Debates of March 16th, 1999

Supply

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this motion on behalf of the Reform Party, Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and to lead off debate on an issue that concerns and even scares a lot of Canadians, the current state of our criminal justice system.

In a recent publication by a University of Ottawa law professor, the chief assertion of the work was that Canada's system of criminal justice is undergoing a public credibility crisis of dangerous proportions. That was stated by a law professor who is well respected in Canada. It is not the Reform Party saying that. This is a law professor who has spent his life in this work.

This should not come as a surprise to the government. Maybe today after this debate and the sharing of information which should take place we can expect some change. I say that in all sincerity, but after watching this government I really wonder.

Today members will have an opportunity to hear from colleagues on our side of the House who are involved in the justice area, from members of other parties and from the government. We can only hope that the government will have a change of heart and start looking seriously at the criminal justice system.

Canada's criminal justice system has become a series of technicalities, plea bargains, defence by psychologists, law by judges and outright misrepresentation by lawyers and the courts of the consequences of a sentence. We all know by now that a ten year sentence really means three years. Why not say it and quit adding to the cynicism that already exits in the Canadian public.

Each day newspaper headlines scream out another example of a criminal justice system out of control. Headlines like “Legal System Getting Away with Murder”, “Child Porn Flooding into British Columbia”, “B.C. Justice Strikes Down Law Against Child Porn”, “Conditional Sentence Granted in Murder of Husband”, “Man Who Killed Mother is Free to Go”, “Canada Fertile Land for the Mob”, “RCMP Budget will Undermine Its Work” and “Fewer Police Today Per Capita Than 20 Years Ago” are appearing in our newspapers.

I think members get the picture. It is a litany of articles and stories contrary to what we might expect in this country. We have to ask ourselves: Are we protecting our citizens and meting out justice or protecting the guilty and providing injustice?

Today the Reform Party motion will identify the concerns and fears of many Canadians.

Today the House will hear about the legality of child pornography in British Columbia.

We will hear about the release of pedophiles into the community because of the insensitive if not bizarre Shaw ruling. We will hear how these individuals are free to prey on our children with the blessing of the court.

We will hear about the new youth criminal justice bill which refuses to acknowledge what is fundamentally wrong with youth justice.

We will hear about what are known as conditional sentences; that is, where murderers, rapists and other perpetrators of violent crime spend their sentences in the community rather than in prison. It is a novel idea. They put a bullet in the head of their sleeping husband and they get to move to British Columbia to enjoy the mountains and the scenery. It is like winning the lottery.

We will also hear about people who live in fear of home invasion and hostage taking.

We will hear about impaired drivers and the carnage they are leaving in their wake. There is no compelling initiative in the Criminal Code to deal with them.

We will hear about cutbacks in RCMP funding, of the closing of the training centre and what this means to our personal safety.

We will hear about our borders, the gateway for every crook and terrorist who wants a place to ply their trade. Speakers from our side will tell the House how these illegals look upon Canada as the promised land.

We will also hear of the intransigence of the Liberal government and its failure to deal with consecutive sentencing, despite a private member's bill by one of its own MPs calling for change.

We will hear about drug trafficking and the inability to police it due to cutbacks in resources.

We will hear about the state of our correctional facilities and how, if one pulls the right strings, they can bring their polo pony or play a leisurely 18 holes of golf. I hasten to add that one first has to bludgeon and shoot his wife to death for this type of royal treatment. Petty criminals need not apply. This is reserved for the truly heinous.

As members can see, this is a smorgasbord of crime and supposed punishment. It is a litany of indignity, abuse of the system and no retribution.

Allow me to begin with the issue of child pornography.

Following the B.C. supreme court ruling by Justice Duncan Shaw striking down section 163.14 of the Criminal Code, concerning child pornography, as unconstitutional because the rights of freedom of expression of John Robin Sharpe were violated and, as the ruling states “a person's possessions are an expression of a person's thoughts and essential self”, I kept asking myself the same question, when is infringement of these charter rights—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need some clarification from you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of speaking on topic. The motion before the House has to do with the defence of provocation. We are now talking about child pornography. I think we need clarification because it could influence the debate for the rest of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the motion before the House today lists a string of matters of legal concern. The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is discussing matters relating to our legal system. Anyone is going to be hard-pressed to call him on a question of relevance given the wording of the motion before the House today. There is a long list of legal items in it and I think the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is not straying too far from the topic at the moment.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that. It is amazing that the member opposite would rise on a point of order if he had looked at the motion. Possibly he has not read it. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to deliver criminal justice programs and laws that reflect the will and concerns of the majority of Canadians, including issues like child pornography...

