John Reynolds

[Solicitor General Of Canada, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the former Conservative government which this minister keeps saying I was part of. This deals with the ethics of this government.

Let me quote the member for Hamilton West when he was in opposition and told a news conference that Charest should resign regardless of whether he intended to interfere with the court process. It is a matter of public ethics. It is a matter of parliamentary ethics. The minister has damaged the parliamentary system. He should resign until this case is settled. The Deputy Prime Minister knows this.

Canadians want to know why the government is still defending him. Will he phone the Prime Minister in Winnipeg, get him away from his pepper steak dinner and get the resignation right now?

[Solicitor General Of Canada, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a few years makes. Let me quote a former Prime Minister who was Leader of the Opposition at the time. Turner said “The government's vigorous defence of the embattled minister made a mockery of public ethics. A minister has a duty and a burden of proof to show that what he is doing is beyond reproach”. The Liberal leader also said “This is a question of ethics, a question of honesty and is a question of deportment in public affairs”.

Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister, has his government changed its standards from when it was in opposition? Why have the Liberals changed their standards? Why will—

[Extradition Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-40. It is noble to modernize the Extradition Act and in fact is long overdue.

Canada's current policies are outdated, slow and complex. As a consequence we have members of genocidal regimes, killers and illegals by the thousands in Canada living off Canadian society. We do not know how many or where they are. Maybe Bill C-40 will not be of much use until we devise a more efficient screening and monitoring system for illegal refugees in Canada.

Reform supports extraditing these individuals to face international criminal courts like Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals. We believe in justice. These tribunals and the concept of an international court with independent powers to prosecute war criminals is a 50 year dream and is laudable. The process to establish such a court has been a very difficult road. Canada can take some solace in knowing that it has played such a pivotal role in getting members to the table in the last minute negotiations and in the hesitancy of some.

The new international criminal court will have power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, including genocide, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.

Canada is one of the 119 signatories to this historic event. By the Canadian government's own admission Canada has been a refuge for war criminals and former members of genocidal regimes. Due to our ineffectual immigration screening, removal and enforcement system the problem is out of hand. Now at least if we can find these illegals we have somewhere to send them.

The solicitor general keeps promising a crackdown on Canadian organizations that are fronts for foreign terrorists. He says that this is a serious problem. The auditor general agrees and says that Canada has been negligent in dealing with it. We all respect what the auditor general says because it is his group that is independent and tells us what is going on in the government of the day, no matter who it is.

It is not comforting to hear the solicitor general say that Canada had become a haven for every known terrorist group in the world. It is a sobering thought and it is about time we did something about it. I repeat that because it is not too often the solicitor general of any government would say that. He said that Canada had become a haven for every known terrorist group in the world. The bill is a small part of solving some of that problem.

We not only have terrorists groups in Canada. We have some 324 modern day war criminals and another 62 suspected war criminals in Canada. Those are the ones we know about. We have among us death squad members, torturers, individuals accused of genocide and officials from corrupt regimes in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Rwanda and El Salvador, a virtual cornucopia of the world's worst.

That is a pathetic statement about the pathetic immigration system in Canada. We would not be here today debating Bill C-40 if we had an immigration system that really worked. Our immigration system has played the refugee game with these individuals for too long. War criminals are not refugees just because they arrive at the border and say that they are refugees. They are war criminals and we have to take a very tough stand on that issue.

Bill C-40 changes a 120 year old law. There are not too many members who will ever get to debate a bill that old in the House. The present statute allows Canada to extradite criminal suspects to other countries but not to the tribunal set up by the United Nations to prosecute war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Bill C-40 will now allow Canada to send suspects to a permanent international court. For years Canada pressed for such courts but ironically our law would not allow us to extradite the suspects.

Bill C-40 will modernize extradition proceedings by allowing extradition to face international criminal court like Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals, by broadening the grounds for extradition but removing the list of indictable offences and replacing it with the requirements that the conduct be an offence in both countries, and by permitting the temporary surrender of a convict who is serving time in Canada to another state to face trial there. Is it not interesting that they use the phrase “the temporary surrender of a convict who is serving time” to somewhere else to face a trial there? I will discuss that later.

Bill C-40 will modernize extradition proceedings by permitting the use of video and audio technology to conduct hearings. It is nice to know we are getting into the modern age. It will link the extradition and refugee appeals process where a person has sought to avoid extradition by claiming to be a refugee. The law had to be changed to save Canada from the embarrassment it is facing on this issue.

