Vic Toews

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the speech given by my colleague from Yellowhead.

The issue of methamphetamine is a very important one which he brought to the House's attention. He indicated that organized crime is treating marijuana with methamphetamine. That certainly brings a whole new dimension to the use of marijuana.

Back in 1997 to 1999 when I was directly involved in a provincial government in a cabinet position, we dealt with the American authorities. At that time they were warning us about the spread of methamphetamine, that methamphetamine was devastating communities right across the United States. They told us at that time that over 80% of child welfare apprehensions in the state of California were directly related to methamphetamine abuse. They told us about the deaths of police officers and emergency responders who would go into methamphetamine labs and would be overcome by the fumes of these very dangerous and inexpensive labs.

Has the member heard of actual meth labs operating in his area? Has he had contact with the police? Does it not put a whole new perspective on the issue of legalizing marijuana when it is being treated with methamphetamine?

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. Speaking as a former prosecutor, certainly the problem with prosecuting impaired driving when we do not have an approved roadside device or other device to measure the content of the drug or alcohol is a very difficult thing to do, whereas with .08 there is what is called a presumptive offence: that we are presumed to be impaired if we blow over .08. When we have just a straight impaired driving charge with no appropriate roadside detection device or other device, it is a very difficult thing to prosecute. One only needs to look at the Martin's annotated Criminal Code to look at all of the cases that deal with this issue and realize how easy it is to avoid conviction. I am very worried that we are doing the same thing here.

The second point I want to raise is the issue that the marijuana bill appears to me to be tailor-made for organized crime, that is, it encourages youth to use marijuana and indeed to traffic in marijuana and at the same time it leaves the source of the marijuana illegal and criminal, thereby in fact increasing the potential for profit for an organized criminal.

I am wondering whether my colleague sees that same association: that at the same time as we are increasing the use among children and thereby creating a bigger demand, we are keeping it illegal in order to raise profits for organized crime.

[Justice, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is the refusal of this government to pursue legitimate efforts to ensure that Parliament remains supreme that has allowed this reversal in roles to take place.

The vacancy of a Supreme Court of Canada judge that has recently been created presents this Prime Minister with the unique opportunity to address the democratic deficit insofar as the appointment of judges is concerned.

Will this Prime Minister assure Canadians that no future Supreme Court of Canada judge will be appointed without a review and the consent of a parliamentary committee?

[Justice, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has allowed judges to become the most powerful force in setting social policy in Canada. Whether it is by allowing convicted murders to vote or by changing fundamental institutions like marriage, this government has substituted the supremacy of an elected Parliament with unelected judges.

What steps will this Prime Minister be prepared to take to ensure that Parliament will participate in the future appointment of any Supreme Court of Canada judge?

[Sponsorship Program, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is this Prime Minister who said that some ministers were involved and in the know. That is what this Prime Minister said.

What I am saying is that he has now stacked the public accounts committee with members of the Privy Council. That is a conflict of interest.

Will this Prime Minister take immediate steps to remove the privy councillors in order to remove that conflict of interest?

[Sponsorship Program, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is charged with getting to the bottom of who authorized the theft of millions of dollars from the taxpayer. The Prime Minister admits that some cabinet ministers knew about the abuses in the sponsorship program.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that any privy councillor in the know is not sitting on that committee as it looks into this scandal?

[Privilege, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by the member simply remarkable.

The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough stood up and said, “I have the document. It is two pages and I am going to tender it”. If the member was trying to mislead the House, would he actually table it? No, he would do what Liberals do and hide the document. The member stood up and put his document on the table. Let the President of the Treasury Board put forward the document that he keeps on hiding.

[Criminal Code, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to this particular debate. I think it is a very important debate.

I am very concerned about the whole issue of the public good defence, as I am concerned about the artistic merit defence. I support the NDP amendment that was brought by the member for Vancouver East only because the government proposal to replace the artistic merit defence is worse than the actual artistic merit defence itself.

We heard in committee that the public good defence in fact increases the ability of pornographers and child predators to take advantage of our children. There was not one witness, other than the minister himself at that time, who supported this amendment. Whether it was civil libertarians on the one side or child advocacy groups and police forces on the other, none of them supported the public good defence because, in the words of David Matas, for example, a very prominent lawyer from Winnipeg, also known as a civil libertarian, this increased the ability of pornographers to take advantage of our children.

I am supporting the motion by the member for Vancouver East to delete the public good defence, but I say that I cannot support the bill, which would then include the artistic merit defence. This bill needs to be taken back to the drawing board and a real defence put in place that prohibits the criminal exploitation of children the way the artistic merit defence has allowed pornographers and child predators to take advantage of our children and, indeed, the way this new defence would.

