activities with other countries. It has been invited. We have the technology. We have the money. It is not that expensive. We could do it. Why is there not a priority on it? It comes up with the idea that it is priority and that is why it brought in Bill C-20. The Liberals cannot seem to get it through their heads that Bill C-20 does not close the loopholes. There will be loopholes. The public good is there.

There are two million cases of child pornography in Toronto alone. I could not even begin to name the number of cases across the country. Every one of these items individually could be declared as public good by whoever owns, possesses or distributes them. If it has to go to court, we let the judges determine who is right or wrong. Let us send a message to the judges of our Supreme Court real quick. The people of Canada want child pornography stamped out and banned entirely but the government must take the initiative because it is in charge. We will support it.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

And so popular. It would probably get anybody some votes.

Contrary to what the NDP says about this party not being interested in major issues, child pornography and the safety of our children is a major issue in the hearts of Canadians. If members of the NDP do not think it is, I would ask them to please start reading the hundreds and thousands of signatures on petitions in this place alone which beg us to do something about it.

What are we facing in regard to all of this? I started reading some letters that come in from the public. These letters are only a reflection of the hundreds of letters in regard to this issue. One letter reads, “Last week I heard on the radio that we do not have enough money and people power to prosecute child pornographers but we have a billion dollars to establish a long gun registry to keep trapping and sporting tools of law-abiding citizens. What is wrong with this picture? Firearm owners are not potential criminals. Those who prey on young children are already criminals”.

That is a very good point. The government is going after millions of people because it thinks there is a potential problem but in the one area that we have identified, through the help of other methods, it is not doing anything about it.

We are not helping our police departments. In case the people over there do not know it, Toronto is a huge city. I think it has three or four officers to deal with two million pieces of evidence regarding child pornography. They are begging and crying for help.

Members of the RCMP in my own riding have told me that they are getting complaints about child pornography from various sources but that they do not know what to do about it because they are not trained. They give those cases to the police departments in Calgary or Toronto.

We should stop and think about how right the guy is who wrote the letter. He goes on to say, “I don't know why I bother going down to the law court buildings any more to watch our so-called justice system in action. I only get more frustrated and disillusioned every time I go”. He then goes on to talk about the number of child predators and child pornographers who are convicted. “In every case”, he said, “they were given house arrest and community service”.

It is too bad we have to spend so much time talking about this issue. Now we have to wait until Bill C-20 goes to a committee. Even the Conservative Party critic, much to my dismay, said that we had no choice but to support this because we had to get it to committee to try to fix it.

Getting a document to committee means it will take weeks and months and it could probably die. In weeks and months thousands of kids could die. It is time we decided to do something about it. The Liberal Party is the government in power. It has the ability to bring forward the initiative. What is it waiting on?

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Let us have the courage to do it. We know we have the support to do it.

If there is one thing that I have been able to determine in my visits across the country it is that the individuals in the police departments who are assigned to the child pornography units, who are doing their best to fight it, are crying out and pleading with this government to give them the sources and the resources that it is going to take to set up a national strategy to deal with this once and for all, a national strategy that would reach out to other countries to form an international effort, which is well underway in a lot of other countries already. Let us join their efforts to do this.

There has not been one commitment in the form of the budget, not one commitment in terms of dollars and cents that has shown up in any one of the police departments or any one of the areas of jurisdiction that are making an effort to put an end to this terrible thing that is going on in our society. We could start by committing a certain amount of dollars to that cause. Then we could come together as a group of 301 to ask how we are going to accomplish this, spend a day or two to make sure we get it right, and then go forward with it. This would send a loud message to the predators and the child pornography distributors all across the country: “Folks, your time is coming to an end because it is not going to be allowed”.

Instead, what has happened is that the government has tried to come up with legislation that will appeal a decision made by a court, which allowed pornography to continue because there might be some artistic merit to it. In its wisdom, the government came up with a paragraph in its document that says we will get rid of that and what we will do is put in “public good”. Once again the minister has left in the hands of unelected and unaccountable judges the determination of what constitutes public good.

I can assure the House that the Toronto police department, which has approximately two million pieces of evidence in the form of child pornography, is really going to enjoy trying to go through two million pieces of this to determine whether it has any public good. We can almost be certain that any time a charge is brought against a person for having possession of or distributing that particular item, the person will be able to claim the defence of public good. Our courts will be jammed day after day and we will never get anywhere because we have allowed the courts to leave a loophole. No one will be charged.

The government has come back and is reinforcing that loophole with Bill C-20. I say, close the loopholes, listen to the people who have signed their names on the petitions that have been tabled in the House of Commons. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are begging us to take up legislation that will put an end to the torment and the exploitation of our children across this land. They want it stopped. They have appealed to us to do it because they believe that we are the body of people who can do it.

