Debates of May 14th, 1999

Peter MacKay Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the question period break, what is needed in all cases involving justice where there is a balance to be reached between the individual and the right of society to be protected, a very delicate balance must be reached.

When it comes to the protection of children, who are least able to protect themselves, I would suggest that in most, if not all cases, we must tip that balance in favour of doing all that is possible to protect children.

I mentioned earlier the case that arose in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens. We are also aware from news reports of the case of Graham James who was the former head coach of the Swift Current Broncos. It was a much publicized case involving the position of trust that a coach would hold and his ability to act in a predatory way toward vulnerable young men, in this instance hockey players. We know as well that there are numerous instances when this occurs and a position of trust is abused.

This reinforces the importance of Bill C-69 and the ability of agencies, coaches, teachers, volunteers, counsellors and individuals involved in the delivery of services to children to access information that would disclose this type of background. One would be quick to acknowledge that it is a very sick and twisted background.

Does Bill C-69 go far enough? The names of convicted sex offenders in this case belong to the solicitor general and his records. The solicitor general would have the discretion as to whether that name and the record itself would be disclosed. The RCMP, due to recent amendments to this bill, do not have that discretion and I believe that is a good thing because there is an opportunity in some instances for individual police officers to be placed in a very uncomfortable position about whether they should in fact release this information. They need the support of their department, and in this case we are talking about the solicitor general's department.

Victims of crime, individuals who have been directly affected, including their families, are those who would be most in favour of this bill.

The police of course were very supportive of the efforts that were made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. They spoke very favourably of his efforts and were very receptive to the government's position that it took in incorporating those suggestions into the bill which is before the House.

With respect to citizens in communities, I have seen instances where citizens have taken steps of their own. They have posted notices around the neighbourhood when they were aware of an individual who had been engaged in this despicable exploitation of children and yet the agencies were not able to make public that person's past.

We hope that this bill will, in some way, remedy that situation in terms of disclosure, public knowledge and, ultimately, protection. Knowledge will protect people affected by sex offenders living in their community.

One concern that a person might have is about the bureaucracy that often surrounds the implementation of an exercise such as this. The solicitor general could gain possession of records only through a written request to the prison commissioner if the subject of the records had already given written consent.

For police investigating a sex crime, the same type of rule would apply. They would have to rely on the commissioner to make a notation; in other words, to flag a certain record that would allow the police to then access the information. Yet a police force or other authorized body may also request the commissioner to provide the minister with any record of the conviction of that applicant and the commissioner may then transmit the record to the minister.

With more work now being placed in the hands of the already overworked and underfunded police forces around the country there is some concern as to how they will handle this additional workload.

We have seen similar government bills, such as the youth criminal justice act, where greater responsibility and emphasis will be placed on the police in the exercise of their front line authority, but there will be no additional resources. This is something about which we have to be sensitive. Hopefully the government will also be sensitive to it when it is looking at next year's budgets and the money that will be allotted to the police.

It is not enough to give them the tools, legislative initiatives, changes to the Criminal Code and changes to the Criminal Records Act without giving them the accompanying funding that will allow them to use effectively these law enforcement tools.

Others who might request the information that is covered by Bill C-69 would be members of organizations, possibly for the well-being of children. Examples might include a parent who would like to find out about a child's hockey coach, a teacher or a kindergarten supervisor. Associations like the Pictou County Minor Hockey Association, the Antigonish Minor Hockey Association, Big Brothers or Big Sisters would be able to access information about employees or volunteers who were in or were attempting to enter those organizations. This is relevant, prevalent information that should be in their hands.

There has been discussion about the rights of the sex offenders themselves. I will be the first to acknowledge that there has to be some degree of respect for any person who has very damaging information such as this on their record, particularly when it is extremely dated.

Once again we are into the argument of balance. I would suggest that any indication this information would be withheld or kept completely private would certainly be outweighed by the need to protect the public and the need to protect children in this instance.

I support the bill fully. I know the bill hinges upon passage quickly through this place. This is a process with which you are intimately familiar, Mr. Speaker. It often takes a long time. Bills coming through the justice department and the solicitor general's departments are coming in some instances in a very slow and grinding fashion. We saw that particularly with the youth criminal justice act. However, with the unanimous support we have seen for the bill and the importance that has been place upon it, there is hope of its speedy passage through the House.

The protection of the community has to be given the highest order when it comes to bills of this nature. There is ample support not only in this place but around the country for having the bill firmly ensconced in our Criminal Code and in our criminal justice act.

It is with pride that I lend support to the government's initiative. Again much of the impetus and credit for the bill is to be bestowed upon the member for Calgary Centre. He worked very diligently in bringing the matter forward to this point. He was very active in the justice committee in having it brought to fruition and is to be commended for it.

