House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Justice February 9th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to get out of the classroom and get down to real living.
These people convicted of these violent crimes are going home. That does not mean locked in at home. They are going to movies in their neighbourhood today. They are going shopping today.
When will the minister take the action she should as Minister of Justice and make sure no more cases like what happened in Ottawa this last weekend happen anywhere else in Canada?
Justice February 9th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In Montreal two men are convicted of a brutal rape. In Ottawa a woman is convicted of killing her husband with two bullets to the head. In Ottawa a man is convicted of killing his mother. What do all these crimes have in common? They all went home instead of going to jail.
When will the Minister of Justice change this law so that those convicted of these violent crimes go to jail instead of going home?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, tonight we will talk about APEC for four minutes. I want to start off by reading into the record exactly what commissioner Ted Hughes received in a letter addressed to him on February 3 regarding his role in the hearing. In the public interest, he is to inquire into all matters touching upon these complaints, to hear all evidence relevant thereto and to ensure a full and fair hearing with respect to these complaints.
In his letter to the new solicitor general, Ted Hughes points out very clearly “I have concluded for the purpose of the present inquiry, a full and ample opportunity to present evidence to cross-examine witnesses and to make representations can be best achieved by the complainants having counsel. Accordingly I write to recommend in the words of Madam Justice Reed that the state fund counsel. That is the purpose of this letter.
“The question I have under study is not whether state funded counsel should be provided but rather whether I have as a matter of law the authority to order that it be provided. You will appreciate from what I have said that my answer to the former question would very definitely be in the affirmative. While it is going to take time for me to study and research the legal question before me, I believe that, as a courtesy to you while that process is occurring, I ought to make my view of the funding issue known to you and communicate it to you in the form of a recommendation pursuant to the protocol sanctioned by Madam Justice Reed. If such a recommendation has not been previously been placed before you, I believe this is a fair and reasonable course for me to follow”.
Mr. Justice Hughes is a well respected person in British Columbia. He has been on the bench. He has worked for governments in British Columbia. The Reform Party is very happy that he is now heading up this inquiry. We know from his past record he will not be pushed around. He will do what has to be done to make sure that justice is served in this purpose.
I find it very strange that today in the House the minister was asked again by our critic for the solicitor general whether he will agree to these recommendations by Justice Hughes and yet we are still looking at it. This is not something that just happened yesterday. The letter has been there for close to a week, but the government has known for a long time. The previous commissioners requested funding.
There cannot be a fair hearing unless everybody is well represented. I hope Justice Hughes in his own research will find that under the act he has the power to do this funding on his own in case the government refuses once again to go by what he is asking it for.
This whole APEC situation has been a black eye on Canada. A number of things have happened in this inquiry. A minister has had to resign over this issue. The former chairman of the commission has resigned over this issue. The two other commissioners have resigned over this issue. Here we are back now with Justice Hughes starting into this hearing and looking at getting some more support from this government to get ahead and do what needs to be done.
The government in hundreds of questions in this House on this issue has always said “Let us let the inquiry get going. Let us let it happen”. Now the new commissioner is saying to fund the other parties so that we can get this under way in a fair and prudent manner.
I would implore this government to do that. Make sure it is funded. Make sure it moves forward. We are all looking forward to the results that Mr. Hughes will come out with.
Criminal Code February 3rd, 1999
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-467, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act (death penalty).
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to impose the death sentence in all cases of aggravated first degree murder committed by a person 18 years of age or over at the time of the commission of the murder. Aggravated first degree murder is first degree murder committed in a heinous manner that defies human dignity.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Child Pornography February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how they do not like politics in between elections.
Does the minister believe that the entire child pornography industry has shut down while she is waiting for these courts to appeal?
How can the minister rationalize just one more day to make it legal in any way in any jurisdiction to own child pornography?
Child Pornography February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting children. I will quote from a letter sent to the Prime Minister by over 70 members of the House. It says “As soon as the House resumes we ask that you consider use of the notwithstanding clause”.
How can protecting children—and I quote the minister—be silly and wrongheaded?