The Reform Party is not without its reservations regarding some elements of Bill C-40 despite what it purports to do. Bill C-40 is meant to streamline the extradition process by rolling two existing bills, the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1882 and the Extradition Act of 1877, into one bill.

Will the system be less complex? We do not know that. These two old bills have not worked and now we have one new bill. Will it be less complex? Will it allow Canadians to know that the people arrested for these offences can be extradited, tried somewhere else and removed from Canada in a very expeditious manner?

The clause in Bill C-40 which would effectively broaden the grounds for extradition by abandoning what is known as the list approach to offences is a welcome change. The current system, which only allows for extradition of the criminal when the act is part of an official list, is outdated and cumbersome. The list of offences varies from country to country.

Under Bill C-40 an extraditable offence will be a crime in both countries. This will not just happen. I sense a lot of co-ordination will have to take place to get the system working properly.

Bill C-40 will ease the rules that dictate the sort of evidence that must be presented by a nation seeking the extradition of an alleged offender. Canada has been criticized in the past for its narrow approach to what can be used as evidence. This is new territory. In fact it is a quantum change. I suspect much preparatory work will have to be done.

Bill C-40 will allow the flexibility to deal on a case by case basis with extradition requests where no treaty is in place.

Getting back to the two war crimes tribunals established in The Hague and in Tanzania, this is the first time in 50 years since Nuremberg that the world community has acted to create an international jurisdiction to hold individuals responsible for international crimes.

In the Rwanda situation alone 32 people indicted by the tribunal are facing charges for the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 people during a three month rampage in 1994.

As I said before, there are some concerns with the bill. Bill C-40, despite removing many layers of appeals in the extradition process, involved courts to minister, to refugee board, back to minister and then back to court. It would be naive to believe that Bill C-40 makes extradition immediate.

Delays have always favoured the accused because witnesses die. The supreme court in the Askov case asked that trials be held within a six month period to ensure that justice be done. That does not happen very often. Six months is a very short period of time for most of these cases. As Justice Gibson of the federal court ruled, Canada cannot deport people without a fair and just assessment of whether they would face the risk of torture if returned.

What this means to me is court challenges and charter defences right up to the supreme court. Bill C-40 will be tested. Is it watertight? We have to produce bills in the House that can meet the test of the supreme court. We cannot be using the supreme court as a judge of what the people who were elected to govern Canada should be doing. I am afraid the bill does not meet that test. The supreme court may have asked for hearings within a six month period, but as we all know extradition routinely takes many years.

Let me talk about charter appeals and provide four examples of delay and why I am fearful Bill C-40 will not conclude this charter madness. Charter appeals on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment allow multiple appeals as highlighted by the following: Rafay and Burns. Murder was committed in 1994 by this pair. The case will be heard in the supreme court in November. The B.C. Court of Appeal found that the minister had to refuse extradition because they faced execution for bludgeoning Rafay's parents to death.

Pierino and Miachael Divito are Mafia figures wanted in the U.S. for conspiracy to import 300 kilos of cocaine. It goes to court because of a much harsher drug sentence handed out in the U.S. Their lawyers vow that they will go all the way to the supreme court. Why are they going to the Supreme Court? They do not want to be tried in the United States because they will go to jail for a long time. They want to stay in Canada. Does this law solve that problem? I do not think it does.

Salavatore Cazzetta, leader of the Rock Machine biker gang, wanted in the U.S. for drug trafficking charges, was delayed extradition for four years with arguments taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Michael Gwynne, a fugitive serving a 120 year sentence, was apprehended in 1993. He has argued his case for five years all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, Bill C-40 does nothing to preclude these types of appeals.

I would like to read from a July 29, 1997 article by Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail . It has to do with the Rafay case and what he calls charter madness. I believe this article represents what an overwhelming majority of Canadians think. He wrote:

On July 12, 1994, the parents of Atif Rafay were bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat at their home in Bellevue, Wash. Local police suspected the murderers were Atif Rafay and a friend, Glen Burns. Lacking enough evidence, however, the police asked for and received undercover co-operation from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, since the two suspects lived in Canada and were Canadian citizens.

Courtesy of the undercover operation, Atif and Glen admitted they had killed Mr. Rafay's parents for life insurance and the value of the parents' home. These admissions were voluntary.

Case closed. But hold on. We live in the Age of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives the ruling of judges greater impact on criminal law than anything done by a mere minister of justice or group of parliamentarians.