I have to ask every member in the House of Commons, from every party, whether they would agree that we can do something about this problem. If they do agree, then we must do something about this problem. The last thing I would ask is whether they have the courage to move forward immediately and set this particular item on the table all by itself, not to muddle it with all other social issues but to get it underway and help our police departments across the land to deal with it, to set up a national strategy program and fund it.

Funding is no problem for the government. It found $100 million not too long ago to help out the City of Toronto regarding SARS. I can assure the people in the House that there are police officers who would love to get their hands on $100 million to help them in their fight on child pornography. No one can say for a moment that one is worse than the other, because I can assure members that the number of victims of child pornography far exceed the number of victims of diseases.

I do not think there is anyone here who would not agree that it can be done, so let us do it. We were elected to bring about the will of the people, and I can assure the members who are in here today that the will of Canadians is to stamp out child pornography once and for all, to get rid of it, and to make every effort we can to do it and not muddle it with clauses that leave loopholes.

Child pornography has no artistic merit and does not serve the public good. Every Canadian, except for the 2,500 pedophiles who have been identified, would attest to that to the highest degree.

I find it discouraging that this topic comes up over and over again. In the last six months I do not know how many times I have spoken to this very issue.

I find it discouraging that adult men and women, who are in a position to really do something that will protect our children, cannot come up with an idea or the dollars to do just that but have no problem inventing all kinds of ways to implement a gun registry program, for example. I do not think the almost $1 billion they are going to spend on the gun registry will have much impact on the safety of our children, not nearly the impact that fighting child pornography would have. The police departments would be the first ones to tell us that. The things they see are devastating.

The other problem is that the images we talk about in child pornography are not drawings or sketches. The majority of these images are photographs. These are real people. These are children who are alive and exist, and we do not even have a thing in place to identify who these children are so we could possibly rescue them out of their situation. Whether it be in Canada, in Europe or in the U.S., it does not matter, these children need to be rescued from this horrible plight.

There are countries that have gone to the extent of doing something about that. Sweden sort of set up the initial part of it. Canada was there and observed what it was going to do. It has a program which, generally speaking, is beginning to work. This thing was spread out to other countries, including the United States.

As a result of that program, the police have been able to identify some of the victims and some of the predators. While we sit on the sidelines, not participating in this kind of activity, a project in place in other parts of the world called “snowball” has identified for our police departments in Canada over 2,000 predators who reside in Canada. They know their names and where they live.

We should be participating in this program to help identify the victims, the predators, the distributors and the people who are making millions of dollars in profit off this evil thing, and start to wipe it out. That is an action we could take that would be so positive.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the issues in regard to the motion today.

Just before I get into that, though, I must say that some of the members I heard speak here today have been very effective at confusing me. I heard one member say that we must abide by and live under the Constitution of Canada and then deplore section 33, which is part of the Constitution, if I am not mistaken. I do not understand where the member is coming from. She deplores section 33 but she loves the Constitution of Canada. That section is part of the Constitution. Maybe one of these days we will have to meet somewhere and she can explain that one to me.

By now everyone will know that I am going to stick to one issue that is on the agenda of this supply motion. That, once again, is child pornography, an issue that is burning at the bottom of my heart and which I think must be dealt with and must be dealt with quickly.

I think everyone in this House, the 301 members of this place, would agree that they do not want any child pornography to exist; I do not think we would find one member who does not. I also think they would agree that in their own ridings probably 90% or more of the people deplore child pornography and would like to see it abolished and banned in its entirety. I do not think there is any quibbling about that.

The question is, do we as a Parliament have the ability and the authority to achieve this? In my opinion, we most definitely do. It would take leadership. It would take determination. It would take a commitment to put all party differences aside and work together to deal with an issue which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is affecting thousands of children across this country alone, not to mention what it is doing internationally all across the world. The people most vulnerable to abuse are the young people, the kids. I am talking about kids all the way down to the age of two months who have been identified as victims of sexual abuse or sexual predators and pornographers.

If we were to stop and think about that for a moment, I am sure we all would like to say we would like this to disappear tomorrow, we would like to see it gone. We know that is not going to happen, but I think that collectively we can work together to make an effort to do our very best to get that show on the road to abolish and ban it in its entirety, because that is one thing that not only Canadian children but all children across the world deserve: to be free from child predators and this kind of abuse.

As well, if I have heard this once I have heard it a hundred times: “The trouble with the member for Wild Rose is that he is not interested in getting to the root causes of these kinds of problems”. The root cause of these kinds of predators existing and being active across this world is, as has been determined by a number of psychologists, a number of psychiatrists, people working in the medical field, people on the front line and by predators themselves, the root cause of most of these abuses is child pornography. So let us stop the rhetoric about getting to the root cause. It has been pretty well documented and determined that child pornography is the root cause of this kind of problem. We have discovered that now, so let us stop the rhetoric about getting to the root cause. We know what the root causes are. We have good evidence of that.

