Kevin Sorenson

[Sponsorship Program, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, no one else in the country does and no one else in the House does.

Contrary to the Prime Minister's assertion or testimony that he knew nothing, he saw nothing, he did nothing, the environment minister's office staff not only knew everything, but eagerly boasted and bragged about the fact that it had access to a secret Liberal slush fund.

Why has the Prime Minister not kept his word? Why has he not stepped forward and dismissed the Minister of the Environment?

[Sponsorship Program, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's constituency office staff knew about the secret Liberal slush fund since 1997. In fact the staff of other ministers' offices may have known as well.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he still believe that none of his ministers had any knowledge of any scandal in the sponsorship program, yes or no?

[Access to Information, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's actions unfortunately speak a lot louder than those empty words from him and this government. Not only once, but twice, the Prime Minister stood in this House and voted against expanding the Access to Information Act to cover crown corporations. Now, that this government suddenly finds itself in some type of damage control mode, it stands up with all these empty promises.

Why does this government only agree to make promises after it is caught?

[Access to Information, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's promise for openness and transparency in government, crown corporations are still exempt from access to information requests and reviews by the Auditor General.

Will the Prime Minister put his money where his mouth is? Will he immediately amend the Access to Information Act to cover crown corporations?

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to partake in the debate on Bill C-10 which would provide for a fine or would make it a summary offence for the possession of marijuana.

I also say that it has been a pleasure for me to serve on the non-medical use of drug committee where we studied the whole issue of the decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs issues as well.

At the outset, I would like to reiterate the position of the Conservative Party of Canada on this contentious issue.

The most important thing to understand is that we believe the use and the possession of marijuana must remain illegal. The message that we would get out to young people and people all across the land is that it must remain illegal. However, possessions of five grams or less could be dealt with through summary offences, after other safeguards have been put in place. This is significantly less than the 15-gram limit that the Liberal government is proposing.

Failure to pay these significant fines should result in the loss of a driver's licence or something similarly important. In other words, we would propose that if we move to placing this as a summary offence, the payments must be vigorously enforced.

I would like to also personally suggest that all moneys collected from possession fines be specifically earmarked or tagged for drug addition research, for education, for information and treatment.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that what we are proposing could be more of a deterrent than the present situation inasmuch as the police may be more likely to fine individuals than charge them with a criminal offence. Writing out a fine is less onerous than laying a criminal charge, a charge which is often dismissed by our courts.

In my opinion, and I have spoken in the House regarding this in the past, scarce police resources could be better utilized dealing with much more serious crime, such as drug trafficking, which is synonymous with organized crime. Police forces all across Canada are grossly underfunded. As a result, the police are forced to priorize or to risk manage their investigations and their crime files.

On numerous occasions in the House, I have outlined the financial difficulties many municipalities in my riding of Crowfoot are encountering, as far as paying for police services. I pointed out that as a result of this financial crunch, the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police had stated that, without federal support, police services in the Province of Alberta would have no choice but to set an order of policing priorities. This would seriously jeopardize the safety and security of all Canadians.

I, unlike the Liberal government, fully recognize and respect the position of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police in regards to funding issues and in regards to Bill C-10.

The Alberta Chiefs of Police are opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana. Last year, at a meeting of the Alberta Police Chiefs in Lethbridge, Camrose police Chief Marshall Chalmers, said:

We are absolutely against decriminalization. We believe it's absolutely sending the wrong message.

Chief Chalmers is also the president of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police. He believes that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs and to much more addictive drugs.

The Canadian Professional Police Association has serious reservations about the government's approach to drug use in Canada, particularly in regard to Bill C-10. It believes that it sends the wrong message to the youth. It has therefore strongly recommended that before the government does anything, that it come forward and implement what our committee asked, and that is to implement the national drug strategy that would provide frontline police officers with the tools to help reduce drug use and its negative consequences in communities.

The Canadian Medical Association and other health representatives are of the same opinion as the CPPA and have therefore urged the government to meaningfully fund and implement the national drug strategy prior to changing the legal status of marijuana.

