Mark Warawa

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question is an important one: what is the government's aversion to mandatory minimum sentences?

We know that mandatory minimum sentences are effective in that they set a benchmark of what society accepts as a minimum sentence for a crime. We trust the courts to have discretion on the vast majority of criminal offences, but on the most heinous crimes we need to have a direction for to the courts. It has been the history of soft-on-crime Liberal governments to tell the courts that we do not want offenders locked up, that we want to provide conditional sentencing and to have conditional sentencing used, that is, the least restrictive type of sentencing for offenders.

Now we have car racers who kill citizens. What sentence do they receive? They serve their sentence at home under conditional sentences. We know that conditional sentencing has been abused.

Mandatory minimum sentences for the most heinous crimes would give a clear message to the courts that the crimes are heinous. Maximums do not give that message, but mandatory minimums would. Dangerous offenders and repeat offenders who put Canadians at risk by the most heinous of crimes need to have mandatory sentencing. It will give the message to the courts. It will give the message to the offenders that if they offend in Canada there will be a consequence.

The message that is there internationally is that Canada is a wonderful country, but there also is the reputation that Canada is soft on crime. We need to change that. How do we do that? We would do it through mandatory minimum sentences. There is evidence that they work. We need to look at them.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-49, a very important bill. We do have unanimous consent that this move forward to protect the most vulnerable.

I will start off by addressing some of the comments made by the justice minister. He made the comment that mandatory sentencing results in lower sentencing. Canadians are frustrated that the sentencing the courts provide for very serious offences result in conditional sentencing, meaning offenders are serving their sentences at home. Canadians are not confident that the sentencing is adequate, which is why there is an outcry to have mandatory minimum sentencing so there will be at least jail sentences for these heinous crimes.

We had a recent announcement regarding crystal meth which is now a schedule one drug. Traffickers in this drug would receive life imprisonment. The typical sentence for that type of offence is three and a half years. The government comes out with these proclamations, these phony bills saying that it will get tough on crime. Every member of the justice committee wants to make sure that these victims are protected, that this does not happen any more in Canada and that there is a serious message.

As a Conservative, I believe that mandatory minimum sentencing has to be part of the bill. We support having the bill go ahead. Why? I would like to go back to the late 1700s. There was a man by the name of William Wilberforce who was known as the conscience of Parliament. He fought against slavery.

It came to the attention of the United Nations that trafficking in people was still going on, primarily of women and children being drawn into the sex trade. It is offensive, it needs to be dealt with and it is a world concern. As we have heard, $10 billion U.S. a year is what organized crime is reaping in benefits from this. It is a very big problem and we need to deal with it.

William Wilberforce in the late 1700s stood against slavery and yet it is still happening today. We need to come up with legislation that deals with this modern day form of slavery.

Trafficking in persons has been described, as I said, as human slavery in this year. The United Nations reported that trafficking is the fastest growing form of transnational organized crime. Local crime organizations are drawn to this industry because of the relatively low risk of being caught and it is run by multinational criminal networks that are well-funded, well-organized and extremely adaptable to changing technologies.

The United Nations estimates that 700,000 people are trafficked annually worldwide and most of them are women and children. Most victims are forced into commercial sexual exploitation as well as involuntary servitude or debt bondage. Others may be exploited through hard labour and, in some countries, children are trafficked to work even as soldiers.

Trafficked persons are often duped into their new profession, deceived with seemingly legitimate employment contracts or marriage abroad. Others are simply abducted.

People are being told they can come to Canada and get a job and that it is a wonderful country. It is a wonderful country, but they are brought into Canada under false pretences. When they arrive here they are told that the job they were promised is no longer there but that they do have another job, which turns out to be that of a sex trade worker. It is terrible to trap people into that. The visas and passports are seized and taken from these people. These people are afraid to go to the police in case they will be deported from Canada, so they keep quiet and they are trapped.

The government is right that it is an abhorrent crime against humanity, against human rights and we need to stand against it as a country.

In dealing with victim protection, international attention to the issue of trafficking is very important. The status of the victim is often very complex. Although there are some universally recognized victims such as, for example, children who are exploited through the sex trade, others often are perceived as illegal migrants and criminals.

Women trafficked into the sex trade are sometimes seen as simply violating immigration or criminal laws relating to prostitution. Because of these perceptions and because of threats from traffickers, many victims are reluctant to turn to the police for protection.