Child Pornography February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue.
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the minister have said publicly to let this thing go along, that everything is fine, that the law is still in place, et cetera.
My colleague who just spoke is a lawyer. If the minister is saying that, could he explain why there was a case in Surrey right after the case with Justice Shaw which was dismissed based on Justice Shaw's decision? How can it be the same? How can every child be safe? How can children be safe from pornography if there has been one case already? There is one person out on the street because of that ruling and there are 40 more waiting just in British Columbia. Would my colleague explain to the parliamentary secretary so we could perhaps change her mind a little on this issue?
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Judge Shaw's ruling that freedom of expression would be violated because of personal possession is unbelievable. As the member just stated, section 1 of the charter allows a judge in a case like I mentioned earlier with the Zundel case to invoke that section and sentence the individual, no matter what right the offender has. This is a heinous crime against society and children.
Let me tell Canadians what the sentence for possession of child pornography is under the Criminal Code. It states that every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an offence punishable on summary conviction. Sentences are much greater in areas such as the making of child pornography.
Justice Shaw has chosen not to use section 1 of the charter. He has chosen not to say that the crime is so heinous the other side of it for possession is not good enough. He did not do that. Yet he should have and other judges have done it in the past.
We are telling parliament to fix this law. Let us use the notwithstanding clause, section 33, which was included in the charter to give parliament that power. Section 33 gives every member of the House the right to take on the charter and say it is not good enough for Canada and it is not good enough for Canadians. That is what every member of the House has to do.
I am not a lawyer. We are very lucky in the House to have non-lawyers and lawyers. However we have read it and we have talked to some of the top lawyers in Canada. They have told us that we can insert the notwithstanding clause under this crime by a simple vote in the House today. As I said yesterday—and I will say it many times again—when the House wants to do something it gets it done. When we wanted a pay raise it took 15 minutes, all stages of the bill; everything went through.
This is a terrible issue. My colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to get something done immediately on this issue as 69 other Liberals did. Let us do it immediately. Let us pass the motion today. Let us do it right now. If I were to move that we vote right now to pass the motion we would save a lot of debate. Let us get it done now. Canadians want it done. We want people like Mr. Shaw to know that Canadians do not respect him, that parliament does not respect him, nor should they.
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party today has presented parliament with an opportunity. The motion we introduced today is a compelling one. It is a call for the reinstatement of the morals and values that we hold dear. The motion is a clarion call for common sense, and we emphasize the urgency of the situation.
The B.C. supreme court decision that made possession of child pornography no longer illegal was an affront to our sensitivities and values. It was, as some characterized it, condoning child abuse and manipulation of the innocent.
Even the Liberal Party talking points acknowledged that children are the most vulnerable members of society. The notes go on to say that the Liberal position is clear, and never more so than against the exploitation inherent in the possession, production and distribution of child pornography.
With this statement I know the Reform Party can count on our Liberal colleagues to support our motion to reinstate the law that was debased by Justice Shaw's decision, even if it entails invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is better known as the notwithstanding clause.
If the government truly believes what it put in its speaking notes it will not wait for the B.C. court of appeal to rule, let alone wait for the supreme court to rule. We all know that could take a year. It is just too urgent to let this immoral decision stand for even another day. The consequences are just too stark and too frightening.
In fact one British Columbia judge has just thrown out one child pornography possession case because of Judge Shaw's ill founded, intemperate decision. Another 40 child pornography possession cases are on the books of British Columbia. Across Canada there could be hundreds which are in jeopardy, but even the fact this one case was thrown out because of this case is the reason we in parliament are debating the issue today.
Surely the government knowing this would not want to give licence to individuals to deal in this very sick behaviour. The government must know what this type of material incites. Does it want to give licence to pedophiles? I do not think so.
Section 163(1), clause 4, of the Criminal Code is clear. Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence. Judge Shaw's ruling that freedom of expression would be violated because of personal possession is an expression of that person's essential self and subsequently his invocation of the charter is offensive, negligent, deficient, abusive of children and begs for overriding by the notwithstanding clause.