Now, in the Rafay-Burns case, the B.C. Court of Appeal relied on the Charter to block the extradition of the two men wanted for murder in the United States.

Why? It was because Canada had abolished the death penalty. He continued:

Were the two men found guilty in Washington and put to death, as that state's laws allow, then their charter rights would be violated, including the one that any Canadian citizen is allowed to return home.

Canada, of course, always waxes indignant when the United States or any other country tries to impose its laws on others. Nothing gets Canadians to sit more upright on their white charger of morality than denouncing the “extraterritorial” application of U.S. laws. But if Canadian laws, as in this charter case, are being applied in an extraterritorial sense, that is, our charter must protect even those accused of first degree murder, then everything is fine because we just have to believe our sense of justice is superior to that of the Americans.

If these had been U.S. citizens, the extraditions would have proceeded.

But because the two are Canadians and therefore entitled, in the opinion of the court, to the full protection of the charter wherever they are, including for acts possibly committed in another country, they cannot be extradited.

This is charter madness, of which plenty is going around. When foreigners travel in this country, they obey Canadian laws and pay the penalty if they break them. They may not like our penalties, they may think their system of justice back home is superior, but that's one of the risks people take when travelling, let alone committing first degree murder.

Similarly, when Canadians are on U.S. soil, U.S. laws apply. If we break those laws and flee back across the border to escape punishment, an extradition treaty properly clicks into place so that Canada is not a “safe haven” for criminals of whatever nationality, Canadian or otherwise. That we might not favour capital punishment (and I don't) doesn't mean we impose our sense of what is right for Canadian citizens accused of first degree murder somewhere where the death penalty applies. But of course, in the age of the charter, this sort of common sense, community protecting sort of reasoning is out the window of judicial policy making.

That story alone should let us know there is a serious problem.

I have heard debates in this House over the last couple of weeks that sometimes members on this side do not listen to what the public wants. There is a quote on the gun control bill, why do you not listen to what the public wants. In this case, 85% of Canadians would vote for capital punishment if there was a referendum.

Yet we have two young people who murdered one of the fellow's parents in a terrible crime and should have to face that penalty. But here they are sitting in a Canadian jail at Canadian expense just because of where they were born.

None of us would respect that. None of us expect that we can run across the border, rob a bank and head back home because perhaps our laws are better. That is what is happening with our laws in this country. That is why we are becoming one of the biggest import-export areas for drugs in the world. Our sentences are too weak and one cannot be extradited if caught.

This bill is not going solve those problems. We are going to have a lot of interesting times in committee asking questions of those who drafted this bill to see if it really gets to where it has to get. The people in the House right here get to make the laws, not those people sitting a couple of blocks away in the supreme court.

I have another objection to Bill C-40. The bill preserves the minister's discretion in cases. This is part of the delay problem. It injects the minister into a judicial process. It is wrong and we will not support that aspect of the bill. This should not be the minister's role. This is a judicial role, an independent role.

We cannot have any tinge of political interference when it comes to extradition for criminal offences. The minister should have no discretion to seek assurances on sentences, period. What it does is it imposes standards which necessarily vary from one minister to the next, or from one country to the next.

The role of the court should be simple in these extradition cases. The conduct complained of is a crime in Canada, a very simple rule. The person sought is in fact the person accused. Again it is very simple. There is a valid extradition treaty. The bottom line is that the severity of the punishment in the other country should be irrelevant.

I have another concern. Extradition is costly. I have some questions about the mechanics and the logistics of Bill C-40. We have called a number of government departments and have read the bill very thoroughly ourselves. These questions are not answered in the bill.

Who pays for the transportation of a criminal to the War Crimes Tribunal or the International Court? Who pays any related costs? Who pays for legal counsel for the accused in charter cases? And we know they are all going to go to the max, to the supreme court. Who pays for the legal defence before the tribunal? It had better not be Canada that is on the hook. Why should we pay to get rid of someone wanted by someone else?

It is not unlike the process right now. When someone comes to this country and says the word refugee at the border, we accept them. We pay their health costs and their legal costs, all the way for every court they go to. We know the majority of these people are just trying to jump the queue which is not acceptable to most Canadians. To an overwhelming majority of Canadians that is just not acceptable.

Bill C-40 may improve some things but it is not perfect. We will be exploring many more details of this bill in the committee and seeking answers to the questions I posed in my opening remarks today.

