John Reynolds

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

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.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

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—

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

moved:

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, young offenders, impaired driving, conditional sentencing, drug trafficking, home invasions, police funding, consecutive sentencing, corrections facilities and illegal immigration, and as a consequence, have put individual safety, and in some cases national security, in jeopardy.

[Justice, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think the Deputy Prime Minister has the wrong notes. A young person convicted of an assault with a weapon will still be released back into the community without the community knowing. A young person convicted of sexual assault will still have their identity kept a secret. These young criminals will mingle at school and in the parks without anybody knowing whatever happened.

Why does the government not think that sexual assault with a weapon or armed robbery or hostage taking during a home invasion is a serious crime? Why would we hide the identity of 99% of these serious criminals?

[Justice, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's changes to the Young Offenders Act were largely cosmetic. For example, the law kept the identities of convicted criminals a secret for fully 99% of all young offenders. Only the names of 1% of the most extreme criminals will have their names published.

Why does the new act still hide the identities of youth convicted of armed robbery, home invasions and sexual assault with a weapon?

[Points Of Order, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Justice stated the Reform Party wanted to put 10 and 11 year olds in jail. That is untrue and I hope the minister would withdraw that statement.

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring problems with the old Juvenile Delinquents Act was the discretion it provided the provinces to create their own system of youth justice. That is why it was changed.

Why are we going back in history? Should the criminal law of the land not be the same in every province?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

The new youth criminal justice bill allows for provinces to opt out of adult sentencing. Canada's justice system is based on uniformity and universality of application. What happened to treating Canadians equally right across Canada?

[Division No. 332, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I asked the Minister of Justice some further questions on what was happening with regard to possession of child pornography in Canada.

In her answer the parliamentary secretary talked about it being before the appeal court, that we had intervened, and that it would be heard on April 26 and April 27. Our argument is that is too long to wait. Every day in the country that someone is in possession of child pornography is one day too long. The government could have stepped in using the charter to make sure that did not happen.

The parliamentary secretary said:

To repeat what I said in the House, the law is still the law of the land. It is only one court in the land that has ruled someone can possess child pornography for personal use but we are going to be appealing. We are awaiting the decision of the court of appeal where we have intervened.

One court of the land has ruled that one can do it. Since the last time I had a chance to ask this question in the House, we had a case in Vernon where a person actually pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. That case was adjourned by the judge because of the situation of this ruling.

We on this side of the House still say that every day is one day too long. If we do not get the right decision on April 26 to 29 on this appeal we could then be waiting a lot longer for a supreme court ruling. That is not good enough.

I quote from the member for Scarborough Southwest in a speech he delivered in the House on May 11, 1993 when debating the issue of pornography and pedophiles:

This is crucially important because the only people who are interested in the possession of child pornography are pedophiles. I would also say it is true that there are very few passive pedophiles, if I can put it that way, those who are prepared to go no further than to look at the pictures.

We also know from various studies that pedophiles prey on children. There are no one-victim pedophiles. In fact most of the studies that have been done show that pedophiles, both heterosexual and homosexual, prey on more than 200 children each in their lifetimes.

In this case we have a government that is prepared to wait. I do not think most Canadians want them to wait.

Quoting again from the member for Scarborough Southwest:

What kind of a country do we have if we do not protect our children from pedophiles? What has our government done about it? It has done absolutely nothing.

Every child depicted is a victim for life. They are scarred forever and those are the people we have to protect in this country.

I could not agree with the member more. Remember this was a bill in 1993 when Liberal government members were in opposition and making these kinds of statements. Now that they are in government they have changed their minds.

He went on:

I do say to the government that in whatever bill it has suddenly discovered is on the legislative agenda it should provide for the broadest possible spectrum of what could be defined as child pornography because I would rather err on the side of protecting child victims than on the side of protecting child pedophiles.

That is why this government should have taken the action it could have taken quite a few weeks ago to make sure that pedophiles in British Columbia cannot possess child pornography.

It always interesting in this House when one finds these speeches written by members such as one by the member for Scarborough Southwest who was in the opposition then and now sits in the government. It is now his government that is allowing pedophiles in Canada to possess child pornography. It is prepared to wait until a judge decides, instead of parliament doing the responsible thing and taking the proper action.

[Young Offenders Act, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since 1996 the government has been posturing on changes to the toothless 15 year old Young Offenders Act, the act that allows youth who commit violent crimes including murder and aggravated assault to get away with it.

Last May the justice minister released a discussion paper, a strategy for renewal of youth justice, and at the same time promised Canadians a new youth criminal justice act by the fall of 1998.

Fall came and went and now we are two months short of the first anniversary of the minister's discussion paper. Lo and behold we hear that a new youth criminal justice act will be tabled on Thursday.

In typical Liberal orchestration the new act will not be a universal code of conduct. Rather, it will allow opting out by those provinces that feel these darling young offenders are simply misunderstood. Those provinces and indeed most Canadians that wanted to lower the minimum age of young offenders from 10 to 12 will also be disappointed.

It is regrettable that after a decade of debate we will not get a universal code. On Thursday the window of opportunity closes for another decade. The government is afraid to stigmatize young offenders at the expense and safety of our communities.