Bill C-69 will certainly lead to a more stringent offender registry. I have serious concerns, and the Progressive Conservative Party repeatedly expresses its concerns, about the already overburdened Canadian Police Information Centre and the computer system that houses the information such as the DNA databank, the criminal registry, the DNA registry and the ill-founded gun registry that is set up to fail. All these current computer information systems are embodied in one system that is extremely strapped at this time.

The minister has announced a $150 million addition in funding for the computer system, but conservative estimates from the police indicate that it is simply insufficient. It is not half of what is actually needed to make the system operate efficiently.

Bill C-69 will receive the support of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the hope of our party that those who prey upon children and have been caught and those whose names have been recorded in our criminal justice system will not now be able to point to a pardon as a means to protect themselves from having that information disclosed to those who need it most. Sadly, we will never be in a position to ensure that children are not vulnerable in certain instances, but the bill goes some distance to achieving that very laudable goal.

I commend all those involved in the production of the bill, those involved in the drafting, and particularly those who testified and had great input into the bill reaching this point. The PC Party will be supporting the bill. We look forward to its passage and seeing it become a legislative initiative.

Mauril Bélanger Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and if it is out of order I am sure you will tell me. I was hoping that you would seek unanimous consent, and I expect you would find it, to deal with all stages of Bill C-64 at the report stage and third reading without debate. Would you seek unanimous consent to do that before we proceed with Bill S-23?

Stan Dromisky Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to rise today to bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues the short but very important Bill S-23 which was considered and passed by the Senate earlier in March.

My hon. colleagues will recall that parliament recently dealt with legislation pertaining to marine liability in the form of Bill S-4. With the introduction of Bill S-23, we are proposing to move in the area of air carrier liability.

Bill S-23 amends the Carriage by Air Act so that Canada can join other states in legally recognizing two major international instruments dealing with matters relating to air carrier liability such as Montreal Protocol No. 4 which relates to cargo and the Guadalajara convention which clarifies the coverage of the Warsaw convention.

These two documents update and modernize elements of the Warsaw convention, which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the carrier, passengers and shippers in relation to international air transportation. They will be annexed to the legislation as schedules IV and V.

The Carriage by Air Act was first enacted in 1947 to give the federal government the authority to have Canada accede to the Warsaw convention, which had been signed in 1929.

The act was amended in 1963 to authorize the federal government to implement The Hague protocol, which amended and updated the Warsaw convention to take into account the evolution in the requirements of airline carriage in the 25 years following its signature.

What we are seeking with this bill is essentially the same as in 1963: additions to the Carriage by Air Act which will enhance and clarify air carrier liability coverage and simplify documentary requirements.

The unification of law relating to the international carriage by air, in particular the unification of law relating to liability, has been of vital importance for the harmonious management of international air transport. Without such unification, complex conflicts of laws would arise and the settlement of claims would be unpredictable, very costly, time consuming, and possibly uninsurable. Furthermore, conflicts of jurisdiction could arise which would further aggravate the settlement of liability claims.

This uniformity remains a significant contributor to the facilitation of international air transportation in that the conditions for the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo are to a large degree similar on international flights.

In this regard the Warsaw convention has been hailed and recognized as the one international private law conventions that has managed to unify the legal systems of some 140 states party to it.

However, on the international scene it has long been recognized that the 1929 Warsaw convention requires change to modernize it so as to provide a wider mandated protection for passengers, for carriers and for shippers. Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention were developed to do just that.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 amends the liability regime as it applies to cargo by providing stricter carrier liability and establishing unbreakable limits. It also simplifies the cargo documentation requirements and authorizes the electronic transmission of information. This transmission of cargo information, using means other than the traditional multicopy air waybill, can provide significant cost savings to carriers and to shippers.

It has become extremely important that Canada act quickly to accede to this protocol as it came into effect in June 1998 when the minimum number of 30 states had ratified it. More specifically, the protocol was ratified by the United States in late 1998 and came into effect in that country on March 4 of this year.

This means that until Canada has been able to deposit its own ratification documents and the protocol has come into effect in Canada, our carriers and our shippers will be at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their U.S. counterparts.

The Guadalajara convention clarifies the relationship between passengers and shippers on the one hand and carriers on the other. The convention extends the rules of the Warsaw liability regime to the carrier actually performing the carriage when it is not the same as the carrier with which the passenger or shipper has contracted.

This sharing of the liability between contracting and operating carrier, when they are not the same, has become increasingly important as international carriers, such as both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, joined together in global commercial alliances.

Extensive consultations were conducted by Transport Canada. It was determined that both Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention have the unanimous support of the Canadian aviation industry as well as all the aviation related organizations in Canada.

Notably, the airlines are very anxious for Canada to act quickly, particularly now that Montreal Protocol No. 4 is in force and applies in many countries.

