Vic Toews

[Privilege, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill intended for the House before and at the exclusion of members of parliament and their staff.

My question of privilege will argue that the Minister of Justice and her department are in contempt of parliament since they have brought the authority and dignity of the House into question. The government and her department made a mockery of the parliamentary system and members of parliament.

Erskine May describes contempt as:

—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

I want to tell the House what has happened. The Liberal government and the Minister of Justice gave a briefing on an omnibus bill today at 11.45 am. It is the bill that the Minister of Justice just introduced to the House. I am bringing this motion at the quickest and most appropriate time.

I received a copy of the bill when I came into question period today. It is a bill that is 78 pages long. The Liberal government gave a briefing and denied members of parliament and their staff access to the briefing. The only ones allowed into the briefing session were members of the media.

This is not simply a small bill. It contains 78 pages. I had an opportunity to quickly glance through it when I came into the House. I could not even tell members of the media who were calling my office what my reaction was to the bill.

The issue is not the embarrassment it has caused to me or the members of the opposition, it is the embarrassment it has caused the House. It is an embarrassment for the people of Canada who voted to send members to the House of Commons so they could be consulted and have an input. We have been denied even a most basic briefing.

According to the minister it is not the opposition she has to convince, it is the media. She gives the media the appropriate spin and we are left in the dark. We have been embarrassed and the House has been embarrassed. I am angered and disgusted by this process.

I am a novice in the House of parliament but I have also served in legislatures. I was also a crown counsel for the Manitoba government for years. I advised governments on matters. I advised the premier of Manitoba in 1990 on the Meech Lake accord. I am not a novice when it comes to dealing with government matters and government issues and the basic respect that each member here deserves.

We were shut out of a briefing and treated like beggars at the door waiting for leftovers. We did not even get a news release. I do not know if members of the press got a news release. I received 78 pages of a bill that is not just on one matter.

One of the Liberal members across the way just asked me if I could read. Let me say what the bill includes because it is important to all members of the House. It says “secret until introduced in parliament”. That secrecy seems to only apply to the people here. We are the ones who are being shrouded from the truth. The secret is being kept from us. The media were briefed and had full access to the bill.

Some may ask whether I can read. Being a lawyer and having served government I should be able to easily and quickly read 78 pages. With all due respect, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House and the people of Canada what the bill includes.

“This enactment amends the Criminal Code”. This is the summary of what is printed in the bill so I assume it is the truth. I do not know if it is the truth because I have not had a chance to read it. However, let us assume it is the truth based on what the minister has put in the bill and what she has shared with the media but not with members of the House because it is a big secret from us.

I will begin again. The summary states:

The enactment amends the Criminal Code by (a) adding offences and other measures that provide additional protection to children from sexual exploitation, including sexual exploitation involving the use of the Internet;

This is a huge issue. However, before I attended the House, members of the press were asking me what I had to say about the issue. I had nothing to say because it was a secret. It was kept secret from everybody in the House. All of Canada knows, the moment it is introduced the Liberal's spin on the document is already out on the airwaves through the media. This is disgusting. It is an absolute subordination of the powers of each member, as well as your powers, Mr. Speaker, and those of the House.

It does not end there. The minister will say that we have been talking about this for a long time and that it was high time the legislation was introduced. Absolutely, it is high time that it is introduced, but that is one issue. The next issue is increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. If that is in fact what it says, I applaud that. The Manitoba government, when I was a member, worked very hard to convince the Liberal government to take steps in that respect.

Now we find out about it in a secret document that we cannot release until it is introduced in parliament. Who knew about it before I did, before you did, Mr. Speaker, and before every member of the House? It was the media, the new opposition. The government does not care about the elected voices of people. It has insulted every single member in the House, including government members on the opposite side. We have all been insulted by this piece of trickery.

I will continue on with what the bill contains. It says:

(c) Making home invasions in aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes;

Yes, we did ask for this but can we not discuss it beforehand? Could we at least get a briefing two hours before? Could we have the decency and the courtesy that was extended to members of the media but not to us?

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of the motion that calls for the implementation of a national sex offender registry by January 2002.

Noting some of the comments by the Liberal parliamentary secretary made earlier to the Progressive Conservative member, to accuse the Progressive Conservative member of hypocrisy is the ultimate hypocrisy. For years provincial attorneys general have been requesting some form of registry and for years the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice have been examining the issue. Today they suddenly say that they are already doing it. I am sure it is news to every provincial attorney general and to the police departments in Canada. The government is shamed into voting for it and yet it does not abandon the hypocrisy of its position.