We look forward to working with members on this side and the other side in the committee to get, after 120 years sitting on the books of Canada, a bill that will work, that will please Canadians and a bill in which the will of Canadians cannot be changed by a small number of people up the street from the House of Commons. We want to make sure this bill is airtight so that it does the job and works for all Canadians.

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, these notes have been taken as evidence by the public complaints commission in Vancouver.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said: “I cannot have a better witness than the member for Palliser”.

The notes are before a public complaints commission the solicitor general oversees. We cannot have the chief officer of that commission sitting as solicitor general while notes that are saying he did something against that commission are before the commission and under investigation.

Will the Prime Minister have the solicitor general resign until this commission is over with?

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

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

In jurisprudence there is an expression, notes taken at the time. In trials judges regularly ask police officers to refer to their notes made at the time to refresh their memories and these are considered admissible as evidence.

The information released by the member for Palliser regarding the solicitor general's conversation is from notes made at the time.

Can the justice minister, as chief attorney, tell the House how the solicitor general can claim some of these notes are true and some are false?

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the Progressive Conservative House leader and hear his words. I know he was a prosecutor in his province. His words are taken well in this House, in fact so well that I hope he will come to our united alternative convention in February. He would make a great solicitor general in a new government after the next election.

Canadians are very concerned about crime. On a scale of one to ten, Canadians rated it 8.3. Compared to five years ago 91% of Canadians are either much more or somewhat more concerned about crime. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians strongly or somewhat agree that we should increase the severity of sentences of young offenders who commit serious crimes.

Bill C-51 which is before us now at second reading could have begun a change in the right direction and begun to address the concerns of all Canadians. Instead it is late off the mark and weak in areas such as child prostitution, conditional sentencing and organized crime.

Why is the government so hesitant to provide alternatives to the most likely to participate in crime? Why is the government so hesitant to provide a tougher prison system and give the police the resources to prevent and fight crime? We only have to look at Bill C-3, the DNA bill.

Bill C-51 is the quintessential omnibus bill, an inch deep and a mile wide. It is cosmetic at best and timid in its degree of efficacy in change. Bill C-51 could have gone a lot further. There are areas where the Reform Party will move amendments at the appropriate stage of debate.

I ask the following questions concerning Bill C-51 and the impact it has on the feelings of Canadians concerning crime.

In 1982, 35% of Canadians were afraid of walking alone at night; today 42% are afraid. Does Bill C-51 do anything to change that? In 1982, 61% of Canadians were afraid of having their homes burglarised; today 63% share that fear.

Does Bill C-51 do anything to allay these fears? In 1982, 48% of Canadians were afraid to go downtown alone. Today 58% are afraid to go downtown alone. Does Bill C-51 do anything to dispel these fears? It is not what is in Bill C-51 that is objectionable. It is what is not in Bill C-51 that concerns the Reform Party.

Bill C-51 surely reflects how the government feels about crime: don't get tough, shuffle some paper, commission a study, hire a consultant, and above all don't offend criminals.

Let us take a look at the specifics of Bill C-51 and what we are being asked to support. The whole concept of conditional sentencing from the start has been ill conceived and an unfortunate episode. In Bill C-51 the loophole in conditional sentencing of having time on a conditional sentence, even when the person is alleged to have breached the condition, is now closed and the hearing can now go beyond 30 days.

This is an acceptable change, but it does not address the most glaring problem with conditional sentencing, specifically its use for violent offenders. Why would the minister ignore this obvious issue? This is the real problem in the area of conditional sentencing. Why avoid it again? The bottom line is that conditional sentencing should not be used for violent offenders. Case after case in this area begs for change. The minister will only go so far to correct the problem and then she pulls back.

A simple amendment to section 742.1 to exempt convictions for serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 would prevent such travesties as the two Haitian rapists in Montreal last year who did not go to jail. This was a particularly heinous crime by violent individuals who received a conditional sentence, and the two Haitians are licensed to do it again thanks to conditional sentencing. Is there any sense of justice or backbone in the government?

We can be accused in the House of being partisan. Let me quote what a few judges, who everyone in the House would agree are not partisan, say about conditional sentencing. An article in the Edmonton Sun headlined “Top judges skeptical of soft sentence trend” read:

Early trends in conditional sentencing, a method of punishing offenders that is still in its infancy, got a damning review by Alberta's highest court yesterday.

