John Nunziata

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken and I would expect the member to at least be honest. To suggest that I am only here on Tuesdays is erroneous and he knows it. If he wants to make those statements outside the House of Commons where he is subject to slander laws then I challenge him to make those statements outside.

I can tell the hon. member that I will not hesitate for a moment to issue a writ against the member. He has a responsibility as an officer, as a parliamentary secretary, not only to be honest to the House—

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

She can vote. She can even have her sex changed, believe it or not. Cable television in their cells, computers, photocopiers. Clifford Olson had access to computers, photocopiers. He was entering poetry contests in the United States. He had pornography in his cell. He was sending pornography.

This is the criminal justice system we are talking about. This is the criminal justice system crafted by Liberals, by bleeding hearts in the sixties and seventies, and it continues to be protected. This criminal justice system continues to be protected by the government. Is it serving the interests of Canadians? No. If you ask Canadians what they want done, they want a fair criminal justice system. They want a criminal justice system that puts the rights of citizens before the rights of criminals.

What action has this government taken? Very little. The government is big on photo ops whether it is in Naples or Rome or Havana or other parts of the world, but when it comes to concrete action here in the House of Commons, the government deserves an F . We are talking about the criminal justice system here and I could speak for hours about the deficiencies of the system and how the public is not served.

We have two penitentiary systems. Who is serving the public interest? We have a provincial system. If you are sentenced to two years less a day, you go into the provincial penitentiary system, provincial parole board. If it is two years plus a day, you go into the federal penitentiary system. Who is being served by that? It is because of turf wars between the provinces and the federal government.

We have a system that does not work. Is the government prepared to fix the system? No. We have a criminal justice system that provides for concurrent sentencing. Someone can walk out of this place, kill one person, plan in a very deliberate way the murder of two, three, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, commit an act of terrorism, kill two hundred people and the penalty is the same.

One would think if we had a fairer system of justice, consecutive sentencing would be provided for. In the case of Paul Bernardo who was convicted of murdering two innocent young women, instead of being eligible for parole after 25 years at the very least, if we had consecutive sentencing he would not be eligible for 50 years.

No, the Liberals do not want to change that. They do not want to change that because the backroom boys have said no. I know individual members of parliament, if there were free votes in this place, if this place were relevant, could correct the criminal justice system. We could correct a lot of the deficiencies within the system.

Before we do that we have to correct this place. We have to make the Parliament of Canada relevant. It is time for electoral reform. It is time for parliamentary reform. I know there is considerable support for it.

I was recently in British Columbia where I gave a speech about the lack of democracy in this country. When I speak to people in other countries or in Canada, when I point out to them some of the realities of Ottawa, they become very disturbed. They become very concerned and ask what they can do.

Let me give an example in the minute that remains. We call Canada a democracy. In the last election campaign more than six out of ten people who went to vote did not vote Liberal. They did not vote for the Prime Minister. They voted for other political parties. They voted for other individuals. They rejected the government, over 60%. Only 38% of those who voted voted for the Liberal government.

As a result of our electoral system, one man is given virtual dictatorial power with the support of 38% of the electorate in Canada. Is that democracy? I think not.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it appears the government does not like listening to what I am saying. Well, tough. I was given voice to speak and I will speak.

He wants me to speak about justice. Let us talk about criminal justice. The member was elected in Etobicoke. He was given a mandate to represent the people of Etobicoke, not to be a trained seal. He was elected, as I was elected, to speak out on their behalf, not to defer to some unelected people. I want to tell the hon. member what the people of Etobicoke are saying to him and what they expect of him as their member of parliament. They expect him to come into this House, to go to caucus and to speak out about criminal law reform.

I ask the hon. member what has he said about criminal law reform in the House of Commons. Has he simply deferred. The member laughs. Let him laugh. I hope his constituents recognize how ill served they are in the House of Commons. If I can help in any way to inform his constituents I intend to do that.