Let us go after the root cause. The root cause being child pornography means that 301 members of Parliament, on behalf of probably 32.5 million Canadians who would love to see this happen, must come together on that one issue and stop muddling that issue by putting it in a bill such as Bill C-20 with other issues that are going to take a lot of discussion and time. Let us separate it, set it on its own and say we are going to deal with that.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin a speech by saying that I am pleased to speak on a certain subject, but today, I must admit, I am not pleased with the motion. In fact, I find it rather ridiculous. I think it is unfortunate and I will explain why, that we are spending so much time—a whole day—on a motion that is not even votable.

First, it is obvious that my political party is not a great admirer of the Canadian Constitution. Not only are we sovereignists, who want to get out of the Constitution rather than amend it, but also, most importantly, we believe that the Canadian Constitution, especially in its 1982 form, is illegitimate. It was imposed on Quebec. We remember the “night of the long knives”. No Quebec government since 1981 has wanted to sign this Constitution which was imposed by a conspiracy involving the federal government and the governments of nine Canadian provinces. I think that is the first essential point we wish to make.

My second point—and I will speak to the three points raised by the hon. members of the Canadian Alliance—is the following. In the motion, we are asked to bring in measures to reassert the will of Parliament. I then have the following question: where do the will and business of committees come in?

Let us begin with the first point, the definition of marriage.The Standing Committee on Justice, of which I am a member, is working very hard on this issue, and has been doing so since January. We have heard witnesses in Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Steinbach, Sudbury, Toronto, Montreal, Iqaluit, Sussex, New Brunswick, and Halifax. We are working on it.

So, what is the Alliance trying to do? It is trying to set aside the work of the committee by presenting such a motion. The Alliance, which prides itself on being very democratic, and which commended the democratic process chosen by the committee in going to consult the people across Canada, now comes here with this motion, saying in effect, “Never mind the hundreds of witnesses we have heard; never mind the hundreds of briefs they have submitted; never mind the honourable work done by all the hon. members from all political parties who sit on this committee; none of them matter”.

I am a bit frustrated that the House is being told today that the adopted definition and other things are being threatened, when the Standing Committee on Justice is addressing this very issue. I am sorry to have to say this, but this is an obvious example of the Alliance's lack of respect for this committee's work. By presenting this kind of motion today, it is showing a lack of respect.

On the definition of marriage, the government has said, given the three decisions by the lower courts, that Parliament must address this issue. A discussion paper has been provided to the members and is available to the general public. The public has been asked to tell us what it thinks about the four options.

It will not come as a surprise when I say that, of the four options presented by the government, two are unconstitutional due to the division of powers.

One of the four options is allowing civil unions. However, I would remind members that, under section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, and the provinces and Quebec have jurisdiction over all other matters relating to family law. This means, for example, that anything Parliament wants to do relating to family law, if it does not concern marriage or divorce, falls outside this Parliament's jurisdiction. For marriage, Parliament has jurisdiction only over its basic conditions. So, the idea of civil unions must be set aside based on the division of powers.

The other option is for the state to withdraw from marriage and leave this up to organized religion. Persons solemnizing marriages in the provinces get their licence from the provinces. For example, in Quebec, priests, rabbis or imams solemnizing marriages are officers of civil status. Consequently, it is not up to Parliament to tell Quebec and the provinces who has the power to solemnize the union of two people. So, these two options must be set aside given the division of powers.

The committee therefore has to choose between keeping the current definition of marriage—in other words, the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others—or changing the definition. On this, I would simply like to point out that the courts, such as the British Columbia Court of Appeal most recently, have ruled that the current definition is discriminatory and that this is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.

People can complain as much as they want, they can criticize this idea of judicial review, they can do whatever they want. The fact is that the principle of judicial review forms the very foundation of how our democracy operates. I will remind the House that this idea in Canada goes back to an old principle adopted by Chief Justice Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1835. Canada could not use the example of the British Constitution because it is unwritten, so this notion of judicial review came from the United States.

As I was saying, they can complain about it and criticize it, but the fact is that today our society operates this way. This is the constitutional arrangement that we have set up. Being a sovereignist, I hope that when Quebec becomes independent, we will also have some way of protecting minorities from decisions of the majority. I also hope that the constitution of an independent Quebec will contain a judicial review process. This a key element for the rule of law and one of the fundamental elements for healthy democracy.

That was the first point. The second point refers to house arrest for child sexual predators, which allows them to produce and possess child pornography. Obviously, as a father of young children, I completely agree with all those who defend children as our greatest resource and say that we must protect them. That seems quite obvious to me. I think it is unfortunate that they would play politics on this by accusing other member of the House of not having the interests of children at heart.