As far as I understand it, this has the full support of the former minister of health, who publicly warned last year that decriminalization “will cause a spike in drug use”. Those are powerful words. The former Liberal health minister stood up and said that if we decriminalize marijuana, it will undoubtedly cause a spike in drug use. It sounds to me as if this is really defeating the problem we should be trying to solve.

Following a caucus meeting in mid-May, the former health minister, pointing to other countries that have softened their laws, expressed concern that decriminalization would lead to an increase in marijuana smoking, which in turn would lead to an addiction. The former justice minister rejected his colleague's assertion outright.

I imagine that similar sentiments have been proposed to all of us. As members of Parliament we receive letters. I know that similar proposals were conveyed to the Prime Minister in an open letter from the Canadian Professional Police Association. I will quote from their letter:

Perceived tolerance of drug use and misinformation has contributed to increased drug use among school age children. This will only continue until Canada adopts a National Drug Strategy focused on consistently and sufficiently informing Canadians about the true harm of drug use...we are disappointed by the rush to move forward with decriminalization before such a strategy is operational--

The CPPA outlined the necessary components of a national drug strategy, a strategy aimed at discouraging young people from using drugs. Unfortunately, the limited time available to me today does not permit me to provide the details of that plan.

I support the CPPA's proposal regarding the necessary components of the national drug strategy, as well as its advice not to proceed with Bill C-10 until the strategy is firmly implemented, established and properly funded.

I hold out little hope, however, that the justice minister will heed the advice, as his predecessor has totally ignored the advice of provincial counterparts.

The provincial justice ministers asked the former justice minister to remove Bill C-38 from the legislative agenda and to give greater priority to the national sex offender registry, to child pornography legislation and to conditional sentencing reviews.

As is evident by the bill before us today, the justice minister did not listen. This comes as absolutely no surprise to those of us on this side of the House and to members of the non-medical use of drugs committee. The justice minister completely pre-empted and ignored our committee's report. Our committee spent months travelling across the country. Indeed, we spent time travelling to other parts of the world consulting, and the justice minister completely pre-empted our report and did not really pay any heed to what it said.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend the graduates in my riding and all those involved in the DARE program. Last week, my daughter attended her graduation in DARE. I know that over the last few weeks hundreds and perhaps thousands of children throughout Alberta and Canada have been a part of the DARE program, a program that warns children about the harmful use of drugs and about violence in their communities.

I see that my time is up. I would simply like to urge the justice minister to drop the bill from the legislative agenda until the national drug strategy has been fully implemented and is operational, and to return his focus to more priority measures against crime, such as the national sex offender registry.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I certainly did not attempt to stand in the House and only fearmonger. When I say that a person like Clifford Olson is not a dangerous offender, it is not to fearmonger, it is a fact. When I say that Paul Bernardo, as horrific a crime as he was involved in, is not deemed a dangerous offender, I think the Canadian public wonders why not?

I have laid out our approach. We have simply said that when someone has committed two sexual offences against a child, that we automatically deem him a dangerous offender.

The member said that we leave it up to the courts. I believe, in many cases, we would question the courts but how do we hold the courts accountable? The Conservative Party and our party have said in the House before that protection of society needs to be the number one guiding principle in our criminal justice system.

We heard from the member today the Liberal approach. She said that these people have been victims themselves when they were growing up and they need help and therapy. I agree with her. Part of having someone deemed a dangerous offender is that they will be put in prison. If they were to have that dangerous offender status removed, they would have to go through treatment programs.

We have individuals right now who are incarcerated and who have refused treatment. Karl Toft is a prime example of someone who has refused treatment. We are not helping the children.

When we allow these offenders to get out and be pushed back on to the streets without treatment programs, without going through counselling in prison, we are doing them no favours. If we really believe we can help them while they are incarcerated, we need to ensure that if they are to get parole they can show that they have taken the treatment programs.