The social stigma from prostitution is also a problem. Women who have been trafficked internationally and who are returned to their home countries may be ostracized within their communities and their families. It is a very big problem.

In Canada there are no hard statistics, but the RCMP estimates that 600 women and children are smuggled and coerced into the Canadian sex trade every year. If we include in that figure people who are forced into other forms of labour, it numbers about 800 people a year. This should not go on.

Canada has a relatively good record on the international stage in terms of efforts to stem this trade. In June of last year, the U.S. state department reported that British Columbia has become an attractive hub for East Asian human traffickers, who smuggle South Korean women through Canada and into the United States. In large part this is attributed to the fact that South Koreans do not need a visa to enter Canada.

The only thing these thugs understand is the full force of the law. We must have legislation. Bill C-49 must have teeth. We need to involve heavy prison time and confiscation of all profits. As a Conservative government, we would want to have Bill C-49 amended to deal with things properly.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-49 would create three new indictable offences that specifically address human trafficking. The first contains the global prohibition on trafficking persons. The second prohibits a person from benefiting economically from trafficking. The third prohibits the withholding or destruction of identity, immigration or travel documents to facilitate trafficking in persons.

The legislation also ensures that trafficking may form the basis of a warrant to intercept private communications, to take bodily samples for DNA analysis and to permit inclusion of the offender in the sex offender registry. Bill C-49 also expands the ability to seek restitution to the victims who are subjected to bodily or psychological harm.

Again, without serious penalties for these very serious, abhorrent crimes, the exploitation and abuse will continue. In this legislation, there are no mandatory minimum prison sentences. We need to send a clear message that slavery is wrong.

About five months ago, the justice committee passed Bill C-2, the child pornography legislation. It received third reading and went to the Senate and received royal assent, but Bill C-2 is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. As well, Bill C-13, the DNA legislation, passed through this House, went to the Senate and received royal assent, but it also is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, waiting to be enacted. These are very important pieces of legislation and I would like the justice minister to answer us as to why Bill C-2, the child pornography legislation, and Bill C-13, the DNA legislation, are sitting on the Prime Minister's desk waiting to be enacted.

Bill C-49 is such an important bill. There is a will in this House to see it go on to the Senate and receive royal assent. Is it going to sit on the Prime Minister's desk, just like Bill C-2 and Bill C-13? I hope not.

We also have heard of the Liberal-NDP coalition's plan to legalize prostitution solicitation. We have heard that there is a report coming, which has been made public. This is a very serious problem. If we go down the path of legalizing prostitution solicitation, it will exacerbate the problem.

We already know that the government wants the age of sexual consent to be 14, one of the lowest in the world. It causes us problems. We have pedophiles looking at our children. They lure them through the Internet. Now there is a plan from the government to legalize prostitution and solicitation. With a low age of consent and the plan regarding prostitution, we must have multiple types of legislation to protect our vulnerable children and our women.

This is what I want to know. We need to know from the justice minister what kind of legislation we are going to have. Are we going to have Bill C-49, which is what Canadians want, with some teeth? Would he accept amendments?

We have other pieces of legislation in our Criminal Code that have mandatory prison sentences. Is not trafficking in persons one of the most abhorrent crimes in the world today? I would argue that it is.

If we have mandatory minimum sentences for these other violent offences, why not for trafficking in persons? Are the minister and the government saying that it is really not as bad as some of these other offences? I would argue that it is. I think it is one of the worst and I think the United Nations acknowledges that it is one of the worst. If we have mandatory minimums for other criminal offences, why not for this?

I do support Bill C-49 going ahead, but we have to toughen it up.

[Petitions, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from residents in my riding of Langley.

The petitioners state that fuel and gas prices have reached all-time highs, that the charging of GST on the federal excise tax and other taxes is double taxation, that every cent of increase in fuel generates an extra $40 million of revenue for the federal government, and that these high prices on oil and fuel have a negative effect on our economy, businesses, and low and fixed income families. The petitioners ask the government to stop taxing the tax.

[Justice, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last night the government had a chance to support my bill with real measures to deter and combat auto theft. However, once again the Liberals showed that they are not listening to Canadians. Auto theft has doubled in Canada. It is a billion dollar a year crisis and it is killing and injuring Canadians.

When will that soft on crime government take serious action on auto theft? When will the Prime Minister finally listen to Canadians and impose mandatory prison sentences for these serious and violent offences?