I will begin by remarking on a story printed last Friday in the Globe and Mail . It was reported that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council had been asked to rule on whether it was acceptable to criticize child molesters on the nation's airwaves. The broadcasting council had been asked to adjudicate the matter after a viewer complained that Mike Bullard on his late night talk show had made remarks about pedophiles that were deemed to be inappropriate, derogative, prejudiced and inhuman.

While Mr. Bullard's comments were admittedly in very bad taste and a poor attempt at humour, they expressed in a very blunt way the revulsion Canadians feel about dangerous sexual predators in society. I do not excuse Mr. Bullard's comments but they indicate the concern, fear and revulsion Canadians feel about this crime.

The question remains: Is there a need to debate whether it is acceptable to express distaste for pedophiles and other sex offenders? The issue demonstrates the extent to which we have allowed sympathy for dangerous criminals to impede our ability to protect children in society.

On a weekly, sometimes even a daily basis we hear horrific reports of sexual assaults on children, such as the incident reported in Calgary last week where two girls aged six and seven were assaulted. In addition to the apparently spontaneous attacks, I could cite hundreds of examples in which a teacher, a child care provider or another adult authority has unknowingly been given long term access to children and a tragedy has resulted. The frequency of these cases demonstrates a clear need to keep track of these kinds of criminals.

I think everyone admits that these types of criminals are not cured simply by putting them in jail. We know they need rehabilitation and treatment. We also know they are not cured once they are released from jail. There needs to be a mechanism for tracking them on an ongoing basis.

It is well known that sex offenders, pedophiles in particular, remain at high risk to reoffend sometimes for many years after they have served their sentence. Our fundamental concern in the motion is for public safety. The implementation of an effective national sex offender registry will give police and law enforcement officials an added tool to protect Canadians.

I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments when he said it was hypocritical that the Canadian Alliance wanted a national sex offender registry but not a national long gun registry. Those are very interesting comments but he was not listening. We said we wanted an effective registry. We support effective crime control. We do not support make work, political projects, and that is what the long gun registry is.

The current system of tracking sex offenders has proven to be ineffective. Although the Canadian Police Information Centre maintains a database of sex offenders, the information is inaccessible to many people in the justice system. It does not adequately identify sex offenders or where they live, as offenders who are under supervision or have finished their sentences are not required to register changes of address. This puts police and others working in the justice system at a distinct and severe disadvantage.

Contrary to the comments made by the Liberals, the Canadian Police Association has said the CPIC system does not provide police agencies with adequate information and notification concerning the release or arrival of sex offenders into communities. In light of our motion, just yesterday the association reconfirmed its support for a national sex offender registry. It is saying the Liberals are not doing it. Police officers are the ones in the trenches and on the frontlines. They deserve our support.

The proposed registry would include only convicted sex offenders, requiring each sex offender to register with police in the jurisdiction where he or she will reside. The Canadian Police Information Centre already has a 24 hour registry that is used by every police force in the country to call up information on all types of convicted criminals, stolen property, firearms and missing persons.

The proposed sex offender registry would require an updating of the legislation so that police could access current information on sex offenders and their whereabouts. In this way a separate registry may not be necessary. However it is absolutely necessary that we have legislation spelling out these additional requirements. I am not particularly hung up on how we do it. I am more concerned that we do it. The present system is simply not doing it.

The registry would assist local police in identifying suspects and solving sex offences more quickly. Available only to the police, the parole board and the solicitor general's office, the registry would not inappropriately or unconstitutionally compromise the privacy of any individual. It would, however, assist in protecting the public from sex offenders, particularly children, the most vulnerable and susceptible members of society.

There was widespread public backing for a registry, including provincial politicians of all political stripes: New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. In the absence of an effective federal response to the issue the Ontario government created its province-wide offender registry last April. Again, as mentioned earlier, it was passed on a 90 to 0 vote in the provincial legislature.

What reasons could the federal government have for not taking these necessary and crucial steps? Perhaps it considers the cost too great. Perhaps the administration of the system would be difficult, complex and time consuming. However if the registry were integrated into the current CPIC registry then the costs and administrative difficulties would be negligible.

Perhaps the government is concerned with privacy issues. However the registry we are proposing is almost identical to the database already maintained on criminal records.

The motion calls for an effective alternative to the current registry system which is clearly not working. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a political issue. It is an issue about public safety and the protection of our children.