I believe the Liberal way of doing this is hurting the children, our society and the offender. This is the Liberal approach. We can see it in other ways with drug addicts. Instead of saying that we need more detox centres and more help for individuals on hard drugs, what are the Liberals throwing at society? They are throwing safe injection sites; they are throwing heroin maintenance clinics because heroin is dirty on the streets, so let us give out clean heroin; and they are throwing needle exchanges. They have really bought in to a defeatist attitude. I would ask them to correct that today.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2004]

moved that Bill C-471, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (sexual assault on child--dangerous offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate on my private member's Bill C-471. If enacted, the bill would amend sections 752 to 761 of the Criminal Code, automatically making anyone convicted of two or more sexual offences against a child a dangerous offender.

With Bill C-471, the onus would be placed on the individual designated a dangerous offender to provide the grounds or arguments against such a designation.

Furthermore, Bill C-471 would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, restricting the release of the offender.

Under Bill C-471, the National Parole Board shall not grant parole and shall not grant unescorted temporary absences or statutory release to an offender who has been designated a dangerous offender under section 753 of the Criminal Code, unless the board has first received at least two opinions following thorough psychiatric assessment of the offender. The assessors must be of the opinion that the offender, if released, “is not likely to commit another offence” and “will not pose a threat to persons under the age of eighteen years”.

This private member's bill was prompted by the fact that our current laws do not, in my opinion, deal appropriately with those who pose ongoing risks to society, especially those who pose ongoing risks to the most vulnerable of our society, our children.

To illustrate this point, I would like to refer of the case of Walter Jacobson. Over a 40 year period, this sadistic pedophile was convicted 60 times and yet was never classified as a dangerous offender. Jacobson, who is currently incarcerated for a series of sex related crimes in Kingston and surrounding area, including the violent rape of a 16 year old girl, is scheduled for parole in March 2005. The last time this rapist was paroled, he went out and reoffended.

Why was an application designating Jacobson a dangerous offender never made? The offences for which he was convicted in 1999 were convictions dealing with criminal harassment, uttering death threats and making indecent telephone calls to young, teenaged girls.

These offences did not entitle the Crown to seek to designate him a dangerous offender because these particular offences do not carry a maximum sentence or a maximum term of at least 10 years.

Offenders can be designated dangerous offenders, which permits indefinite sentences, only if they are convicted of a serious personal injury offence and they are a danger to the life, safety or the physical or mental well-being of others. The offender must be facing a sentence of 10 years or more to be deemed a dangerous offender.

Jacobson was not designated a dangerous offender because, as one paper said, and I quote:

--the sad fact is Jacobson isn't the problem. He's the symptom of a justice system that does not know how to deal with repeat child sex offenders, how to rehabilitate them or what to do with them when their sentences are up.

Experts tell us that the least likely offenders to be rehabilitated are those offenders who are sexual predators, especially pedophiles. I will quote another document:

Repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional release conditions and more likely than other offenders to reoffend with a non-sexual offence. However, treatment programs for sexual offenders are sorely lacking.

Financial figures from a few years ago showed the federal government spending approximately $98 million to incarcerate sex offenders and only $2 million a year on treatment programs....It is the norm, when it should be the exception, that convicted sexual offenders return to communities without any counselling or rehabilitation therapy.

I know the Liberal government recognizes and agrees with those findings regarding sex offenders because the statements I just finished reading were statements from an old document entitled “Liberal Perspective on Crime and Justice Issues”. It comes straight from a Liberal document.

The information given was fully supported by a number of studies that repeatedly indicated that sex offenders had one of the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group. An estimated 40% of sex offenders go out and reoffend within five years.

As well, research indicates that offender treatment programs have shown limited results. In fact, practitioners in the field of sex offender treatment do not claim to cure the sex offender but would rather suggest that they would do their best to risk manage the offender.

In light of that information I would strongly suggest to the House that if we are going to err at all we should err on the side of caution. I believe that when there is any doubt at all that pedophiles will reoffend, we need to keep them incarcerated and behind bars. The only way we can achieve this measure of protection, protection for the most vulnerable members of our society, is to automatically make all those convicted of two or more sexual offences against a child to be automatically deemed dangerous offenders.

Another case to illustrate my point and substantiate the need for the legislation is that of Karl Toft, a name that is well-known in the country. Karl Toft, who perhaps is Canada's worst ever pedophile, was released over a year ago into a halfway house in Edmonton after serving 11 years of a 13 year sentence in prison.