I have been in politics for 15 years now, and I was elected almost six years ago now. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that there is not one person in this House, from any of the five different political parties here, that does not have the interests of children at heart. No one can say that.

It is all right to criticize the government's approach, for the opposition parties to criticize each other, but to say that someone in this House does not have children's interests and protection at heart is bad faith and demagoguery. In politics, I believe demagoguery always backfires on the one who uses it.

We are all aware that this part of the motion by the Canadian Alliance refers to the Supreme Court judgment in Sharpe , with which the members of this House are rather familiar. Apparently, the Alliance was upset by two particular aspects of this judgment. First, the Court's interpretation of the defence of artistic merit. In fact, a large part of the decision was taken up with this. The court interpreted this defence as follows:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).

This judgment indicates that two types of material must be excluded from the definition of child pornography:

(1) written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use; and (2) visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use.

We presume that the text of the motion refers to one of the above two points, although I cannot read the minds of our Alliance colleagues. Since I have trouble understanding the intervention by the Alliance, however, I must base my intervention on a premise, and this is the one I have chosen.

We have trouble understanding how the Alliance could apparently overlook the fact that the government introduced a bill last December 5 that was specifically aimed at amending the Criminal Code as it relates to child pornography. The amendments proposed by the government address precisely those two aspects. They are the focus of the bill.

First, there is a proposal for a new public good defence and, moreover, the bill tightens up the definition of child pornography, which will cover aspects it did not use to cover.

While we in the Bloc Quebecois question the constitutionality of such a change to the definition of child pornography, we intend to do serious work in committee, considering the proposed changes and listening to testimonies in this regard.

I think much greater respect for parliamentary procedure and for Parliament per se would have been shown, had committee work taken place before such a motion were put forward. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should have been given an opportunity to hear testimony from victims, lawyers, constitutional experts, peace officers, and artists before such a motion was put forward.

We believe that studying Bill C-20 in that environment will allow a much more serious and intelligent consideration of the issues raised in part (b) of the motion with respect to child pornography than the present debate does.

I will now address conditional sentences. Naturally, we deal with many things, and cannot deal with everything at once. But again, I would like to remind the House that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is considering conditional sentences and that we are not done putting our recommendations together.

Once again, for the third time in as many points, if the Canadian Alliance wants to be respectful of the legislative process and Parliament, it should do a good job in committee.

The Alliance should make sure it does its work in committee thoroughly, seriously and studiously, instead of presenting a motion such as this.

The Alliance motion is probably referring to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. L.F.W. In that case, the Attorney General appealed a conditional sentence of 21 months given to an offender convicted of indecent assault and gross indecency.

In this case, the offences were committed between 1967 and 1973 and the complaint was filed in 1995. At the time the offences began, the victim was six years old and the accused was 22.

The Supreme Court was divided in its decision but the Attorney General's appeal was rejected.

The Bloc is of the opinion that trial judges and courts should have all possible latitude in determining sentences for each case they hear, on a case-by-case basis.

They are in the best position to determine sentences. Any given sentence does not have the same impact on everyone; the impact varies from one person to another. In committee, I raised certain other questions—sometimes by questioning the witnesses—that we will continue to raise and to examine as part of the committee's business. Instead of holding a debate here on a non-votable opposition motion, a motion that is all over the place and serves as a sounding board for the Canadian Alliance, it would have been more appropriate to do this work in committee, and do it more seriously.

I see that I have only three minutes left. I have so much to say in such a short time. To conclude, I will talk about granting prisoners the right to vote.

In the case of Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)—a 2002 decision—the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule on the constitutionality of section 51 of the Canada Elections Act, which disqualifies persons imprisoned in correctional institutions serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections.

The issue the Court considered in this case was the following: does this provision infringe the rights guaranteed by section 3, namely the right to vote, and section 15, equality rights, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The court, and this is important to remember since it is obviously a difficult subject for both parliamentarians and judges alike, overturned the previous decision by five to four. The majority opinion, signed by Justice McLachlin, ruled that the right to vote is fundamental in our society and cannot be lightly set aside.

The court found that to deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility. That is the purpose of sending people to prison, to tell them, “You have done something wrong. We want to rehabilitate you so you do not stay in prison for the rest of your life”. At least, I hope that no one in this House wants to see anyone remain in prison for life without any chance of getting out and becoming a full-fledged, law-abiding, responsible citizen who will find a job and contribute to society.

The government's novel political theory that would permit elected representatives to disenfranchise a segment of the population finds no place in a democracy built upon principles of inclusiveness, equality, and citizen participation.

The court adds that the argument that only those who respect the law should participate in the political process is unacceptable. Denial of the right to vote on the basis of attributed moral unworthiness is inconsistent with the respect for the dignity of every person that lies at the heart of Canadian democracy and the Charter.

The court ruled in the Sauvé decision that the Canada Elections Act provision denying the right to vote to inmates serving a sentence of two years or more infringed section 3 of the Charter and was not justified under section 1.