I urge all members to consider the motion carefully. I especially urge the Liberals not only to vote in favour of it but to urge the minister to actually implement the registry so that police forces have the tools to protect our children.

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

The bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges. The bill is purely administrative in nature, but that is the problem.

This is the fourth time the Liberal government has sought to amend the act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were minor pieces of legislation or of little significance to Canadians.

While we all recognize the need for housekeeping bills, there have been no significant initiatives by the current Liberal government to address the serious concerns of many Canadians with our judiciary. It appears more and more that the issues parliament may address when it comes to the judiciary are merely administrative in nature.

Under the guise of the charter the courts have appropriated for themselves the right to deal with substantive policy matters. The courts have in addition appropriated for themselves the right to effectively control the ability to set their salaries, a matter which the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically left to parliament.

The decision of the courts purported to find a new constitutional obligation to require the legislatures to set up a commission to establish the salaries for provincially appointed judges. The supreme court, which was called upon to confirm this process, not only did so but included a newfound constitutional obligation requiring parliament to follow a similar process when it came to setting salaries for federally appointed judges.

Although the fiction is that parliament can exercise its own judgment in respect to the salaries recommended by the committees, in reality the judges simply overturn those legislated decisions where they disagree with them. One need look no further than the Alberta legislature for a very practical demonstration of the court's powers.

This is simply a case of judges discovering new constitutional principles that benefit themselves financially without political accountability or, as one of my constituents observed in describing the case, “the judges paying the judge's case”.

This newfound constitutional process that the judges discovered further decreased parliamentary responsibility for the expenditure of public funds and moves toward the creation of an economically independent judiciary with its own political agenda.

A recent letter to Maclean's magazine by a Mr. W. J. Jack of Innisfil, Ontario, noted:

It seems to me that members of Parliament no longer want to or can't make laws that work, so they let appointed judges do that job. If the Supreme Court is going to legislate, we won't need elections, except to vote for one person who would then appoint the members of the court. This would save taxpayers a lot of money, and we'd still have the one-man-rule system that we have today.

Coupled with the self-granting powers under the charter and an executive appointed judiciary as we now have, I would argue the courts can be and often are used to advance the political agenda of a government in a particular direction without consultation with the members of parliament who are accountable to the people of Canada and who represent their interests.

Judicial activism is all too common in our courts. Many if not most Canadians would agree that it must remain the responsibility of parliament to debate and ultimately resolve the political, economic and social issues that govern all our lives.

However over the past two decades judges supreme court justices in particular have to varying degrees engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and social preferences for those of the elected representatives of the people in parliament and the legislatures.

A leader in this judicial activism was the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the decisions he wrote or participated in will continue to impact on the principles and institutions of our democracy. Unfortunately that impact has been at an alarming cost to our democracy and to the public safety and security of our citizens.

Another member of the court has recently added his concern to the direction of the supreme court and the judicial activism of the former chief justice. Mr. Justice Bastarache has warned the nation of the dangers of the judicial government favoured by the former chief justice. In contrast to the former chief justice, Justice Bastarache has committed himself to an interpretation of the charter of rights and freedoms that pays respect to democratic principles and institutions.

The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and institutions are too important to be hijacked by a non-elected political judiciary.

Let us consider for a moment a recent high profile supreme court decision that typifies the issue. In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court in effect removed the justice minister's parliamentary prerogative of choosing whether or not to seek assurances before extraditing alleged criminals facing the death penalty in another country, the United States or otherwise.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the court has attempted to deprive parliament of debating the issue further. The court has overridden Canada's law as written by parliament and has chosen to push its political agenda to the forefront by opening Canada's borders to violent criminals.

That is not just my characterization. The day after the Rafay and Burns decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada the lawyers for the Minister of Justice, in another related case, stood before the court and said that the impact of the decisions was to create safe havens for criminals.

According to the precedent set in previous supreme court rulings, the minister had only been required to seek guarantees when the possibility of the death penalty would shock the conscience or otherwise outrage standards of decency.

In this decision, the supreme court has attempted to reconcile its new position with its 1991 precedent. However, in actual fact it has rewritten the law. The recent ruling stipulated that the Minister of Justice was required to seek guarantees prior to the extradition of Rafay and Burns and in the future on all accused of such crimes.

