Jack Ramsay

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the justice minister learned about this meeting between his senior official and Chief Justice Isaac a week after it occurred, could he please tell the House when he ordered the inquiry into the activities of his senior official?

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

We are home.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I respond today to the statement made by the justice minister regarding the communications which took place between Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court.

This is an extremely serious matter. Many questions have not been answered and we must get to the bottom of this whole situation before we can rest assured that the independent integrity of the justice system is in place and working.

I agree with the statement of the Minister of Justice that Canada's Department of Justice has a special responsibility to ensure that judicial independence and the integrity of the system are maintained. We must have a very distinct line between those who create the law and those who enforce it. That is a very firm principle on which we all stand, including the Reform Party of Canada.

The minister said that the justice department provided the defence attorneys acting for the three persons involved in the revocation cases with copies of the correspondence between Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac as soon as it was aware of the situation.

The minister did not disclose today when the information regarding this judicial interference was brought to his attention. The meeting between Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac took place three months ago. Did the minister just recently learn of the March 1 meeting, or has he had knowledge of it for months? This question remains unanswered. If the minister wishes to clear this matter up we must know who knew about Mr. Thompson's intervention and when. This must include the minister. We must know when he first became aware of this matter.

Editorials appeared in both the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen on May 23. The Globe and Mail made this observation: ``Nobody seems to be paying much attention to the attempt by a senior justice department official to influence a judge''.

The Citizen stated: ``Allan Rock and Federal Court Chief Justice Julius Isaac owe the public an explanation about the latest and potentially worst official blunders, and they owe it right away, because the independence of Canada's courts has been jeopardized''.

In view of these recent editorials it is rather suspect that the minister has just now, three months after the fact, publicly stated an internal departmental investigation is taking place.

Many other questions remain unanswered, questions the minister has not made reference to today. It must be determined who authorized Mr. Thompson's private meeting with the chief justice. If the Minister of Justice did not authorize this meeting, nor did the deputy minister, was Mr. Thompson acting on his own? If it is determined that Mr. Thompson was acting on his own, on how many other occasions that have not been made public has the assistant deputy attorney general interfered in judicial proceedings?

The minister said he has the responsibility of ensuring that appropriate steps are being taken to evaluate internally the conduct of officials in the matter and to respond as required. In my opinion the only appropriate response is for the minister to ask for the immediate resignation of Mr. Thompson. The evidence is quite clear. Mr. Thompson crossed the line, which is absolutely unacceptable. Chief Justice Isaac crossed the line as well.

The minister made absolutely no mention today that any action be taken against the chief justice of the federal court in this regard. The minister has not laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, which is the only appropriate course of action.

I leave the House with the 1986 landmark decision of then Chief Justice Brian Dickson: "No outsider, be it government, pressure group, individual or even another judge, should interfere in fact or attempt to interfere with the way in which a judge conducts his or her case or makes his or her decision. This core continues to be central to the principle of judicial independence".

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Isaac of the Federal Court, in my opinion, should never have met with Mr. Thompson to discuss this matter in the first place.

In 1990 the current Tory leader resigned as minister of fitness and amateur sport after it was revealed he had called a judge. That particular judge was not implicated in that case because he had the integrity to hang up on the minister.

I ask the Minister of Justice if he has laid a complaint before the Canadian Judicial Council to have Chief Justice Isaac's participation in this matter dealt with.

[Justice, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice acknowledged that a senior official of his department inappropriately tried to influence a chief judge of the Federal Court. What the minister did not reveal was that the meeting between his assistant deputy minister, Ted Thompson, and the chief justice took place on March 1.

Who within his department authorized the meeting and why has it taken him three months to acknowledge and respond to this obvious violation of judicial independence?

[Young Offenders Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unacceptable that people can knowingly commit crimes of violence and not be held accountable by our justice system.

Federal justice officials maintain that treatment and community programs, not prison, is the best way to reform child criminals.