The Bloc believes that it is not appropriate to seek to amend this decision. Furthermore, it should be noted that inmates already had the right to vote in provincial and municipal elections in some provinces, including in Quebec.

In closing, I think that this is a waste of time, that this motion is badly structured, and that it shows a lack of respect for the committees, particularly the justice committee, which is working on three of the four issues mentioned in the Alliance motion.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of the motive behind all this is an interesting one, which obviously is what the hon. member is asking.

On the first part of the hon. member's question, the propositions, if they are related at all they are very far stretch. They are largely unrelated, that is true. I suppose the motivation of the hon. members who put the motion is probably to describe that all these things may be examples, in their view, of a role they think is too big for the judiciary. Maybe that is their argument but they can make it themselves. Maybe that is what they are invoking.

Obviously the propositions are very unrelated. One of them, as the hon. member, the House leader, has just raised, is an issue being studied by a committee of parliamentarians obtaining and soliciting opinions of Canadians. Another one is an issue that involves a decision made by the Supreme Court within the parameters of the charter and to which the House has already responded by way of legislation, Bill C-20. The third one is completely outside of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and goes beyond that. Therefore they are very unrelated propositions.

On the issue of inmate voting, to be totally fair it does not go quite as far as what the hon. member has just said. The original Supreme Court decision of some years ago, the one that said that everyone who was incarcerated could not vote, was thrown out. However that is not the one that was thrown out lately. Following that first effort, Parliament re-enacted the law but put in the provision, I believe it was two years, so those who were short term incarcerations, overnight and something like that, perhaps even wrongfully charged or whatever, those people were not covered by the law; only those who were in penitentiaries and longer term incarcerations. That in fact was the decision that was eventually given for which the government appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in a five to four decision. However it did not involve at that point the short term stays in incarceration, only the long term ones, the other one having been disposed of several years earlier.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it depends on what the hon. member is asking. If he is asking whether the Supreme Court is supreme in rendering judicial decisions, I think its name answers that question. It is called the Supreme Court because it is the supreme court. If it were not the supreme court, it would not have been called the Supreme Court. People made that decision long before I or the hon. member sat here.

Was it at one point appealable? Yes, it was appointed to a judicial committee of the Privy Council. The decisions of the Supreme Court were not appealable to the House of Commons. I do not know if that is what he is suggesting today. I do not ever recall, in my limited knowledge of constitutional history, that there ever was an appeal to the Canadian House of Commons of Supreme Court decisions. That has never existed.

Is he asking that we restore the system that was there before, which means that we could appeal in England the decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court? I do not think that is what he is advocating. If he is saying that something was changed to create this and he wants to restore the condition that was there before, that is in fact what he would be asking to restore, which of course would not even do that which he is asking anyway, as I indicated.

I want to respond to the second part of his question, regarding the Sharpe case.

The legislative package, in other words Bill C-20 and other legislation, responds to the concerns about the defence of artistic merit and the definition of written child pornography. The defences that were there before have been reduced to a single defence of public good. As well, the definition of written child pornography would be expanded to cover material that was not even covered under the previous legislation, and would include material that contains written descriptions of prohibited sexual activity and all those kinds of things. That is all included in the legislation which the hon. member says he did not want, even though that was the legislation for which they asked.

What does the public good mean? The public good defence means that any material or act in question must serve the public good and not exceed what serves the public good. That means that unlike the defence of artistic merit, the one that was there before, the new subclause (6), I believe, the public good defence would require a two stage analysis: Does the material serve the public good on any of the recognized areas and, if so, does it go beyond what serves the public good. In other words, no defence would be available where it does not serve the public good or it poses a risk of harm that exceeds what serves the public good.

I believe I have answered his questions.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have just been hearing comments about the need for Parliament to protect itself against certain court decisions. I must say that, having heard my hon. colleague's speech, it is my impression that we should instead be having a motion to protect society against speeches such as the one we have just heard.

Some members of the House have suggested that the courts are assuming a role that is not contemplated in the Constitution. That is close to ridiculous. Such comments may cause people to question the legitimacy of the courts. In a society where we value the law, comments like this coming from parliamentarians run totally contrary to the principles we are called upon to defend in this Chamber, collectively and individually.

Of course criticism and debate are necessary elements in a healthy democracy. That is what gives members the right to make statements, but is certainly not an excuse to make statements that are neither informed nor responsible.

The impression created by the speech we have just heard is misleading and could risk damaging the credibility of the institution of the Canadian courts and the public's confidence in our system of justice as a whole.

It is clear that the power of judicial review has always existed under the Constitution. It is not as if the Prime Minister three weeks ago kicked out the former Supreme Court justices and appointed a fresh batch of them with a new mandate under a new Constitution. That power of judicial review has existed since 1867.