Chief Justice Catherine Fraser in a decision indicated:

Surgery should not be performed simply because a surgeon has a new scalpel—. Improperly used or skimpily drafted, it will undermine the respect for the law. Like all tools or instruments, it is to be used for the right situation, not the wrong situation.

This was a judge talking about conditional sentencing, not a politician. In a 50 page ruling the appeals justices detailed several major complaints they had with the way judges and lawyers had been applying the reforms. Yet we see no changes in the legislation which will allay the fears of judges.

Another articled headlined “Judges attack improper use—conditional sentencing undermines respect for the law” read:

Alberta's highest court criticized judges across Canada for the unimaginative and skimpy conditional sentences they've imposed and urged them to be tough and creative instead.

These are judges talking about a law brought in by parliament, and the bill does nothing to change that.

Even the Minister of Justice in a headline in the Edmonton Journal supports a court ruling critical of conditional sentencing. I quote from the Edmonton Journal :

Canada's justice minister says she's pleased with an Alberta Court of Appeal decision critical of the way in which conditional sentences are applied across the country.

“There have been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of parliament to have them used, and those should be appealed”—

That is what the justice minister said Thursday. The justice minister had an opportunity with the bill to make changes so that the courts do not have to appeal these things. She could have made the changes and she did not make the changes. That is why the bill is faulty. That is why we will move amendments when the time comes.

I could go on and on. I have quotes from newspapers across the country indicating that judges, lawyers and Canadians do not like the conditional sentencing that has been brought in by the government.

In a survey of 850 police, lawyers, probation officers and corrections staff the following was revealed: 90% thought the sentences imposed by the courts were not respected and 69% thought the actual amount of time served should be the same as the sentence imposed. Is it not an amazing thought that somebody can be given some time in jail by a judge and other people in the system would allow them out in a very short period of time? We have all heard of how short some of these sentences really are.

Some 76% of the people in the business thought criminals avoided jail too often and 55% considered the law to be too soft. As one crown attorney said, this does not make any sense. If we do not have the resources to keep somebody in jail then let us not sentence them to jail. The system is losing credibility.

One judge out of eleven interviewed said:

Fundamentally, they couldn't care less what we say when we send someone to jail for 30 days and they only serve 5. It's as if we miscalculated and we were fools for imposing 30 day sentences when they did not deserve them.

When judges imposes a 30 day sentence it should be a 30 day sentence, but the government through its legislation makes the judges look like they are fools. Bill C-51 does nothing to solve the problem. It is about time we had some real truth in sentencing. It could start with Bill C-51 if the government had the will. We will move amendments, hoping the government has the will.

I will discuss another story in relation to conditional sentencing. Domenico Tozzi, the greatest money launderer in Canadian history, was sentenced to 10 years and a fine of $150,000 for his role in the importation of 2,500 kilos of cocaine plus 25 tonnes of hashish. When he did not pay his fine the sentence was increased to 12 years and he was released after only serving two years in jail.

I do not know what 2,500 kilos of cocaine and 25 tonnes of hashish are worth, but I would guarantee it is in the millions. A judge put him in jail for 10 years and gives him a $150,000 fine. He wondered why he should pay the fine if he would only get two more years in jail. Then our great system allowed this man back on the streets after just two years in jail.

Bill C-51 does nothing to solve that problem. We are going to make amendments to it. As my Conservative colleague said, hopefully the government and the rest of the House can work on this in a non-partisan way to bring in laws all Canadians want.

Ex-lawyer Joseph Lagana was involved in the importation of 558 kilos of cocaine and in laundering $47.4 million. He was sentenced by a judge to 13 years. He was released after two years and two months to a halfway house where he is free from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.

What message does that send to Canadians? He imported cocaine which kills young people and laundered $47.4 million. That probably goes right over top of of the average Canadian's head. It is astounding. Average Canadians cannot even think of figures that large. What does he get? Two years and two months.

That shows young people that a life of crime pays. It creates career criminals. Will this man go back to an honest job? Will anybody in Canada be convinced that after two years and two months he has been rehabilitated?

Anthony Volpato, described by the papers as one of the leading figures in the Montreal Mafia, was sentenced to six years for conspiracy to import 180 kilos of cocaine. He was freed after only one year. This kind of sentencing has to stop and we have to make amendments to the bill to make sure it stops.