Let me get back to justice. It relates directly to the comments I made about the relevancy of parliament. If this parliament were relevant it would be passing laws to ameliorate, to fix, to reform a criminal justice system in this country that is broken. It is a criminal justice system that allows an individual who raped and murdered 11 children to make a mockery out of the criminal justice system by applying and exercising his rights.

Had the government not stopped and blocked my bill, Clifford Olson would not have had the opportunity last summer to make a mockery of the criminal justice system. He forced the families to relive the trauma, the feelings of total devastation of learning their children were raped and murdered. This government decided that Clifford Olson, not the public, could have a say. I use Clifford Olson because he is probably the most notorious example. The member from Etobicoke agreed with the position of the Government of Canada.

Section 745 is a travesty.

This government supports a criminal justice system that caters to the accused, to the convicted, to inmates and to prisoners and sets aside the public interest, the interest of victims. Is it any wonder Canadians have lost faith in the criminal justice system, in parliament?

I can go on about the Young Offenders Act. The minister kept repeating in due course she would bring in amendments. What has she brought in? Absolutely nothing.

This government has been in office for five years and it has done nothing meaningful when it comes to reforming the Young Offenders Act which invites 16 and 17-year olds to break the law. It treats 16 and 17-year olds like children.

If you are 16 or 17 you are old enough to drive a car, you are old enough to get married, you are old enough to leave home, but the criminal justice system in this country says you do not know the difference between right and wrong and we are not going to treat you like an adult. What pure nonsense. They know the difference between right and wrong and they ought to be dealt with in adult court.

That is the line the Liberals continue to throw back, that we want to lock up children. That is a crock. Subject the 16 and 17-year olds to the criminal justice system. Age will always be a mitigating factor at sentencing, not with respect to culpability.

If a 16-year old murders or rapes or robs or commits any serious offence, once there is a finding of guilt, let the defence make an argument for leniency because of age. This government says they are to be treated more leniently. Is it any wonder that the police and those involved with the criminal justice system have no confidence in it?

We all know who Paul Bernardo is. He is rotting in a jail somewhere in Kingston, but he is going to have the same right that Clifford Olson had. What about his accomplice? Paul Bernardo will be able to apply in about 10 or 11 years to chop the families of the victims after the crimes he committed. What about his accomplice? She is eligible for parole today as we speak because of the criminal justice system. Talk about justice. She will be released from prison and there is nothing the system can do in less than eight years I think it is.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that the debate is irrelevant.

We are talking about the justice department and the allocation of sufficient funds, some $193 million to fund justice. What I am saying is that it is irrelevant what we are talking about. But I will speak about justice and how unjust it is to put the House through this debate to talk about the criminal justice system. If members want me to talk about the criminal justice system, I will talk about it, but it is irrelevant because decisions have already been taken in the backrooms.

I had a bill before the last parliament to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. That bill, to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows convicted killers to apply to have their release date reduced from 25 years down to 15 years, was passed by the House of Commons at second reading. It was passed by the House of Commons with some 80 Liberals, and I was part of that caucus, supporting that motion.

Let me give another example of how irrelevant the House is. The House passed the legislation in principle to repeal section 745. That was the intent of parliament. It expressed its will, each member in a free vote. What did the government do? It killed the bill at committee. That is what it did. It pretends to be democratic. It pretends that the private members process is important. It pretends that somehow what we do in the House is relevant, but it is irrelevant.

Until and unless members of the House take a stand, our parliamentary system will continue to degenerate. Canadians will continue to lose confidence and have contempt for this institution.

Is it any wonder that collectively we are looked down upon by Canadians? Collectively as politicians we are told day in day out, justifiably so by Canadians, that they have no confidence in this institution of parliament. They see things like the government abandoning its responsibility yesterday and not a single member being present. They see the House of Commons passing a bill to ameliorate the criminal justice system with respect to 745. There is the hepatitis C issue, and the list goes on and on. Is it any wonder that we have to hang our heads in shame?