That is what I am speaking about right now and it is what I will continue to speak about. It may be very painful for members on the other side to listen to these things, but Canadians are concerned about them and that is why my party is debating these issues today.

In the case of Shaw, the justice determined that the essential self of John Robin Sharpe was invaded. Shaw determined that the right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition of child pornography. Some may argue that the judgment may not always mean justice. This crucible we employ to render determination is fallible and sometimes so arcane that any scintilla of common sense seems lacking.

When Justice Shaw spoke of essential self I would take it to mean the worth, dignity and intrinsic value we place on our being and that of others. I would take it to mean our right to peace, security and self-determination. I would take it to mean our right to live without fear of reprisal and that any harm brought upon us, particularly by those in a position to manipulate or destroy that vulnerable human spirit that is present in the young, would be met with condemnation and swift justice.

That is why so many Canadians view the Shaw decision as a failure in rendering justice that protects individuals least able to protect themselves.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not dealing with relevance. I just want to bring to the attention of the House that this House has for many years followed closely the provisions of what we call the sub judice rule. The matter that the hon. member is discussing now is a matter involving the criminal law, an individual who has been charged and the matter is still at process.

I urge upon the House to have regard for the provisions of the sub judice convention so that the ability of the courts to deal with this matter fairly and properly and the rights of the individual involved before the courts are not prejudiced by the public debate here.

I ask our Chair to direct his attention to that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair cannot know all the cases that are before the courts in this country and which ones members are commenting on.

What is clear is that there is a rule which requires that members refrain from comment on cases that are before the courts, particularly criminal cases, where comments might be ones that tend to prejudice the outcome of the legal proceedings.

This is a discussion today in the House on matters of criminal law primarily, if I can lump the various items of discussion together, and using that word without in any way prejudicing the discussion or limiting the terms of the motion that the opposition has put before the House today.

I would urge hon. members to have a look at Beauchesne's, at the sub judice rule as stated in that work, and bear it in mind in the course of their comments today.

I know that hon. members would not want to prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings in our courts. I know that in their debate today they will exercise the usual temperance and prudence as befits members of the House. I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for drawing the rule to our attention. I know the hon. member will be careful in what he says and I hope that we will be able to carry on that way all day.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You just referred to temperance. I noted that the member for Prince George—Peace River, who has since left the house, was using intemperate language. He referred to our country, Canada, as this bloody country.

I would ask him to withdraw that remark and to refrain from using such intemperate language in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member were here, perhaps I would be able to do something like that. He seems to have disappeared for the moment. Here he is.

Perhaps the hon. member would refrain from using such intemperate language in the House. I did not hear the remark, but I know that no hon. member would want to speak that way.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting when we get on this topic how sensitive the government is.

The member knows that what I am talking about is a case that has already been before the court. There is an appeal going on. I am not trying to influence it. I am talking about a case that happened and he knows that. It is quite legitimate.

To hear the other member complain about my colleague saying something about Canada when yesterday government members were calling us “not Canadians” because of the way we voted is shameful. They have no shame left at all. They are so arrogant and they will probably keep on interrupting me throughout my whole speech because of that arrogance.

Let me continue. Those parents, and for that matter anyone with any degree of compassion for the sanctity of the human spirit and life, cannot be faulted in concluding that some individuals with bizarre lifestyles and values want more acknowledgement by the courts as opposed to those who fall within the mainstream of values and lifestyles. Some, it appears, have more right to freedom of conscience than others.

As in the case of any court decision, let alone a controversial one like the Shaw decision, there are ramifications. Decisions are not made to go into a void. There is a fallout and there are long term consequences.

In British Columbia there have been two very real consequences. Because of the Shaw decision two other individuals charged with possession of child pornography have had their cases dismissed. Some 36 other cases are pending and the lower courts hearing these cases have no alternative but to throw them out.