Let us talk about organized crime, another area in which Bill C-51 is sadly lacking. As Bill C-51 implies organized crime figures are not choir boys. Why would we treat them that way? The minister thinks she is getting tough in Bill C-51 by eliminating the accelerated parole hearing after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. It is better than before. Organized crime figures will still have access to day parole and be released after serving one-third of their sentences.

As I said in my previous comments on conditional sentencing, this is a joke. It is objectionable, unacceptable and naive. Organized crime laughs at going to jail for a couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you like going to the movies. The part of the bill on organized crime kind of reminds me of the movie Goodfellows . In that movie three Mafia members were convicted of a crime and doing time by having pasta dinners in prison. They are sitting tight being model prisoners, knowing they will get out before their full sentence is served. The notion and the part of the movie with the Mafia members drinking Chianti and making pasta is as comical as Bill C-51 in that regard.

Let me remind the justice minister that members of criminal organizations are by definition in section 2 members of a group of at least five persons, formally or informally organized, having as a primary activity the commission of an indictable offence and the members having been in the preceding five years in a series of such offences. That is very serious stuff. In short, these people should be held for their full sentences. They should not get full parole as Bill C-51 allows. Serious crime, serious time. We have to get that message across to organized crime.

These people should not enjoy the generous system of day parole, full parole and statutory release. There should be no exception for organized crime. Does the minister really believe, be it one-sixth or one-third, that these people can be rehabilitated in such a short period of time?

I gave an example before of those with 13 years sentences being out in two years for crimes involving millions of dollars. They will, as the movie Goodfellows portrays so accurately, sit tight, keep up the connections while incarcerated and return to their lives of crime when released. Is the minister expecting organized crime members to have some sort of Epiphany while in prison? This is another sadly lacking element in Bill C-51 and one we cannot support.

Let me turn to another item lacking in Bill C-51 in the area of child prostitution. Bill C-51 calls for giving police more tools in the juvenile prostitution area. All Canadians say wonderful, that is great. Living off the avails of a child prostitute, keeping a common bawdy house and using an underage prostitute are made offences justifying the issuance of a wiretap order. The offence of attempting to obtain such services is expanded to include communicating with anyone for the purpose of prostitution.

This is commendable, but surely we could go further in dealing with this parasitic behaviour by sick people who prey on juveniles. Right off the top, how about a mandatory minimum jail sentence for those convicted of procuring under 18 year olds? Why not send a clear message that society frowns on such perverted, exploitive behaviour?

Let us get these offenders off the street and let us keep them off the street. Why is the government so fearful to change the penalty which remains at five years maximum? The fact is no one changes the penalty. Judges give discharges, suspend the sentence or impose the good old conditional sentence.

Too many young children in our big cities today are getting into child prostitution. We have to let the pimps know, the people involved in that business, that the Parliament of Canada does not accept that. It is happening too often in our cities today. The life of crime has been shown to these young people as a way to live. We have a responsibility with the bill to toughen this law and reduce child prostitution. My party will put those amendments in the proper place.

Around and around the charade goes. The government is doing nothing to change this perverted procurement by perverted individuals. A slap on the wrist will not be a deterrent, and the tools we just gave the police to wiretap are moot. Give with one hand, take away with the other. This ensures inertia, which is a specialty of the government. It is time to get serious with child prostitution. The Reform Party wants mandatory jail time for first offences and repeat offenders to get triple time with no possibility of serving a sentence intermittently.

I put the minister on notice. This is not good enough and we will deal appropriately at committee and report stage with this aspect of Bill C-51.

Another area of the Criminal Code that begged for change and for a change got it is the so-called year and a day rule for homicide. It only took 12 years for this lethargic government to move on a recommendation first made by the Law Reform Commission back in 1987. The commission brought this forth and recommended an immediate amendment 12 years ago. But in typical government fashion it had to be studied to death and the government waited to stick this necessary and easy amendment into an omnibus bill. One simple bill and one simple line would have accomplished this but the government has to wait for another example of an outdated law allowing a heinous crime to go unpunished; a government would be so lackadaisical as to allow a law to stand which allows a killer to avoid a murder charge if the death of the person he assaults is a year and a day after the offence. As my colleague says, there is just no value on life. Why does it take so long? It is absolutely incredible.

Allow me to tell a story that finally shook the government out of its sleepiness into including an amendment in this bill. It involves a mentally challenged 50 year old Winnipeg man, Marvin Ward, who was savagely beaten by a 17 year old using a baseball bat. The perpetrator stole a grand total of 75 cents in the robbery of Mr. Ward.

