Val Meredith

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if that section is held constitutionally then why was one pedophile allowed to walk free and why are there 40 cases in British Columbia being held back from being tried until there is a decision made on this?

If that constitutionality is a given then why are the children of British Columbia having to face the fact that pedophiles are being let out of the court system on to the streets to continue plying their trade? I do not believe the children of British Columbia are being protected. Would the member feel the same way if it were the children of Quebec who were at risk?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to be here participating in a debate on the illegality of child pornography. I am offended by the attitude of the Liberal government and the minister who feels that Canadians have no right to be participating or observing a debate on this issue. I would like to know, who are they to say that Canadians are overreacting because they are concerned that a judge has said that it is legal to possess child pornography?

This law was originally passed unanimously in parliament in 1993, but the decision of one man, Mr. Justice Shaw, has undone all the work by the people's representatives.

This case raises a number of issues that go beyond the impact upon the Sharpe case specifically and the possession of child pornography in general. In this case Robin Sharpe got off. At least one other case was thrown out in the B.C. provincial court because of Justice Shaw's decision. The possession of child pornography is therefore currently legal in the province of British Columbia.

Make no mistakes, child pornography is not about pictures of naked infants on bearskin rugs. It is about children, sons, daughters, grandchildren, being abused and exploited by adults.

The only people whose rights were being infringed by this law are pedophiles. I believe that we as a society have a right to deny this extreme minority the right to see young children being abused. Make no mistake, we mean real children. Real children are being abused to make child pornography. There is no acting. There is no consent, because children can never give consent to acts like this. Because it is now legal to possess child pornography in B.C., I am sure that more children are going to be used for the creation of pornography to satisfy the appetite of pedophiles. That means that more children will become victims of sexual abuse in order to satisfy the charter of rights and freedoms of pedophiles. The results are not necessarily apparent immediately in the now. But many of the negative recriminations occur 10, 15 or 20 years later. How often do we hear convicted adult sex offenders plead for reduced sentences because they themselves were sexually abused as children? What type of circle of violence are we creating by legitimizing the possession of child pornography?

I want to extend Justice Shaw's reasoning to other criminality that perhaps possession of stolen property could be determined to be an infringement of the possessor's freedom of expression. What about the possession of illegal drugs? It could easily be argued that their use relieves tension and there is no harmful intent. Or what about the possession of unregistered firearms? Surely it could be argued that Bill C-68 was an infringement on the freedom of expression of gun owners, the vast majority who have no harmful intent.

Perhaps this government should spend as much effort keeping child pornography out of the hands of pedophiles as it does restricting the rights of legitimate gun owners.

I would like to raise another spectre. That is of courts taking over the role of parliamentarians. It does not matter if 301 individuals representing five different political parties and, more important, 30 million Canadians unanimously agreed that child pornography is wrong. One individual has changed the law in British Columbia.

I know the case is under appeal, but that means that three other judges in the B.C. court of appeal will get their say. After that maybe nine other judges in the Supreme Court of Canada will have their say. While I respect the roles courts have in administering justice they should not have the right to overrule the will of the members of this House who are elected by Canadians to make laws on their behalf.

This is about far more. It is about respecting our constitution. This is another example of the courts interpreting the charter of rights in a manner in which it was not intended. Every now and then the Prime Minister likes to claim responsibility for introducing the charter of rights. I would like to think that he did not bring in the charter of rights to give pedophiles the right to possess child pornography.

It was almost 800 years ago that the British had the Magna Carta which introduced such concepts of guarantees of rights and the rule of law, as well as laying the foundation for parliamentary democracy. The Americans have had their constitution and the bill of rights for over 200 years. Despite the spectacles that we see today in the American Senate it aided ennoble causes like the freeing of slaves. Now if we compare these two historic documents with our charter of rights that is still shy of its 20th birthday, it will be known as the document that gave pedophiles the right to possess child pornography. We should be ashamed that our charter is even being challenged in this way.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this case to the value of the charter and to the courts in general. I suspect very few Canadians can list the benefits that the charter has brought in their day to day lives. But if this decision is allowed to stand, they will certainly remember it. Even before this decision in my five years as a parliamentarian I have received countless letters and phone calls of constituents telling me that Canada would be much better off without the charter of rights. If this decision were to stand, that is, if the courts decide that it is more important to allow pedophiles the right to see children being abused than it is to protect our children, I am afraid I could not disagree with them.

If the charter of rights and accompanying court decisions are to have any value at all in the lives of Canadians then they must have the support of Canadians. Decisions like this left to stand will drive away any of the support that might still remain for the charter of rights and our constitution.

A constitution or a charter of rights that does not have the support of the people is an empty document. It is a document that is devoid of any relevancy. That is our challenge today, to make sure our charter of rights respects the feelings of Canadians and has relevancy to all our lives in Canada.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the name calling. I think it is very undeserved. I do not know about the other members of this House but I have done more than just talk about helping aboriginal people and native people in this country. I spent 15 years in northern Alberta trying to bring self-government to non-treaty Indians. I have nothing to apologize for in the work I have done.

I would like to share some of these experiences in the north because I think it is very appropriate for this debate on Bill C-49.

It was an interesting experience because I was helping non-treaty aboriginals in a community immediately adjacent to a reserve. It was a case in point of how when the federal government moves in and hands over things to a community that is ill prepared to deal with them it is for not. In the non-treaty community where we were providing potable water, sewage collection, land ownership, self-government we were producing results that were never seen in the reserve adjacent to the community although the people were related and from the same cultural background.

The reason for that is the non-treaty Indians were accountable for the decisions they made. They were accountable for the dollars they were spending. They were accountable to the people who lived in and shared the community with them.

We saw fire trucks going into the reserve with no support base and they were never used for the purpose for which they were intended.