Shaw's decision guarantees the legality of the possession of child pornography until the court of appeal rules in late April. For now British Columbia is the only province where the possession of child pornography is legal, and that is not right.

The assertion by the federal Minister of Justice that things are under control and prosecutions for possession are continuing is simply not true. For now it is open season for pedophiles in British Columbia.

Five days following the Shaw decision a group of 63 Liberal MPs and six Liberal senators began a campaign of protest against the Shaw decision. The 69 signatories to an open letter to their leader, the Prime Minister, called child pornography a product of crime. They called it sexual abuse of children and the work of pedophiles. They stated that the federal government has no greater responsibility than the protection of children by those who prey on their innocence and their inability to protect themselves. They even went so far, in closing a paragraph in their missive to the Prime Minister, as to call for new child pornography legislation and for the Prime Minister to consider using the notwithstanding clause to ensure the charter will never again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children. A very realistic view of the situation and a reasonable request of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, empty in honour and resolve and a cruel hoax on children as events would prove themselves 13 days later.

On February 2 these same Liberal MPs were asked to stand in the House and give a meaning of support to their previous protestations. They were asked to support a Reform Party motion calling for the reinstatement of child pornography laws in British Columbia, even if it meant using the very clause of the Constitution Act which they implored the PM to use two weeks before.

When push came to shove, 59 of this virtuous group of Liberal MPs abandoned any notice of the vulnerability of children and their victimization at the hands of pedophiles. Four had the resolve and did what they said they would do.

The task assigned our police in the interdiction of child pornography is a mess. That is why the Shaw decision makes it even more frustrating for those charged with policing and reducing the proliferation of child pornography, particularly its dissemination on the Internet.

In British Columbia's case police can intercede and confiscate child pornography but cannot prosecute. The unregulated Internet has become the vehicle of choice and 20% of all traffic is generated by traceable kiddy porn web sites.

In a recently released RCMP intelligence report British Columbia is identified as the only province where child pornography is a serious concern for law enforcement agencies. Is that not a cruel irony in light of the Shaw decision and its concern for essential person rights for pedophiles?

Those individuals involved in this pernicious behaviour, hiding behind the charter of rights, are attempting to systematically normalize sexual immorality and the Shaw decision gives them that licence.

Herbert London, professor of humanities at the University of New York, said morality is not subjective but is a prerequisite for ordered society. Those who want the transmogrify of value system to which the majority of Canadians subscribe are an anathema to decency and respect.

I will turn now to another tragic example of Liberal government intransigence and dismissal of public concern. Last week we were treated to the long awaited changes to the Young Offenders Act. The new criminal act will be called the youth criminal justice act but despite this high sounding phrase it really will not change things a lot.

There are some glaring omissions and some glaring shortcomings to this act. I will identify some of those. First there is the limitation of the publication of names for certain offences classified as adults.

The bill limits these to five situations: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and repeat serious violent offences. This leaves a lot of violent and frightening offences out of the loop.

Second, the Reform Party, and for that matter an all party committee recommendation, called for the lowering of the maximum age of youth offenders from 17 to 15. We did not get this and I am surprised the minister would not address it.

Third, there has been a consistent call from all quarters dealing with young offenders to have the minimum age of offenders lowered to 10 years from 12. Again, the committee of this House and the minister's own justice department years and years ago called for this reduction. So has a private member's bill from one of my colleagues but we have never seen that.

The opting out provisions are also a concern for us. Simply put, there has to be universality in the provisions of the law, period. We also question the federal government's commitment to financial resources to youth justice. The announcement of $206 million is over a three year period. The federal government has never met its 50:50 cost sharing in the youth justice area and this money will hardly make up for that shortfall.

I go back to the point of the 10 to 12 year olds because I was never so shocked, the day that bill was introduced, to see the Minister of Justice talking about Reformers wanting to put 10 and 11 year old children in jail.