Let us take a look at this 11-year old rapist. He has a thick police file and is believed to be responsible for a string of auto thefts and robberies. One week before he raped the young girl he was caught trying to hold up a gas station with a toy gun. The only thing police could do was return him to his mother or place him with the Children's Aid Society.

I ask the government, where was the treatment or community programs the Liberal government likes to talk about? Why will it not simply change the system to hold children, and their parents if negligent, responsible for the crimes they commit?

[Young Offenders Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the latest amendment to the Young Offenders Act, members of our caucus pressed the government to look into this very question and include that within Bill C-37 as an amendment so that society could be protected from the criminal acts committed by 10 and 11-year olds across the country.

After apprehending the 11-year old repeat offender responsible for this vicious rape, Toronto police detective Duncan Miller said:

"He is using the Young Offenders Act to protect himself from the law. He is fully aware of his rights". The 11-year old offender warned police that he could not be charged.

My question is for the justice minister's representative. Why will he not protect our children from these horrible acts? Why will he not unhandcuff our police forces and provide them with the legal means to protect our children from these horrible criminal acts? When will he stop providing the immunity to these violent young offenders?

[Young Offenders Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently we have learned that a 13-year old girl in Toronto was abducted and raped by a so-called untouchable, an 11-year old who cannot be charged under the Young Offenders Act.

This 11-year old has a string of robberies under his belt but all the police could do was hand him over to his mother. What is more, this child criminal was well aware that he could not be charged and taunted police with the fact when he was picked up.

Will the government now listen to police officers and victims groups as well as members of my caucus and lower the minimum age under the Young Offenders Act to include 10 and 11-year olds?

[Justice, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the newspaper this morning that recently four boys aged 10, 11, 13 and 15 abducted a 13-year old girl and forced her into an apartment where she was raped by the 11-year old. This horrendous act of abduction and rape was done because the government failed to protect this 13-year old girl by providing her attackers with a shield of immunity.

The untouchable 11-year old who raped this innocent girl had a string of offences against him, including terrorizing and trying to rob a clerk at a gas station. All the police could do was return him to his mother on each of these occasions.

Reform, with the support of police and victims' groups, strongly urges the government to lower the age governed by the YOA from 12 to 10, remove the publicity ban on violent young offenders, and hold parents legally and financially responsible for the crimes of their children if there is proof parental negligence is a contributing factor.

Society needs these amendments to protect the lives and the safety of our children.

[Criminal Code, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice correctly, he is saying that if the federal government were to proceed with this bill, some aspects of it would be contrary to the charter.

Yet he is making the recommendation that the provinces have the authority to do this and that they would not be enacting a piece of legislation contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. I see an inconsistency in this that is a justification for the government not to support the bill.

In other words, if Ontario's Bill 84 is constitutionally sound, I am sure a similar bill passed by the government at the federal level would be constitutionally sound as well. Therefore I do not understand the argument of my colleague across the way.

I rise in support of this bill. It would prohibit a criminal from profiting by selling, authorizing or offering the story of their crimes. I commend the member for Scarborough West for putting forward this bill.

It is unfortunate but not surprising the government he represents does not see fit to initiate a bill of this nature, one which reaffirms the rights of victims, the right not to be revictimized.

We need this bill because no criminal should ever profit from the exploitation of their crime.

During the heart wrenching testimony of the grandmother of murder victim Sylvain Leduc in front of the justice standing committee, we heard the horrible graphic details about that heinous crime.

We heard about Sylvain. We heard how he was taken from his home in the middle of the night, how he was tortured and beaten until he died. We learned about the sadistic mutilation of the two young women who were also held hostage during this night of terror.

We watched as the tears rolled down the cheeks of Sylvain's mother and welled up in the eyes of those in attendance as this horror story was related.

We watched the sadness and the rage surface within Sylvain's grandmother as she relived the nightmare of her grandson's brutal murder. We can only imagine the pain and suffering Sylvain's family has endured and continues to endure.