In first year university we were taught issues such as Russell v. Regina. It had to do with who had the authority to dispense liquor licences. I studied that a long time ago. I even had a different haircut then. This is to say how long that right of judicial review has existed. The boundary between Ontario and Manitoba was decided that way several years later under Premier Mowat.

The hon. member across the way refers to the right to vote of women and I am glad he made that point. Maybe he could talk about the right of women to sit in Parliament, namely in the Senate. In fact it was part of our judicial system that eventually gave them that right. The judicial committee of the Privy Council made that decision.

I wonder at that time, had it been left to people who think the same way as we just heard in the speech a moment ago, whether that right would have been achieved then. To ask the question is almost the same as answering it. It probably would not have existed today.

As I have said, the courts have always played a significant role in reviewing government legislation. This is a longstanding principle of the common law. There is no question that the role of the courts in interpreting the Charter has given them a higher profile and a more direct effect on the daily lives of Canadians.

However, even though the courts exercise considerable influence on the shape or the interpretation of Canadian law, they do so in accordance with well-established rules of constitutional and statutory interpretation, and not in a vacuum. Decisions are not reached on the basis of any personal bias on the part of judges, be they in the Supreme Court or in the other courts of Canada.

Where the courts signal to a legislature that the Charter of Rights is not being protected, as is the case with some of the things that were raised today, and that does not cover everything that was raised this morning, elected legislatures are free to choose how to respond within the framework of the Constitution. Case in point is the issue of child pornography. It is not as if Parliament did not respond to that issue. We passed Bill C-20 over the objections of some people in the House who claim today to be defending our children in the case of Bill C-20.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

moved:

That this House call upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament against certain court decisions that: (a) threaten the traditional definition of marriage as decided by the House as, “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; (b) grant house arrest to child sexual predators and make it easier for child sexual predators to produce and possess child pornography; and (c) grant prisoners the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to sponsor this motion on behalf of the Canadian Alliance.

The Canadian Alliance is concerned and Canadians across the country are concerned that recent court decisions do not represent the view of Parliament nor the values of Canadian society as a whole.

The three issues outlined in the motion are of particular importance to the constituents in the riding of Provencher and indeed to ordinary citizens across the country, citizens whom I speak to and whom I receive letters from on a daily basis.

Under the assumed authority of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the courts have moved beyond their traditional role as arbiters of legal disputes and into the realm of policy making. Indeed, they have become politicians.

While it was anticipated that the charter would grant the courts new powers to review the constitutionality of Parliament's decisions, it has become clear that the courts have taken for themselves an authority that Parliament either expressly withheld from the courts at the time of the drafting of the charter or an authority that no reasonable interpretation of the provisions of the charter could support. Specifically, recent decisions of the courts such as those related to marriage, our laws governing the protection of children and prisoner voting rights are not decisions that are properly grounded in the constitutional jurisdiction granted to the judiciary by Parliament.

An unaccountable and unelected judiciary has simply and erroneously appropriated the jurisdiction to legislate by judicial fiat matters of social policy.

In the opinion of the Canadian Alliance, and indeed in my personal opinion, this was never intended to be the jurisdiction of the courts. Political decisions related to social policy must remain the exclusive jurisdiction of a democratically elected Parliament.

While Canadians enthusiastically support the charter they are becoming increasingly concerned about the political direction of the courts. Nevertheless, judges in Canada have taken on a greater role in shaping government policy, an area that was previously reserved for elected officials.

In many cases where the judiciary has confined itself to its proper constitutional role its decisions have had a positive effect. However in many other cases, such as the Sharpe child pornography case, the effect has had detrimental effects on our society and our ability to protect our children.

Whether or not ordinary Canadians agree with conclusions reached by the courts, it is apparent that Parliament's social policy leadership is becoming irrelevant since its choices are limited by the political choices of the courts as Parliament is ordered to comply with judicial policy directions in all existing and future legislation. As a law-making body, Parliament is becoming less relevant, less creative, less effective, and less vigorous as a result of this shift in power.

Recently, three provincial courts have ventured into the realm of social policy and have ordered Parliament to redefine the institution of marriage. It is important to note that Canada is the only country in the world whose courts have determined the issue of same sex marriage to be a rights based issue. The two countries that have legalized to some extent so-called same sex marriage, the Netherlands and Belgium, have done so as a matter of public policy through the legislative process, not on the basis of judicial compulsion.

In respect of this issue, this new wave of judicial activism appears to pay little heed to either Parliament or indeed the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada as set out in prior decisions. In the Egan Supreme Court decision in 1995, Justice La Forest, writing for four judges for a nine court panel, specifically rejected the idea that the traditional definition of marriage improperly discriminated against same sex couples. Rather, he concluded that Parliament was properly entitled to make a distinction between marriage and all other social units. In his words:

...the distinction made by Parliament is grounded in a social relationship, a social unit that is fundamental to society. That unit, as I have attempted to explain, is unique. It differs from all other couples, including homosexual couples.