In addition to industry consultations, 23 federal departments and agencies were consulted, including justice, finance, foreign affairs, national defence and the Canadian Transportation Agency. All departments expressed support for or raised absolutely no concerns regarding the adoption by Canada of these two very important instruments.

It is imperative, hon. members, that we ensure that Canadian carriers, travellers and shippers have the benefit of an international legal regime that better reflects the realities of today's aviation industry.

I believe we should move quickly to adopt this short but extremely important bill. To delay would be to increase the length of time our carriers will be at a competitive disadvantage.

Bill Gilmour Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party basically agrees with the bill. It is very technical. As the parliamentary secretary stated, the amendments will implement the Montreal Protocol No. 4 of 1975 and the Guadalajara supplementary convention, 1961.

The international agreements amend and supplement respectively the Warsaw convention of 1929 and the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air of 1955, which are part of Canada's Carriage by Air Act. The 1929 and 1955 agreements establish documentary requirements and liability regimes for international air transportation.

As I said initially, this is a fairly technical bill and, in some ways, a housekeeping bill. The Reform Party agrees with its implementation, but we strongly disagree with the method by which it arrived in the House. It came from the Senate.

All of us in the House account to our constituents. At the next election, they will tell us whether they agree or disagree with us. That is democracy. This is the House that the bill should have come from, not the Senate. The Senate is unaccountable and not representative. In our view, all bills should originate in the lower House and then go on to the Senate.

To summarize, we agree with the bill but we strongly disagree with the method and the route by which the bill has arrived in the House.

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, the name of my riding is quite long, but it truly represents the many sub-regions I have the honour to represent here, in Ottawa, since 1993.

I have 40 minutes to speak on this issue pursuant to parliamentary procedure, but since it is Friday afternoon, I know that many of my hon. colleagues are looking forward to heading back to their ridings.

I must point out that, even if parliament is not sitting next week, unlike what many people might suggest, members of parliament will not be on holiday. We will be in recess. I want to make a non-partisan comment. I believe that, next week, none of my 301 colleagues in this House will be on holiday. We all have work waiting for us at our riding offices, people to meet and companies to visit.

Unfortunately, some reporters are suggesting that members of parliament will take some time off. The people close to members of parliament know that, yes, we do take some time off sometimes, because we are human after all. But next week, from May 17 to 24, the 301 members of parliament will not be on holiday. We will be in recess and working in our respective ridings. I wanted to make this non-partisan comment because of the great respect I have for the House of Commons as a parliamentary institution.

The rules of procedure allow me to speak for 40 minutes, but I will not use all the time I am allowed, especially since, as my Reform colleague rightly pointed out earlier, Bill S-23 is mostly a technical bill aimed at implementing two international conventions. One can hardly be against this type of bill.

However, like the Reform member, I too want to deplore the fact that the government has chosen, once again, to let this bill be brought in through the other house, the name of which I cannot mention. Members know that the Senate cannot be mentioned by name in the House, and that is why I must refer to it as the other house.

The government has 155 elected members, which is a majority. Since it was elected to govern, it could very well have introduced this bill through the usual channel. What is disturbing to opposition members is that, if one reads Hansard from the years 1984 to 1993, it shows that the Liberals criticized the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney for using such a procedure. Now that they are in office, they are doing exactly the same thing.

That is why the members of the Bloc Quebecois had the opportunity to say during the campaigns leading to the 1993 and the June 2, 1997 elections—and we will have the opportunity to say it again during the next election campaign—that Liberals and Conservatives are all the same. When they sit in opposition, they criticize the government, and when they take office, they act in the exact same way as the government they criticized.

It is disturbing to see that the government has chosen to introduce this bill in a house made up of non-elected members.

I want to underline the terrific work being done by my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and by the Liberal member from Sarnia—Lambton, who are campaigning to have the Senate abolished. Through their work, they want to ensure that the decisions are taken by democratically elected parliamentarians.

As far as we MPs are concerned, the people can replace us every four or five years. We are not appointed for partisan or political reasons or because we are government cronies.

We often hear about former ministers in the National Assembly who were appointed to the Senate by the current Prime Minister and who are receiving their pension from the National Assembly.

We could also mention Ross Fitzpatrick, the Liberal bagman from western Canada, who was appointed to the Senate by the current Prime Minister and who sits on the board of directors of Canadian Airlines and is lobbying for this company. We could come up with many more names like these.

We could talk about people who were appointed under the Mulroney government, like Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, the chief Conservative organizer in Quebec during the 1988 election campaign, who was appointed to the Senate at age 39.

My point here is simply to raise public awareness and make you realize, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are by now, given the way you seem to be hanging on to my every word, that we will be asking the government in the future to continue to use—