[Justice, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, the DNA bill, was a high priority of this Parliament and received royal assent before Karla Homolka's release. She could now be required to provide a DNA sample. Unfortunately, Bill C-13 is sitting on the desk of the Prime Minister. While he waits to enact the legislation, other sex offenders, murderers and terrorists will escape the requirement to provide DNA.

What is he waiting for? How many other dangerous sex offenders will escape DNA sampling while the Prime Minister dithers?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of examples of being different but equal in Canada.

Quebec is a province that has a distinct society clause. It says that it is different, but it is very much equal. Whether they are in Quebec, Ontario or my province of British Columbia, Canadians are equal, but they can be distinct. I gave the example of men and women. They are very distinctly different but very equal. We need to respect all Canadians' freedoms. Even if we are different, we can be equal.

One of the constitutional experts who spoke to us, David Brown, said that in the coming years where this is going to take us is an attack on the freedom of speech and access to facilities. We have heard how the Knights of Columbus were set up and were under attack. Mr. Kempling was under attack. Fred Henry was under attack. We heard from some of the members. I am hearing from some of them right now with a bit of heckling from the corner.

We heard the questions,“Have you ever been forced to consummate a marriage between same sex couples? Have you ever been forced to do that and had a consequence?” The answer that Mr. Brown gave was that Bill C-38 is not law yet. He said that will happen. Faith based schools will be forced to teach a curriculum or they will lose their provincial funding. The churches will lose their charitable status.

We are going down a road that will change Canada as we know it. We need to oppose Bill C-38. We need to send it back and look at an alternative way of providing the same benefits and rights to Canadians in same sex relationships, and it cannot be marriage.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that issue is one of the salient points of this debate.

I have had constituents say that they will not get married in Canada if Bill C-38 goes through, that they will go to a country that presents the traditional definition of marriage.

If this bill goes through, there are questions as to whether same sex marriages will be recognized in the rest of the world. I do not think so. Canada will be to the far left on social issues, more than any other country in the world. Will these marriages be recognized? I think the traditional definition of opposite sex will be, but I have heard from a number of Canadians who are very concerned about having a traditional marriage here in Canada and are talking seriously about going outside the country. That is a real concern.

One of those was a new Canadian from Romania. She left communist Romania a number of years ago and came to Canada and was very excited to be here. She is saying now it is frightening her because we are heading in a direction where religious freedoms, personal freedoms and freedom of speech are being curtailed and taken away. She is very concerned about the direction in which Canada is heading.

It is our responsibility to provide freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We are not getting that with Bill C-38. We are heading down the wrong path.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

I am sorry but I have the most wonderful woman. We have five children, four boys and a girl. Girls are totally different from boys. It has been a wonderful experience in how they think, what they do and how they relate to one another. What a wonderful privilege it has been for me to experience not only dealing with a wonderful wife, but also with a girl and boys and experiencing how different they are. It makes me fuller as a person. The human species is not complete unless we have the experience of both male and female relationships. I am really honoured by the experience I have had in raising my children.

My five children are grown. The youngest is my daughter who is expecting a baby any day. I am here to protect the traditional values of marriage. I would like to be with my daughter. I am hoping I will be there when she delivers her first baby, but I am here to represent my constituency and I have my daughter's blessing.

I contacted my riding of Langley and asked my constituents how they want me to vote on this. I told them that I personally believed in the traditional definition but that I would represent my constituents. I was overwhelmed with the response. We received thousands of responses from the residents of Langley and 96% of them said that they wanted me to support the traditional definition of marriage. They also wanted me to provide the same benefits to same sex relationships and to ensure that religious freedoms were protected in Canada. That is why I was honoured and gladly supported the Conservative position to do those three things.

Religious freedoms are not being protected in Bill C-38, which is why we brought forward amendments. I also want to bring to the attention of the House that I was on the marriage committee. Every party that was represented on the marriage committee acknowledged that religious freedoms would not be protected the way Bill C-38 is presented to the House. Every party, except for the NDP, provided amendments to Bill C-38 acknowledging that it would not protect Canadians' freedom of religion. Unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order, which is why we are here tonight debating and supporting these amendments that will try to make a horrible bill somewhat better to guarantee religious rights in Canada.

I want to go back into some history and the reason we are here today. We have heard time and time again that there has been adequate public input and adequate debate on Bill C-38. The Liberals, the NDP and the separatists got together to get it through. In the 37th Parliament we had a subcommittee of the justice committee that wanted to look into this to see how it would handle same sex relationships.