On the non-reserve side we saw a fire truck, after a great deal of debate and a great deal of work to get it, brought into the community, treated with respect and which provided services not only to the non-reserve community but to the reserve community.

We also saw the non-treaty community supporting the reserve by providing sewage treatment for the school that was built and for the health centre that was built. For whatever reason the federal government under the Indian Act was ill prepared to deal with that kind of development. It took the non-treaty, the non-status Indians in their community to provide that kind of community support and leadership.

I do not have to wonder what will happen with this bill if it is not properly legislated. There are some areas where I have difficulty accepting it as it is presented to the Canadian public.

I do not think people can foresee the future but we can look at what has happened in the past with the experiences we have to give us some indication of what might happen.

I would like to share with the House an instance that happened in 1993 after I was first elected. The very first situation that I had to deal with as a member of parliament was a community in the Semiahmoo Indian Reserve. It was a community that was leasing property. Some of these leases had been in their families for 40 to 50 years. Because of a decision by Indian affairs of removing itself from the responsibility, nine out of the eleven people who came to my office looking for help ended up losing their homes, ended up having to leave.

I would like to share some of the comments with the members of the House. These are excerpts from letters received from a couple of families. They state:

How can you dismiss the fact that your department put us in this hell? They refused to issue one year leases on instructions from the Semiahmoo band in September 1993. They refused to take our lease money. They have not cashed cheques from persons remaining on the land to date. They refused to talk to us after 20 years of tenancy. They refused to quell the situation.

As for the remaining tenants, six have vacated as ordered by the DIA in a letter dated January.... The penalty is double rent for daring to speak out and the others have struck their own deal with the bands knowing that if they do not perform it will go against them.

People have lost their homes.

With our neighbours we formed associations to negotiate a lease. We made an offer to lease. We did everything that we were capable of doing. They wanted us to sign a non-negotiable consent to lease offer before we had even read it. If we did not agree we were out in nine days. We could not sign it. It would be like signing a blank cheque.

That is the kind of situation these people were put in. I would suggest that there has to be clarity in legislation to protect individuals.

We have recommended two amendments to Bill C-49. One amendment would require a clause to be written that this would in no way be considered to be a land claim under section 35 of the Constitution Act. The second amendment would require that proactive consultations be held with adjacent municipalities.

I would like to share another experience that I had in Slave Lake, Alberta with the Sawridge Indian band. I was on the town council when we negotiated a deal with the Sawridge band to provide them with water and sewer facilities which they wanted for a laundromat for the hotel they had built. In an agreement with this band the town obtained the use of a little section of land going through a corner of their band property in exchange for providing them with water and sewer facilities.

Two years ago I received a call from the mayor of the town who said “Val, you are the only one we can track down. We need to know what has happened because Walter Twinn is suing us. The Sawridge band is suing us for this piece of property that the town is using for the road which runs across a corner of the property”.

We had a written agreement with the Sawridge band that this would be an exchange: water and sewer facilities for a little chunk of road. Twenty years down the road that agreement was not being respected and the town of Slave Lake found itself in legal proceedings.

It is very important that whatever we do in this House be better than what we have done before. The Indian Act has proven to be a failure. It has left people dependent on government. People have lost their independence. They have lost their self-respect in many cases. It is a shame that we allowed that to happen.

I do not want to be a part of continuing in that kind of environment. Our aboriginal people have the right to be treated equally, to have equal rights and equal responsibilities, as does every other Canadian in this country.

We should not be going down this trail without clarity, expecting that the same thing will not happen. Somebody gave us the definition of insanity. It was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

That seems to me to be what we continue to do. We continue the same old policies over and over again. We may use different words, but we expect different results. It is insane to expect a different result.

We have to, with clarity, come up with an agreement with the aboriginal people that will remove them from the dependent status they have and will continue to have under the department of Indian affairs. We have to release them. We have to encourage aboriginal people to take on the responsibility which every other Canadian has. Bills such as Bill C-49 is not going to do it.

We have to make sure that our legislation is clear and that it is not open to misrepresentation or misinterpretation. We have to make sure that our legislation today is taking a different path, that it is trying something new and innovative, not doing the same old thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

[Social Union, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in August the premiers made their negotiations public. The federal government responded 30 days later but unlike the provinces, it has kept its response secret.

What is in the government's response that makes it feel it cannot share it with Canadians?

[Social Union, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize the positions.

[Social Union, December 3rd, 1998]

In an effort to determine the government position, I ask the Prime Minister whether this government is really sincere in negotiating a social union agreement.

[Social Union, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a 48-hour period, this government's response to the social union has gone from opposing it to supporting it and back to opposing it, from a willingness to compromise to refusing to compromise. This government has more positions than the Kama Sutra .

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the problem: the provinces believe there needs to be change and the federal government thinks everything is A-okay the way it is.

We would like to put the Prime Minister and his government to a test. If they really support the social union, will they commit the government not to initiate any new social programs in the budget unless the provinces agree to them?

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday it was no to the social union; today it is a go.

Yesterday one of the Prime Minister's own members described the social union as “a warmed over Charlottetown accord which would give more power to the provinces and weaken the federal government”.

Canadians want to know whether the Prime Minister agrees with the member for Wentworth—Burlington, or does he really support the social union?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member opposite talked about accountability and the need for the federal government to manage programs because it is more accountable and more visible to the Canadian public. He left the impression that he does not feel the provinces are capable of managing these programs in an efficient and accountable manner.

Is it not true that the QPP is more financially sound than the CPP? The Quebec pension plan is more financially sound than the Canadian pension plan.

The provinces are very capable of administering programs, in some cases far better than the federal government is capable of monitoring them, and they are accountable to the auditor general as well as to the people of Quebec.