After his arrest in 1991, Toft denied abusing boys over the 20 year stint that he was a guard at Kingsclear Training School in New Brunswick. However, later, when much came to light, he plea bargained a deal for a 13 year sentence, pleading guilty to 34 charges that included sexual interference, sexual assault and buggery.

As the years passed, Toft's count of victims rose. It rose to 80 victims and then to 100, 150 and finally to 200. However to date 233 compensation claims for sexual and physical abuse have been settled since Toft's incarceration. One victim believes that the 233 cases are only the tip of the iceberg, claiming that that this sadistic pedophile, Karl Toft, abused approximately 700 young wards of the province. Yet Karl Toft, who is scheduled for full parole in the very near future, has never been deemed a dangerous offender. That is a sad indictment on our system.

Another pedophile who has never been deemed a dangerous offender was Martin Dubuc of Laval, Quebec. This career sex offender was first convicted in 1986 for molesting boys on a hockey team that he coached. After serving his time in prison he did not let a lifetime ban on coaching in Quebec stop him. He simply changed locales, changed communities and became a coach and eventually president of a minor hockey association in southwest Montreal. This individual then slithered his way into the school system becoming a substitute teacher until he was arrested and pleaded guilty to threatening several boys aged 10 to 13.

The case of Dubuc is but one chilling example of how predators with long criminal records weasel and worm their way into positions of trust and authority solely for the purpose of bringing harm and victimizing children. The only way to stop these sadistic predators is to ensure they are held behind bars and that the protection of society remains our guiding principle.

How many more children will be victimized before the government takes account? How many more children will be victimized before the government wakes up and does something about repeat offenders like Karl Toft, Walter Jacobson, Martin Dubuc, Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, all of whom have never been deemed dangerous offenders? It is amazing.

How many more children's lives will be destroyed before the government realizes that there is only one way to keep our children safe? Repeat child sex offenders should be incarcerated indefinitely until there is absolutely no doubt or very minimal risk to putting them back out on the streets.

I implore all members on all sides of the House and in all parties to support my private member's bill which is without precedence.

Recently voters in a Swiss referendum backed the introduction of what is being deemed one of Europe's harshest laws on violent criminals and pedophiles. Under the proposals it says that “extremely violent and dangerous criminals who cannot be treated successfully with therapy” would be locked away for life “unless scientific findings show they have been cured or are no longer dangerous”.

In Switzerland the referendum vote was actually initiated by a victims' support group called Light of Hope which was founded by two sisters, one whose daughter was abducted, raped, choked and left for dead. However, under the Swiss system of direct democracy, anybody can initiate a referendum as long as the proposals do not violate the law. What has to happen in Switzerland is that there has to be a petition or a referendum made and 100,000 signatures have to be collected within 18 months.

Although some legal experts have argued that the proposal may violate the European convention on human rights if the laws were strictly interpreted, the sisters went out and collected 195,000 signatures from supporters of the law.

I would argue that what I propose may be similar in nature. I argue that this would be well accepted by the Canadian public, and I also would argue that it would withhold any type of challenge.

I would say that for the sake of the children, of society and the safety and security within our communities, we should support this type of legislation and this bill. I again ask all members of the House to support and vote for this bill, a bill that is solely for the purpose of keeping our children safe.

[Government Contracts, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe that, when everyone else knew about the kickbacks, he was unaware of what was happening? He, the senior minister from Quebec, knew nothing, saw nothing and asked no questions.

Why did this senior minister at that time ask no questions?

[Government Contracts, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for a week now the Prime Minister has tried to convince Canadians that he acted immediately upon hearing of the Auditor General's report.

The question remains however, why did he not act when this scandalous affair first came to light in 1997? Why did he not, at the very least, express the same outrage in 1997 or even ensuing years, as he attempted to show last week?

[Sponsorship Program, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government is notorious for pulling the plug on public inquiries or ignoring the findings or recommendations. There was Krever, Somalia, APEC, Airbus, and the list goes on.

In light of these examples, what assurance do Canadians have that this latest inquiry will in fact be completed in a timely manner and the truth not buried until after an election?