The other five judges chose not to base their decision on this issue and in the result the decision of Justice La Forest, together with the judgment of Justice Sopinka who concurred in the result arrived at by Justice La Forest, forms the authoritative basis of the decision. Although both Justice La Forest, on behalf of those who addressed this issue, and Parliament have clearly expressed their support for traditional marriage legal challenges continue to mount.

Last week, when the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that prohibiting same sex marriage was discriminatory, it joined two other recent lower court rulings in Ontario and Quebec. I was surprised, perhaps I should not have been, but I was certainly disappointed to hear the justice minister suggesting the possibility that he may choose not to appeal the British Columbia decision, particularly since he along with the majority of his cabinet colleagues voted in support of a Reform Party resolution in 1999 that stated:

...marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The Liberals are now deserting their commitment that they made to the public of Canada. The former finance minister who hopes to be Canada's next Prime Minister has failed to articulate a clear position on this issue. He has said that he would support the decision of the courts and would not use the parliamentary override, the notwithstanding clause, to preserve traditional marriage.

This is astounding considering that he voted to take all necessary steps to do so four years ago. He is failing to show leadership. He is deserting the commitment he made to Canadians four years ago. Knowing that public opinion is divided on this issue, the Liberals may find it convenient to leave this hot potato with the courts in order to shift the responsibility for this matter onto the unelected and unaccountable judiciary that cannot be voted out of office.

However, if the Liberals decide not to challenge this court decision, as they have apparently done, they will have failed in their responsibility to demonstrate leadership on this important social issue.

As the chief law officer of Canada, the justice minister has a clear obligation to Canadians to appeal the B.C. Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Supreme Court then chooses to abolish traditional marriage by overturning the Egan decision in the comments of Justice La Forest, then the minister is obligated, in keeping with the promise he made to Canadians in 1999, to invoke section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At this point the decision is properly back in the hands of parliamentarians and not in the hands of those who would improperly take this jurisdiction away from the elected representatives of the people. Those parliamentarians who choose to allow the courts to make these decisions, because they do not have the courage to make the decisions themselves, fabricate an excuse by saying it is the Constitution that makes us do this.

Let us make it perfectly clear that section 33 is, in fact, an appropriate mechanism by which Parliament retains supremacy in this country. Although the courts may successfully be pressured by interest groups into a position on marriage based on what may be new and fashionable, it is the duty of Parliament to await the test of time through rigorous debate. This is particularly true because these views and theories on marriage are so oddly out of step with the views of ordinary Canadians, and indeed historical and sociological precedents on marriage across the world.

In the case of John Robin Sharpe, our ability as Canadians to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation has been seriously eroded by the courts. Parents breathed a sigh of relief after a January 2001 Supreme Court decision substantially upheld Canada's laws against child pornography. Unfortunately, the exception created for personal writings was defined in such a broad way that violent and anti-social text that glorified the sexual exploitation of our children by adults like Sharpe could be justified under the law.

We would never tolerate that kind of abuse of minorities in this country. We would not tolerate that kind of abuse of women in this country. Yet the Liberal government is prepared to tolerate the abuse of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children. We did not see this immediately, but a year later, when Sharpe was re-tried in the B.C. Supreme Court, the judge interpreted Sharpe's pornographic works involving children, the sexual abuse of children, as having artistic merit. It is shameful.

Not surprisingly this was the same judge who had originally struck down the law as unconstitutional in 1999. Clearly, what he could not do by declaring the law unconstitutional, he simply did by applying an absurdly broad definition of artistic merit. Sharpe's writings are not art by any reasonable standards. His writings depict sexually explicit material that glorifies the violent sexual exploitation of children by adults. The loophole of artistic merit remains in the new Liberal bill, Bill C-20.

Although the Liberal government has used smoke and mirrors to pretend that it has made the loophole disappear, a prominent Liberal lawyer, David Matas, who represented Beyond Borders, has in fact said the new Liberal legislation would create a larger loophole than artistic merit. Yet these members opposite claim that they have addressed the problem. They have not done anything in Bill C-20 that purports to abolish the defence of artistic merit. They are misleading the public when they suggest that the defence of the public good is a satisfactory answer.

The other issue of importance is the law that allows convicts, including child sexual predators, to serve their terms in the community, otherwise known as house arrest. The Liberal government instituted this policy in 1996 in order to reduce incarceration rates. Whatever happened to the overriding concern about the protection of society?

The Liberals have become bureaucrats who say that we need to reduce incarceration rates. What about the protection of children, people in the streets, our cities, towns, and rural countryside? Serious criminals who still pose a risk to the community have abused these sentences and the government has done nothing to take steps to prevent that.