The committee did travel. It went to a number of different cities. It heard from 467 witnesses. We have heard that the report was cut short. We never received a report, but we have also heard verbally from some of the people who were involved that there was a consensus. The consensus was that the best way to deal with the same sex relationships, guaranteeing them exactly the same rights and benefits, was through a civil union. That was what the committee heard. Unfortunately, there is not a written report so we have to take the word of those who were there and witnessed that to this House.

From that, what we have is a bill from the government, its number one piece of legislation to destroy traditional marriage. The government came up with Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. The government created a committee. Normally legislation would come to this House and would go to the justice committee, which is what was expected. But the Prime Minister created a special legislative committee after consultation with certain members of his caucus. The government created a legislative committee. It limited the travel. It limited the amount of input that could be given, and limited the number of witnesses. Why would the Prime Minister come up with this special committee that would limit debate?

It gets worse. This committee that supported the number one piece of legislation for the Liberal government was stacked with members of the Liberal Party. The number one qualification for this committee was the government's bill had to be supported. There was no member of the Liberal Party who opposed the bill on that committee. Those members had to support the government bill. It was the same for the NDP members. The only members who were permitted on that committee who were open-minded, who listened to the witnesses, were from the Conservative Party. We worked hard. There was no travel. One of the parliamentary secretaries would beat on the procedure book saying that certain things could not be done, that they were out of order. He raised points of order, and on and on with interruptions and intimidation. That committee was a fraud, a travesty, a sham. It did not give Canadians any opportunity to speak freely and the number of speakers was limited.

The Conservative justice critic, the member for Provencher, worked hard. The government limited the number of witnesses to 41 and that critic managed to add another 22 witnesses. The member for London—Fanshawe left the Liberals out of disgust. He just could not take it any more. He spoke about an hour ago about the promises made by the Prime Minister and how those promises were broken. Bishop Fred Henry, Mr. Kempling, and a number of witnesses were deliberately withheld from that committee. The justice critic is with us tonight, and I want to give him credit for the hard word that he did. Through his hard work we did get some input, but 43 witnesses were rammed through in a very short period of time.

I kept asking the witnesses where this was going to take us and what the difference is between a civil union and marriage. If same sex relationships can be given exactly the same rights and benefits, what is inferior? I heard that different is not equal. That is right. Men and women are different, but they are equal, so different can be equal. It is not inferior. Civil union can be equal, but it is different. I never heard one of the witnesses who supported the government's bill, in fact any of the witnesses, who were able to tell me what is inferior about a civil union.

Two years ago that was the consensus of the committee and that is still the consensus of Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians want civil unions with the same rights and benefits, and to protect the traditional definition.

I want to know where this is going to take us over the next five or 10 years. I am very concerned where this is taking Canada.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to represent my constituents but it is disappointing that the government has deemed this its number one piece of legislation, that it has called this emergency debate and we will be going on until midnight. We have heard from other members that their lives are on hold because this is the number one piece of legislation by the government.

We have heard from the government about a hidden agenda. We are seeing revealed to Canada right now a government that does have a hidden agenda. It is a hidden agenda that is coming to fruition, which is that the Liberals want to destroy the traditional definition. They want to do a social engineering experiment. They want to legalize marijuana. They want to legalize prostitution. Where is this taking us?

It was not long ago we heard the Prime Minister say that this is the Canada we want. This is not the Canada Canadians want. That is why we are seeing manipulation and every tactic that can be pulled on the Canadian public to ensure this happens with the hope that Canadians will forget.

Canadians will not forget and this party will ensure Canadians are reminded of what has happened in the House and the games that have been played.

I have the honour of being married to the most wonderful woman in Canada for the last 33 years.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has admitted now that Bill C-38 is its single issue. This is a single issue government. It wants to socially engineer Canada to bring it farther left than any other country in the world. We heard that in committee.

I sat on that committee and it was a sham. The committee was structured in a way that Canadians would not have an opportunity to give input. The number of witnesses who could appear was limited. The committee was stacked with only members who supported the government and they brought closure on that by manipulation. We heard from witnesses that religious freedoms in Canada would not be protected. We had amendments from all parties that the government refused. It called them out of order.

Will the government House leader not admit that there were special promises made to special interest groups? The government funded these special interest groups to come and support same sex marriage. What promises were made to these special interest groups?