Vic Toews

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, the minister has said that he wants to see tougher measures on crime but he discounts the idea of mandatory prison sentences, which is not an unknown concept in our law. If we look at the murder sections, for example, there is a minimum sentence before someone is eligible for parole. In second degree murder it is 10 years and in first degree murder it is 25 years, so we have mandatory prison sentences imposed in our Criminal Code.

We have the same thing in our firearms sections. If someone uses a firearm in the course of a robbery there is a mandatory prison sentence, because the message we want to send out to the criminals who use firearms in that fashion is that they go to prison if they use a firearm in the course of a robbery.

But for our firefighters who in the course of their jobs go out to protect our lives and go into a trap, get an arrow through their chest or a shotgun blast to the head, what is the answer? The answer is, “We do not want to do mandatory prison sentences”.

Yes, victims have asked for these kinds of laws, but they want effective laws and effective sentences. An effective sentence is a mandatory prison sentence that sends a message to criminals and to judges that anyone committing that type of crime will go to prison. Why does the minister not want to protect our firefighters and emergency personnel with the same kind of protection that a 7-Eleven clerk gets when somebody goes into the 7-Eleven with a shotgun and robs the place? There is a mandatory minimum sentence. Why is the same thing not here if he cares about firefighters and police officers?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I will tell you how it could be an effective tool. There is a six month probation order. The order expires and the restitution has not been paid. The victim goes to the police and tells them the restitution has not been paid. The police officer lays a breach of probation. It goes back to the sentencing judge and the sentencing judge says, “Look, we gave you a period of time to pay and you have not paid. Come up with an excuse”. Instead, this minister wants to give them a hollow civil judgment that does nothing for the victim, so I want the minister to consider that.

I want to move on to the other issue and that is the issue of traps for our firefighters. We know that our firefighters and other emergency personnel, including police officers, are subjected to traps. When they go into grow ops there are shotguns and crossbows rigged to go off. The minister says, “We want to send out a strong message that this is not a good thing”.

Well, we all agree it is not a good thing, but what does the minister do in typical Liberal fashion? He proposes increasing the maximum sentences. He knows that the courts do not follow those maximum sentences. The courts will continue to go on imposing whatever sentence they want to impose. If the minister really wants to protect our firefighters and our emergency personnel, he should mandate minimum prison sentences. For someone who sets a trap, we do not raise the maximum penalty to 14 years and see the courts still giving a suspended sentence. What we do is we say that if someone puts a trap into place the minimum sentence is two or three years.

If the minister cares about our firefighters and cares about our emergency personnel, he should put some teeth into the law. The minister knows that the courts will not respond. This is nothing but window dressing for political purposes. He should put real teeth into the law and put mandatory prison sentences into place. Why will the minister not do that?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I do not think the minister gets it. This victim now gets a judgment in his or her name.

Imagine that I am a little old man in north Winnipeg. A street gang has broken my fence. A police officer has caught them. I get a restitution order for $200 or $300. The gang members are put on probation for six months. The expiry of the probation order occurs. The restitution has not been paid. I now get a judgment in my name. The gang members get a copy of the judgment in my name. Does the minister not think that when I get paid a friendly visit by my local street gang members, I am going to say “Look, I do not want to proceed any further”? That is exactly what is going to happen.

The criminal courts and the police should be there to protect. Why do we not simply allow the criminal courts to enforce the judgment they way it used to be prior to 1995, so that the victims do not have to be in the courts to advance their interests? The police and the criminal courts should say that this is an order of the court and it must be respected. The obligation is to the court, not to the individual victim to be collecting that bill.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, that then begs a question. That is what we find in the bill. We find a provision that does not help victims. I am asking the minister to look at the bill. Can we not say that if a restitution order is unpaid, regardless of the probation period or the conditions expiring, the courts could have criminal jurisdiction, so that it is the court and the police that then go enforce the restitution order on behalf of the victim?

Why should we make criminal justice difficult on the victim? Why can we not assist the victim through the criminal court in the effective way it used to be? This is a new process that has changed in the last seven or eight years, brought under a Liberal administration that has left victims out to hang by themselves.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, we too are concerned about a fair and accessible justice system.

This morning in committee we dealt with Bill C-32. I was amazed that in Bill C-32 where a probation order expires and restitution has been ordered, a victim is told that he must get a civil order to enforce restitution ordered by a criminal court. Under our law the criminal court loses jurisdiction over the enforcement of its own order. Therefore, if there is a six month probation period and restitution has been asked to be paid within three months, if that is not paid and the Crown does not proceed within that period of time all the victim has is the right to go to a civil order.

If we could imagine an elderly woman in North Winnipeg who has a restitution order against a street gang member and she receives a judgment in her name against a street gang member, what are the odds of that poor woman in terms of not just enforcing that order but indeed in protecting her safety?

Why does the minister think victims should be left out on their own instead of receiving the protection of the criminal courts?

[Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association based in Vancouver for the work that it has done in support of Canadian families and social justice.

Yesterday, on its behalf, I tabled in Parliament over 12,000 petitions, half of them expressing support of the traditional definition of marriage. The other 6,000 petitions expressed opposition to Bill C-250, a bill that raises significant concerns over the ability of religious leaders and institutions to communicate and adhere to essential matters of faith.

The organization is a non-denominational, non-partisan grassroots association. Its principal purposes are to redress social injustice, to advocate and protect constitutional charter and social rights, traditional family values and parental rights. Canadians across the country are grateful for its efforts.

[Petitions, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have further petitions. I have over 12,000 petitions presented today on behalf of the Vancouver based group Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values: 6,346 express support of the traditional definition of marriage and 5,841 petitions express opposition to Bill C-250, a bill that proposes to criminalize statements critical of homosexuality.

The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values is a non-denominational, non-partisan grassroots association. Its principal purposes are to redress social injustice to advocate and protect constitutional charter and social rights, traditional family values and parental rights. Based in Vancouver, this group is 90% Chinese Canadian.

Since these petitions do not strictly conform to the specifications of the House of Commons, I would like to request unanimous consent to table those today as well.

[Petitions, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table six petitions calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

The six petitions contain approximately 1,500 signatures from concerned citizens from all over Canada. I would like to note that these petitions were compiled by Focus on the Family Canada. I would like to congratulate it for its efforts on behalf of children in Canada.

[Privilege, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I find the position of the government House leader to be somewhat hypocritical, or at least contradictory.

When it comes to protecting the people against poor decisions of the court, the minister stands with the courts every time. When it comes to the courts threatening members' privileges, he stands on the side of members. I am somewhat surprised that he would take the narrow position of protecting members' interests but not the interests of the populace at large.

And I would like to ask, where is the member for LaSalle--Émard in respect to this issue?

[Justice, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling the Canadian people that they have no reason to be concerned and yet they have legitimate reason to be concerned. The public's growing dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court undermines its necessary role as an independent, non-partisan institution.

The Prime Minister has the power to reverse this disturbing trend. Will the Prime Minister leave as his legacy by acting quickly and implementing a non-partisan appointment process to restore confidence in the judiciary?