I will state something very interesting that was stated by another NDP member, the member for Palliser. He seemed to indicate that some child pornography is not really dangerous, that it is not really bad. In his defence of the creation of some types of child pornography, the member for Palliser stated in Hansard on January 27, 2003:

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's specific questions, the position that I take, and I believe would be shared by a majority if not all of my caucus colleagues--

He is speaking about his NDP caucus colleagues:

--is that if it has not specifically hurt a minor in the production of it, if it is created by people's visual imaginations and if the main purpose of it is not simply about pornography and sexual exploitation, then under the laws people do have a right to their own imaginations and thoughts, however perverse the member and I might think they are.

That was what the member for Palliser said: that some types of child pornography are acceptable to him and the members of his caucus.

I would suggest that this NDP member and the members of that caucus who share his view spend some time talking to police forces across Canada that investigate child pornography. Even in those cases where an actual child has not been harmed--for example, in the case of virtual children, who are indistinguishable from a real child but where no real child has actually been used--that kind of pornography is extremely harmful because it is used for predators to groom children and to make children think that kind of conduct and behaviour is all right. I think that is just deplorable.

So now I am very suspicious when an NDP member stands up and says we should get rid of this defence. I want to make it very clear where I stand on this issue. I oppose the public good defence that the Liberal government has brought in and that every credible witness discredited and I oppose the artistic merit defence that allowed child predators like John Robin Sharpe to take advantage of our children in this country.

I oppose both of those defences and I am asking the government to listen to the evidence it heard in committee. Let us go back to the drawing board and do it right this time in order to protect our children. Let us make it clear, not like the NDP, that all child pornography that exploits children should be banned.

Specifically, when the minister at the time came before committee, he admitted that the artistic merit defence was still included in the broader public good defence. He stated:

Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good and through the two stages. Of course, the first question is always this. Does it serve the public good?

The point is then that buried in this new defence is the old defence of artistic good and the same law that allowed a judge to acquit John Robin Sharpe of two counts is still there. Why are we going through this exercise, this kind of Liberal feel good exercise that we are doing something about changing the law when in fact we are doing nothing of the sort? Substantively, the test will be the same.

The Conservative Party calls for the elimination of all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography. Of course, the criminal possession of child pornography does not apply to those in the justice system associated with prosecution, or researchers studying the effects of exposure to child pornography. We know that there are a number of defences that are still available to child pornographers.

The entire Liberal approach to the protection of children as demonstrated by the bill is shameful. The disguising of the artistic merit defence under this broader defence of the public good is only one particular problem.

Another serious problem is that in Canada the age of consent between adults and children for sexual activity is age 14. In special circumstances, where an accused thinks that the child was in fact 14, the sexual contact of an adult with a 12 year old child can be justified. There was a recent case where a 12 year old native girl was raped by three individuals and two of them were acquitted on the basis that they thought that the girl was 14 years of age.

It is shameful that even in Canada we could advance that kind of argument, that adults--these boys as the judge referred to them--who were over 20 years old or 24 years old could rape this young girl and be acquitted because they thought she was 14 years of age. It is disgraceful.

The government continues that kind of disgrace and tries to create a new category of exploitive relationships. To prove that relationship will be cumbersome and complex. It will frustrate police and prosecutors. Most civilized western democracies, and others indeed, have at least a minimum age of 16. Why is the government so scared to protect children under the age of 16 from the exploitation of adults?

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting and again another example of how they are on both sides of this issue.

In their haste to extricate the Prime Minister from this whole mess, what do they say? They say that it is the heads of crown corporations and that those heads will roll. There has not been an inquiry and yet the Prime Minister has obviously found these public servants guilty. The 12 or 14 hidden bureaucrats in the basement who are handing out government money to the Liberal Party are obviously guilty, according to the Prime Minister and according to the Liberals.

The only person who, apparently, is not guilty, even before we get into a public inquiry, is the former prime minister. He stands up and says that the former prime minister is a man of great integrity, and I will not dispute that here. We will find out all about that in the public inquiry. What I am saying is that he is so quick, for political reasons, to exclude any aspersions being cast on some, and only so willing to pass them on to those whom he knows are disposable in this political game.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my friend from the great province of British Columbia.

The issue here is not as much a legal issue when it comes to dealing with the role of the Prime Minister. In my opinion, this is consistent with what the Prime Minister has been trying to do from the day that he first sought the leadership of the Liberal Party, which is trying to be on both sides of any issue in order to garner the most support that he possibly can.

When he is government and some good things appear to be happening, he takes the credit. When the bad things are happening, he says that he did not know what was going on.

The tragedy of the situation is that this whole scandal was perpetuated by raw politics, trying to get one man into the office of the Prime Minister. He has succeeded now but he is reaping the rewards of the inconsistencies that he made in terms of trying to be everything to everyone without taking a principled stand on anything.