[An hon. member]

That's true.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

The parliamentary secretary said it is true. I will tell her it is an absolute lie. Nobody in this party has ever said we want to put a 10 or 11 year old in jail.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will not want to start using that word. I think he knows it tends to disorder in the House and I invite him to refrain from such use. I do not think he was accusing any hon. member of lying from what I heard but I would prefer he not use the word.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would never impute another member with telling a lie but I would tell anyone listening that anyone who says the Reform Party wants to put 10 and 11 year olds in jail is not telling the truth. This party and the justice committee want to see 10 and 11 year olds in the system where they can be looked after to make sure they do not become young offenders and get involved in the system. That is what everybody wants. We want them in the system. The provinces want them in the system so they can get the funding from the federal government which it does not want to put in. That is what this system is about in terms of 10 and 11 year olds.

This government wants to put no money into it. It does not want to help the provinces help these poor 10 and 11 year olds who are in this system. That is what it is all about and that is why the Liberals throw out the false claims about who wants to put who in jail. I have never in my life seen anything so low for a justice minister. I hope they will withdraw what they are saying in that area.

[An hon. member]

You want to cane us.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we hear someone from across yelling that we want to cane them. What a sad day in Canada when we have members here talking about caning and putting people in jail when we are trying to get a system that works. This government, which will not fund the Young Offenders Act properly, has not done it properly. That is why we have problems in this country. It is just like the health program. It is supposed to be funded 50% by this government but it is doing 20% and 14%. It has made a mess of it and it tries to blame it on the opposition.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my hon. friend has made an error in his comment. He was suggesting that funding for health care was 50:50. Is he suggesting that the government is not holding up its end?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member knows that is not a point of order.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member took it from me to say that the government was funding at 50:50 I apologize to him and to Canadians. I was saying it should be funding at 50:50 and it is not doing it. In my province it is about 14%. In Ontario it is even less. It has messed up the health care system which gets these 10 and 11 year olds into crime, and it cannot stand that. It cannot take the heat.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the hon. member was the critic for justice, not the critic for health. I thought the topic today was justice.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that with these points of order that are not points of order we are getting into some difficulty. The hon. member was discussing the motion before we started getting some spurious points of order. The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast I know will want to return to the topic.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope they will stop making these serious interruptions. I hope you are not taking this out of my time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It will be added on.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Maybe now that they know that they will not get up as often.

Let me now tell them about the attorney general in Ontario. They love the Ontario government on that side of the House and they will love it even less when it wins a re-election in Ontario with a big majority. This is what the attorney general of Ontario has to say about the Young Offenders Act:

Ontario is concerned that under the new federal bill 16 and 17 year olds who commit adult crimes are not automatically tried as adults.

That is a serious issue that most Canadians think of. Most justice ministers across Canada have asked this government to address this issue but it has not addressed it:

Even for murder, aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter and attempted murder there is no guarantee that youths will be sentenced as an adult. Even on the third rape charge, there is no guarantee of an adult sentence.

That is the kind of change we are trying to make in this bill.

Most serious violent offences still require the prosecutor to prove an adult sentence is necessary; jail sentences have been reduced; youths sentenced as adults for murder are still subject to more lenient periods of parole ineligibility than adults sentenced for murder; mandatory jail time is not required for youths convicted of an offence involving a weapon.

This could result in a 17 year old who commits first degree murder or other violent crimes still being treated as a child.

“Under this new act, a three time rapist could still be treated as a child. Rape, drug trafficking, guns—these are adult crimes and have to be treated as such. In the youth criminal justice act, there are no guarantees that serious violent crime will be treated as adult crime”, stated Mr. Harnick.

“What the people of Ontario have been asking for is legislation that will better protect our children and our communities, that will send a message to young people that they will be held accountable for their actions and would deter youth crime. Instead, the federal Liberal government has released a bill that has little regard for public safety and even less regard for providing meaningful consequences for criminal behaviour such as sexual assault, drug trafficking and use of a weapon”, said solicitor general and minister of correctional services, Bob Runciman.

“Many police officers and citizens across Ontario are frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems primarily concerned with the rights of offenders”, explained York regional police Chief Julian Fantino.

“It's disappointing that the federal government won't take the opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime”.

[An hon. member]

Another friend of yours.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

I hear the parliamentary secretary complaining about this police chief.

She did not complain about the stooge they had standing up at their press conference saying what the government wanted them to say. They do not all agree. There is a blatant disagreement out there about what is happening in the Young Offenders Act. They bring the people to it.