Our extradition treaty with the United States has also been effectively rewritten. One might think that the practical effect of extraditing these individuals, if they are convicted in the state of Washington, is that they would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That is only technically true. If they are convicted and all appeals are exhausted, they become automatically eligible for the prisoner exchange program. They then come back to Canada where the maximum sentence is 25 years before eligibility for parole and, with the faint hope clause, they can apply for parole after 15 years.

Taking into account that these individuals have already been held for six or seven years, if they were successful under the faint hope clause they would be on the streets after eight years. If in fact they are the people who brutally killed three American citizens for insurance money, the practical consequence of their crime would be eight years.

This is not an issue about the death penalty. This is the circumvention of parliament by refusing to allow parliament to have a say in the laws that govern crime in Canada. This is an abdication of our responsibility. Our responsibility has been taken away by the Supreme Court of Canada which has its own political agenda when it comes to criminal law.

In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court has prevented any legislative attempt to reintroduce capital punishment in Canada. This is regardless of where one stands on the issue. Our party does not have a position on capital punishment. The court's decision effectively says that the elected people of Canada can never make the decision because it is constitutionally prohibited. The political reason given was that the practice is unjust and should be stopped. That is not a legal judgment. That is a political decision.

Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is a decision for parliament and its elected representatives to make. Regardless of the convictions of the court, amending Canada's laws and treaties for policy reasons should be the responsibility of parliament and not the courts.

Former Chief Justice Lamer's judicial activism is not in harmony with the democratic principles of Canada, regardless of whether we oppose or defend the cause that the court may support. People might say that it is a good decision regardless of it being a political one.

The decisions of the court on political matters short-circuit the process, undermine the authority of parliament and bring the institution of parliament into disrepute. It is not that it insults parliamentarians, it insults the people who elected parliamentarians to make these decisions on their behalf.

While this issue is a major concern, it is far from being the only problem in our judicial system that requires the attention of parliament. Another such issue is related to the appointment process.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates these three: One is nominated by the judiciary; one is nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two persons nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system.

The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant the much lower paid civil service. It lately has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the foot soldiers of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

This bill, like its predecessors, deals solely with the administrative aspects of the courts and does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. Therefore, my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill.

[Fundraising, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance attended the FACT dinner for this terrorist front in his hunt for Liberal leadership delegates, why did he ignore the advice of knowledgeable government officials and jeopardize the safety of Canadians? He should answer, not the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Fundraising, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about openness. Last May the Minister of Finance attended a fundraising event sponsored by FACT which the government admits is a terrorist front.

On Canada AM this morning former CSIS director, Mr. Reid Morden, expressed his disappointment that two ministers, including the Minister of Finance, attended that dinner despite their knowledge that it was a terrorist front.

Now that the public knows what the Minister of Finance knew a year ago, could he explain to the public his support of this terrorist organization?

[Supreme Court Of Canada, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, over the past two decades supreme court justices have engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and societal preferences for those made by the elected representatives of the people.

A leader in this judicial activism was former Chief Justice of Canada Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the decisions that he wrote or participated in will continue to impact adversely on the principles and institutions of our democracy.

In a recent interview, another supreme court justice, Mr. Justice Bastarache, warned the nation of the dangers of judicial government favoured by the former chief justice.

The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and institutions are too important to be hijacked by non-elected political judiciary.

[Terrorism, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is already a year late. The Ottawa declaration called upon all states to join with the existing treaties on terrorism by the year 2000.

Even the Prime Minister recognized the urgency of the situation when he stated that we were to take whatever measures necessary to ensure that no country anywhere in the world could get away with giving support to terrorists. Instead of ministers having dinner with terrorists, why is the legislation not here?

[Terrorism, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the United Kingdom enacted the terrorism act 2000, wide ranging legislation designed to counter terrorism and provide authorities with the necessary tools to combat those who use violence and terrorism to advance their causes.

When the government adopted the convention in 1999 it was expected that legislation would soon follow. To date, legislation has not yet been tabled. Where is the legislation?

[Justice, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court by its decision today demonstrated that the rule of law was secondary to a political agenda.

The Americans are concerned that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists. Now the supreme court has effectively put out the welcome mat for other murderers. What will the minister do to stop these potential murderers and terrorists from coming to Canada?

[Justice, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today the supreme court has rendered a political decision that will create a safe haven for any violent criminal, Canadian or otherwise, who comes to Canada to escape the law in the country where the crime was committed.

With this decision, the Texas seven who murdered a police officer in the United States would be safe in Canada. What will the minister do to ensure that Canadians are protected from these kinds of criminals?