Unfortunately Mr. Ward died 14 months after the vicious attack. Due to the centuries old law, as I said earlier that was recommended to be changed in 1987, the government allowed to languish on the books, the individual could not be charged for murder because Mr. Ward died more than a year after the attack.

This punk served 28 months in closed custody for robbery and assault with a weapon, because the law was not changed, even though an amendment was recommended in 1987. This government should be ashamed that it took this long to make this kind of change.

Why in the world have successive governments allowed this law to go unchanged knowing how easy it would have been to change it and reverse this travesty that took place? It is tragic. Despite the Law Reform Commission expression of concern in 1987, a recommendation by the federal-provincial working group on homicide in 1991 and consultations in 1994-95 by the justice department on the general causation rule nothing was done.

In March 1997 the former minister of justice promised to change the law. It was reiterated by the current minister in September 1997. Why did the current minister wait so long? It was just to tie it into a series of unrelated amendments contained in Bill C-51. Surely there was more urgency or was she just embarrassed by her inaction as she thought no one would notice it hidden away in Bill C-51, the omnibus bill?

The member for Wild Rose attempted through his private member's Bill C-215 to change this year and a day disgrace. Unfortunately it was not deemed votable. It was another example of the Reform Party leading the way on criminal justice and dragging this lazy government along into the present day.

As Lee Iaccoca used to say, lead, follow or get out of the way. That is certainly not the motto of this government. It does not get out of the way. It certainly does not lead but it is pretty good at following. Liberals just sit back, wait, follow and then when they get embarrassed they sneak it into the middle of a bill.

The government's delay is inexcusable. During debate on the bill by the member for Wild Rose the government's lethargy was exposed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said: “While there is little doubt that change ought to occur, it may be premature to support this bill at this time”. How often do we hear that? Whether it is in committee or in this House, it is premature to do it at this time because it is not the government's idea.

A great example of this is a private member's bill that passed in the House the other day because members on the other side on the back benches are maybe getting a little restless when certain people are getting fired and moved around. So to show a little independence they pass a private member's bill. Wait until it gets to committee and they pull the whips out. A good bill will die and that is unfortunate.

Can anyone believe the parliamentary secretary? What more proof did she need? She and her government could not bring themselves to support this initiative and we had to wait until they got around to drafting their own amendment. This was not only insecure and petty on their part, it was also negligent for them to allow this issue to drag on.

There is not a lot to support in this dog's breakfast of amendments. A lot of it could have been done incrementally over the years if the government were not so lazy. The important part is that we will be ready to scrutinize the other aspects of this legislation and prepared to deal with substantive amendments as we proceed.

Many support a triple E Senate. How about a triple E justice system, effective, efficient and equitable. It is time we get started.

[Committees Of The House, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Burin—St. George's a question. I certainly agree with the comments he has made today.

The parliamentary secretary thinks Canadians are going to believe, and I will quote him, “foreign fishers only get what Canadians don't want”. This is an unbelievable statement. He should go back to growing spuds.

The member for Burin—St. George's worked very hard on this report and all it got was the chairman of the fisheries committee fired. There are some great recommendations in that report. They are good for fisheries in Canada.

We also know there is a report on the west coast fisheries coming out. The member for Burin—St. George's has forgotten more about fisheries than the minister of fisheries or his parliamentary secretary will ever know. What advice could he give us on the west coast to make sure the west coast does not end up with the same disaster from this government that there is on the east coast?

[Business Of The House, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after discussion on all sides I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That when Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is called before the House, the opening speech for the official opposition be allotted twenty minutes, followed by a ten minute period for questions and comments, yet when the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast rises to speak later in the debate, he shall maintain the privileges of the second speech in the debate, as stipulated it by Standing Order 74(1)(a).

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, learning from this government we can say anything we want on an airplane, but just do not admit it.

Let me ask the solicitor general. At 3.30 p.m. on Monday, outside this House, he did not know who the person was, male or female. Would he advise this House what time he got on the phone and talked to Mr. Toole and asked him to write a letter to defend him? What time did he do that on Monday?

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.

As the Prime Minister knows, our entire ministerial system of government is based on confidentiality and accountability. This minister had public discussions on the airplane. Everyone can make mistakes. He talked about the new international centre for correctional studies in Canada. That is before the cabinet of this country.

This minister violated an oath by talking about something that is before this government. Should he not resign over that issue alone?