Anyone in a sensible frame of mind with a scintilla of decency and values knows child pornography is harmful. Clinical study by medical experts conclude that child pornography is harmful. In fact some pedophiles show it to children to make the conduct appear normal. It is known to excite some child molesters to commit offences, and the bottom line is that children are abused in making this kind of material. It is an affront to our dignity and to all our human rights. Surely this mockery of the charter by this judge is enough to shake the government out of its lethargy.
Justice Shaw based his judgment on two articles on the issue of child pornography, one dated 1987 and the other 1988. In effect, Justice Shaw assimilated this complex medical psychological issue by reading two articles, listening to two witnesses, and he became an expert. Come on. We all know he is certainly not an expert on this issue.
Justice Shaw's distinction of highly erotic and mildly erotic was based on one paragraph from data done in 1974 and 1977. It is downright incomprehensible to think a judge could exhibit such a lack of attention to detail and studies. It is even more incomprehensible, in fact reprehensible, that this judge is not accountable for such irresponsible behaviour. Has no one every told him the community standards theory? Many judges over the years have used the community standards theory to override the charter.
Judge Shaw invokes the charter which ostensibly gave more rights to a person who likes child porn than to the child it debases. That is the crux of the motion today and the reason it is so urgent. I will say that again. He gave more rights to the person who likes child porn than he gave to the child who is abused in making it. Everyone in the House has to agree that is very sick and something we should not stand for in Canada.
What our motion does is give parliament a chance to tell this judge that we do not like his decision, that we have community standards and we do not like child porn. Parliament has the power. Let us use it today. Using the charter as the judge did is weak and inexcusable. Even in the Zundel case the court acknowledged that not all expression is equally worth protection. Did Judge Shaw that into account? Does Judge Shaw really think child porn is worthy of protection? Certainly he does in his decision.
Judge Shaw, in his weighing process, decided that the deleterious effects outweighed the salutary effects so the limitation on freedom of expression was not saved. In sum, he dismissed salutary effects like abuse of children and making pornography, incitement of some pedophiles to commit offences, and advocacy of the commission of sexual offences. Is that not in and of itself to limit the freedom of expression?
Judge Shaw's decision has made it open season for pedophiles to play on children and for the proliferation of child pornography. It jeopardizes hundreds of child pornography cases before the courts. As I mentioned earlier, one case has already been thrown out. A person walked free because of this decision.
It behoves us to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause and thereby assure Canadians that possession of this type of material is still a crime in Canada. We must send a message to the type of people who use this material and to pedophiles that we find them despicable parasites which we will not tolerate.
People like Mr. Sharpe are probably watching this debate today. I saw him on TV after he was let go by Judge Shaw flouting it in our faces saying it was his right to do this, that it is his right to like young little boys. He is a despicable person and anybody like him is despicable, and we should not have any laws in the the country that allow him to get away with that.
I will talk about a petition I received signed by 70 Liberals on the other side. There are a lot of names we know well on this petition including my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. They signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to immediately solve the problem. Immediate does not mean next month or the month after. Immediate means today or yesterday if we could have done it.
We followed the rules of the House. Our party brought the motion today at the first possible time we could. I would have hoped the government would have done it sooner. I heard the minister say that the questions yesterday were silly. It was very offensive to me and I think offensive to most Canadians that the Minister of Justice would talk about this as being something silly. Mr. Sharpe is not somebody silly.
I had another case in British Columbia that was dismissed because of this case. That is not silly. We have to solve this problem today.
The government has the power to set our morale standards back on track. I urge the government to support the motion. It is what all Canadians want. I urge those Canadians who are watching the debate today to go to the blue pages, phone their members of parliament right now and tell their offices that they want them to vote for the motion today.
This is an important decision we will make today. It is time parliament took back control of the courts. Let us make the laws so the judges do not have any decisions in these matters. It is in the books that this is an offence. Let us make it an offence and send them to jail for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Let us demand it for this ugly miserable offence. I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “take” the word “immediate”.