Hopefully we will never know this kind of anguish. To allow that anguish to keep festering, to allow the wound to be opened and reopened is wrong. If this bill does not pass, if we do not stop thieves, sexual offenders and murderers like those who took the life of Sylvain Leduc from receiving money for telling their story in

any form we will simply be adding to those horrendous crimes and to the suffering of those who have been victimized.

In the absence of this bill not only would victims and victims' families have to endure reading or watching the horrific events they lived, they would be watching knowing their sexual attacker or their son or daughter's killer was profiting financially. Criminals and their families should never be allowed to accrue rewards for their criminal offences anywhere, any time or any place.

How a civilized country like ours could and would allow criminals like Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka or Clifford Olson to reap any kind of reward for their sordid activities is incomprehensible.

The bill from the member for Scarborough West will not prevent a criminal from creating a work or collaborating on a work based on their offence, which many argue is within their charter rights. However, it will prevent those convicted of an indictable offence from profiting from their offence. I am sure it will eliminate the monetary motive for proceeding in the first place.

I support CAVEAT's proposal with regard to this bill that any proceeds from the exploitation of crimes should revert to the crown for restitution to the victims of crime and to recompense society for the enormous financial costs of enforcing the law.

The media reported very accurately and graphically the murder of Sylvain Leduc and the gang torturing of his female cousins. The press also adequately portrayed the shock, rage and sadness of the family, friends and the community. However, what it failed to reveal was the less sensational part of this horror story, the part of the story regarding money. We do not hear much about the financial cost of crimes.

Unbeknownst to the Canadian public which read daily about this crime, Sylvain's single mother on welfare did not have enough money to bury her son. Although Sylvain's mother Carol applied to victims of compensation and qualified for emergency help, she was told it would be years before she receives any money.

Fortunately for her enough money was collected from families and friends to assist her. If this was not bad enough, I would like to mention the wonderful treatment Carol received from our bureaucrats.

Sylvain was killed on October 25. Three days later, October 28, Carol was called by the welfare office to tell her that since her son had died her cheque for the month of November would be reduced.

Bill C-205 is about victims. It is about the rights of victims, rights that are being denied in this country in favour of criminal rights. I have to stop here for a moment and touch on those individuals who may oppose the bill on the basis that this kind of activity would somehow have a rehabilitative effect on the offenders, that somehow the writing of these stories, the participation in videos or movies is somehow a rehabilitative procedure. I am sure we will hear that if this bill goes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I cannot help but recall those witnesses that have appeared before the standing committee on a number of bills who have cried out for greater rights for those who have been convicted and are serving time in institutions.

I remember reading the report of Madam Louise Arbour on the riot in the Kingston prison for women. She made an enormous effort to support the rights of the inmates who had rioted, had assaulted and had completely disregarded the rights of the guards whom they attacked and the responsibility of the authorities to maintain security and order.

The author of that report even criticized the correctional facility for not ensuring that the six inmates, after they had continued to riot for three or four days before being placed into segregation, had one hour of recreational activity during the period of rioting. It was a shock to me to read that report. It should be mandatory reading for every member of the House.

I would like to read from a letter which Sylvain's grandmother wrote to the Minister of Justice and which she read to the justice committee. If this testimony does not move all members of the House to support Bill C-205 I do not know what will. The letter reads:

The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked and cold in a morgue-

My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death; I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I couldn't stand it until I knew that he had clothes on him.

My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this "Intestinal Fortitude"-I call it my soul. It is there that love, hope, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell-The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb, other days it is like Jello. It has lost its desire for living. It doesn't care much about everyday things anymore. It has lost its desire for food, sex, enjoyment, travel, books, etc. There is an emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it-

Horror and fear live there also. Sylvain's murderers have done this to me-When all is quiet, I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull these horrible pictures-

I receive psychiatric care but I find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense. It takes so much energy to get there. I find it all so hopeless. I feel like a dead flower that's been trampled down. I feel like I have been robbed.

Once again I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West for helping to put a stop to the pain and suffering of Sylvain's family, Kristen French's family and Leslie Mahaffy's family and all the families of victims of violent crimes. I support this private member's bill, as I believe the vast majority of Canadians do.