The government with the complicity of the opposition parties wants to pass a bill in less than a day to increase the pay and benefits for members of parliament. Think about it. When it comes to our own collective pockets we are prepared to pass a bill—we are not, the backroom boys are—and members are not objecting. They come to me. I have had maybe a dozen or 15 members ask me as an independent member to please hold up consent. Please do not give unanimous consent to this. They are afraid to speak out because they will be reprimanded by the powers that be, by those unelected people in the Prime Minister's office who have control.

I have said time and time again that we do not live in a democracy. We say this sometimes frivolously, but the reality is we do not live in a democracy. This is nothing short of a glorified dictatorship. This country is run by half a dozen people, half of whom are unelected, as some hon. members have said and I have repeated many times. Unelected people make decisions with respect to the public interest.

Where is the public interest? Who is watching for the public interest? I am not setting myself up as some saviour for the public interest but I have been given a voice as a result of the people's mandate in York—South Weston.

Pay and benefits, run it through in a day. Why is that bill dealing with remuneration, pensions, salaries of members of parliament not being referred to a parliamentary committee? Why is it that witnesses are not being called?

Why can members of parliament, the political parties, not serve the public interests as opposed to serving themselves? I would like to attend an open meeting an give my views on pay and benefits. There has to be in the process some transparency.

The House leaders met, all the political parties in this chamber, and took a decision with respect to pay and benefits. They expect everyone in this House, including me, to support it. I think not. I do not intend to. I am going to insist we not participate in these votes these evening and that we, as a parliament, sit down and find ways to make this parliament more democratic. That is the only way to do it.

When I woke up this morning I expected three votes at 5.30 p.m. today. I was in Toronto. Then I get word that there are 70 some votes taking place today. Most members did not know. They were told to hurry back. Is that any way to run the Government of Canada, by having no members present when the House of Commons is sitting and then pile up these votes? Two weeks ago we had about 100 votes in this House. I will say without equivocation that the majority of members—

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what I am speaking about is justice. It is democratic justice. It is criminal justice.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter. I notice the member for Wild Rose is lamenting the fact that he has not been recognized by the Chair to speak, but I would simply ask him to be patient.

I and other Canadians would like to think that what we are debating and discussing here tonight is somehow relevant to ordinary Canadians from coast to coast. Yesterday in the House what became crystal clear to all Canadians from coast to coast and to every member in the House, if they already were not aware, is that this House of Commons for all intents and purposes is irrelevant. It does not mean anything. Decisions are not taken in this Chamber. Decisions are taken behind closed doors, in the Prime Minister's office and in the House leader's office. Five men get together and decide what the business of the House will be.

Yesterday while this House was sitting, not a single, solitary government member was present during debate. As a result of the total and complete abdication of its responsibility to govern, the opposition parties passed a motion which carried unanimously. That motion would prevent the government from introducing any form of closure.

What is more important is that because of the abdication of responsibility of the Government of Canada, and we are talking about the Government of Canada. Think of what could have happened yesterday in this House because of the fact that there was not a single Liberal member present. The opposition could have declared war yesterday.

Members laugh and chuckle but as a result of the absence of the Government of Canada, the opposition could have completely abolished the Department of Foreign Affairs. The opposition could have defeated the government on a vote of confidence. That is the respect the government has for this Chamber, for the House of Commons. Not a single, solitary member was present.

I do not think Canadians recognize how totally irrelevant the House is. That action yesterday crystallized for Canadians how irrelevant this place is.

In an hour or so the government wants to pass through this House some 70-odd votes. It wants authorization to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars. It expects, as a result of a backroom deal by five House leaders, that this House will totally expedite all the business of the House this evening. I think not.

The people of York—South Weston put their trust in me. They voted for me in the last election campaign not to be a party to backroom deals.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I propose that the next three motions be deferred until 3 o'clock tomorrow.

[Division No. 209, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, why did you permit the hon. member for Medicine Hat to ask a question?

[Division No. 209, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, presumably hon. members are permitted to ask questions as we proceed through the clauses.

[Division No. 209, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the last vote I was required to leave the Chamber in the middle of the vote. Therefore I would request that my vote be struck.