For example, in 2001 a New Brunswick man was handed a six month conditional sentence and 18 months probation after he pleaded guilty to possession and trading of child pornography on the Internet. The pornographer dealt in pictures involving children between the ages of 10 and 12. Although the law directs the courts to impose the sentence only in those circumstances where serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community, that principle appears to have been long forgotten by the courts.

The courts have ignored the federal justice minister's stated intention that these house arrests would not apply to violent crimes. Even the concept of imposing a prison sentence to deter others no longer seems to be applied as a result of the Liberal law.

In another more recent case the supreme court overturned a 1993 law passed by Parliament prohibiting prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more from voting in federal elections.

In another more recent case the Supreme Court overturned a 1993 law passed by Parliament prohibiting prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more from voting in federal elections. It was found that the law infringed section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives Canadians the right to vote. As a result, the motorcycle gang member and convicted murderer who challenged the law won the right to vote. In the days and weeks following the ruling, polls showed that the overwhelming majority of Canadians disagreed with the decision.

In the upcoming May 12 byelection in Perth--Middlesex, a prisoner has been placed on the voter's list who recently was convicted of stabbing his wife to death while their children watched. Canadians are outraged that murderers and violent criminals can take part in the democratic process for which they have shown contempt.

By the court substituting its political opinion, and I emphasize it is a political decision on the part of the court, this is not a legal decision, for that of elected parliamentarians, Canadians have no reason to believe in the legitimacy of democratic government and the rule of law. Unfortunately, although the Canadian Alliance introduced a motion last year that would end prisoner voting, the Liberal government refused to support it, suggesting that it would deal with the problem in some other mysterious way. In actual fact the constitutional amendment, as outlined in the motion, is the only way by which Parliament can reverse the effects of this damaging and ill-conceived court decision.

If a member of Parliament makes laws with which Canadians do not agree, that member of Parliament may not be re-elected. However Canadians do not have the opportunity to remove judges who make significant decisions that do not reflect the values of our citizens and our country.

Once the Prime Minister appoints a judge, by virtue of our Constitution a judge may remain in his or her position until age 75. Because of the important decisions our judges are called upon to make, many people in Canada believe that the closed door process for choosing judges, controlled by the Prime Minister, should be changed. In fact Canadian Alliance policy specifically calls for Supreme Court of Canada judges to be chosen by a multi-party committee of the House of Commons after open hearings. Others would like to go further. A recent survey taken by the polling company Environics suggested that two-thirds of Canadians believe that Supreme Court judges should be elected.

Regardless, I believe the closed door process for choosing Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges is in need of review. Although the Prime Minister consults with interest groups such as law societies, bar associations and individual members of the legal associations and the legal community including judges, as well as the justice minister himself when making appointments, given the significance of court decisions since the advent of the charter, it is increasingly necessary for these appointments to come before Parliament in some fashion so that a broader spectrum of Canadians are involved in this decision.

I dare say there are not many members of the House who could name the nine Supreme Court judges who have so much power over the lives of individual Canadians and our democracy. I doubt if one person could stand in the House and name all nine. At the very least, Canadians have indicated that judicial appointments must allow for greater direct input by citizens to help ensure that those we appoint as judges properly reflect the values of Canadians rather than simply the political interests of a particular Prime Minister.

My time is drawing to a close, but I would direct the readers or the listeners to go back to some of the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decisions where the courts said in very lofty terms that these rights and freedoms were not to be interpreted in a vacuum, but they needed to be interpreted in the context of our historical and cultural roots. The courts have cut off those roots. They have gone on a frolic of their own. It is time that it stops. Ultimately it is the duty of Parliament, as a federal legislative body, to bring our public policy and our laws into line with the views and values of Canadians, and so I encourage all members to support the motion.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the courts are doing a very poor job on this particular issue. For example, Bill C-20 does not close the loophole for artistic merit and does not create tougher sentences for these predators. However, the Liberals are ramming it through with the help of a Tory justice critic who spoke in favour of it, saying we have no choice. We do have a choice.

When will the Liberal government finally get tough, close all the loopholes, and put child predators behind bars so our children will be safe?

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the only way we will save costs on this program is to scrap this registry and put the money into public safety.

The minister should be ashamed of himself for coming here with a whole bunch of costs and not being able to answer my questions on what this will cost and when it will be finished, but this is typical of the government. I am hardly surprised because this reflects its entire criminal justice agenda. It has nothing to do with public safety. Instead, it is just wasting money and being soft on crime.

We have Bill C-23 which frankly should be renamed the sex offender protection act because the only people in the country it protects are sex offenders. We have Bill C-20 that has loopholes for child pornography. I could go on and on. Under its watch the government has allowed convicts the right to vote.

Can the government explain why it is so soft on criminals and is never prepared to take real action on crime?