Debates of Nov. 14th, 1994

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I responded to his colleague in the first round of questioning.

I repeat once again that there was caution throughout the process of not releasing or disclosing any such names to the point where I chose not to write those names to the chair in asking quite appropriately for her to review the allegations that were made by these individuals. When she wrote me the letter attaching the report, she made reference to the fact that if those names were to be disclosed to me that I would make those names available.

When the deputy chair was asked to respond to the report and the appropriateness of the recommendation, it was at that point that advice came from the Department of Justice that in preparation for that response the names had to be given to the counsel to the deputy chair so that he could fairly and appropriately respond. At the very same time when that advice came in and was followed those members of the IRB were advised that this action was to take place.

The government has followed the process flawlessly. There has been no attempt to hide or hijack anything. In fact it is clear that the minister in asking the chair to look into it does not want anything hidden.

We followed the process appropriately. We will be rendering a decision based on the recommendation of the chair very soon. To speculate needlessly on other elements would not help the judicial process that we are following.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is also for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

When the Al Mashat affair took place three years ago, it was clearly stated by the current Minister of Human Resources Development in the House on June 12, 1991 that a government minister is required to protect the anonymity of individuals and to decline to publicly identify them.

What is offensive is that members of the IRB have been brought to light in a way that they should not have been. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not only broken section 29(a)-

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I would ask if you both could make the questions and answers a little shorter. I ask the hon. member to please put his question forthwith.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister now concede that he is responsible for this gross injustice and for further compromising the integrity of his department? Will he take charge to remedy the serious damage that he has caused within his department?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that no one is undermining any process. In fact I was given the names by a media outlet. I have not made any names public. It was on the advice of the Department of Justice counsel that for the deputy chair to appropriately and fairly respond to those allegations contained in the report that his counsel disclose the names of those individuals who made those allegations.

Therefore it was the counsel in the Department of Justice in connection with the counsel to the deputy chair that those names were disclosed. The process has been followed.

Human Rights

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

During his trip to China, the Prime Minister avoided any public reference to the question of human rights violations in that country. He said he raised the matter privately. However, the Chinese Prime Minister said that the Prime Minister of Canada made no reference to human rights.

How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs account for this obvious contradiction between what was said by the Prime Minister of Canada and by his Chinese counterpart?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone who attended these discussions in China can testify that the Prime Minister raised the matter with his counterpart. He took a very practical approach, considering the situation in that country.

We were very pleased that the Chinese authorities accepted a number of suggestions by the Prime Minister of Canada for exchanges of judges, lawyers and judicial representatives, to give the Chinese authorities a chance to become better acquainted with the Canadian system, use it as an example and, in the process, advance the cause of human rights in their country, over time.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that this excuse of allegedly raising the matter of human rights in private will cause Canada to lose all international credibility in this respect?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I think that the way Canada approached the matter could well be used as an example by a number of other countries who have to deal with China, especially since the results are very encouraging. In this respect, I believe the dialogue that was engaged is a respectful dialogue, but it is nevertheless a dialogue that may lead to some major results.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Considering the problems the Minister of Canadian Heritage has had recently and considering these new problems of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, it would appear the Prime Minister needs to assure Canadians that these serious allegations against his ministers are unfounded. The Prime Minister or the ministers saying that they did nothing wrong is not reassuring.

Will the Prime Minister launch a public inquiry to investigate what appears to be a breach of the insider information section of the conflict of interest code by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has given a full and complete answer. It is very clear the hon. member has forgotten one of the basic principles of Canadian and British justice, that someone who has been accused has a right to know his accusers and what they say in order to make an answer to those charges.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it appears this minister has contravened the Privacy Act and he has also contravened the conflict of interest code. He claims now that he was advised to break the law by the justice department. We need some clarification. Canadians need clarification.

Will the Prime Minister direct both the privacy commissioner and the ethics counsellor to conduct independent, full investigations into the action of this minister and make those findings public immediately?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member there is nothing in the allegations or in his question that justifies the course of

action he mentions. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has given a complete explanation for his actions and they show there has been no illegality, contrary to the insinuation of the hon. member.

Mil Davie Shipyard

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for several months now, the MIL Davie shipyard in Lauzon has been waiting for the federal government to make a decision on building a new ferry to serve the Magdalen Islands.

While more and more workers are being laid off, MIL Davie is waiting to be awarded this vital contract so it can ensure its short-term survival and undertake its conversion program.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for this matter. Does the minister confirm that his government is about to buy a used ferry rather than have a new one built in Lauzon, thus making it impossible for the MIL Davie shipyard to restructure and ensure its survival?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the assumption that the only basis of MIL Davie's survival would be the acquisition of a ferry is a rather poorly founded assumption.

If the member were to review the proposed business plan, which I must say has yet to be approved by the principal shareholder of MIL Davie, the Government of Quebec, that business plan has yet to be approved. Furthermore, the business plan is based on many more components than the acquisition of a single vessel.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the government realize that by buying a used ferry, it will deliberately bring about the final closing of MIL Davie, thus eliminating a competitor of Saint John Shipbuilding in New Brunswick, the home province of the Minister of Transport?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded again that sound and fury often signify nothing. I think that is within the rules.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

It reminds me of the Wallendas sometimes.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has stated repeatedly in the House that no decision has been taken on any possible replacement for the Lucy Maud Montgomery . A number of alternatives are being considered. Taken into account in making that decision will be the needs and the interests of the residents of Îles-de-la-Madeleine who, after all, are ultimately the ones who will be using the service.

With respect to MIL Davie, of course we are very concerned with the future of that shipyard as should be the shareholder, the Government of Quebec.

Justice

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

The Department of Justice released a discussion paper on the weekend raising the possibility that cultural defences might be permitted to criminal charges. Will the minister clarify just what this might mean if introduced?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, may I begin by emphasizing what this discussion paper was about. We are engaged in a process for the first time in 100 years of reviewing the general part of the Criminal Code to determine whether it should be changed or modernized. In the course of that, this discussion paper raises questions, not public policy but just questions, that are worthy of examination. It does not reflect government policy.

I had hoped that the paper would be drafted to reflect my own perspective. My own personal view is that I am very much opposed to any general defence based on culture. However, it is important, if we are going to have a discussion, that we at least identify a list of questions that have been raised by law reform commissions and by legal journals in the past.

I am especially troubled at the suggestion on the weekend that just raising these questions might create the spectre of justification for female genital mutilation. We have been at pains over the past six months to emphasize that this practice is criminal, will be investigated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law where it is detected.

I hope what we have launched on the weekend is an open discussion about fundamental principles of criminal justice. In closing, I say that every reform we have put forward in the House to the criminal law has been to make people more accountable not less accountable.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Minister of Justice released a discussion paper that outlined possible amendments to the Criminal Code, one being a defence based on cultural or

religious practices. It would mean that if it was the practice of a religious group to use prohibited drugs, weapons or ritual abuse it could be exempted from the Criminal Code. The minister is definitely flirting with these ideas, or else they would not be contained in his paper.

Is the minister prepared to implement such amendments to the Criminal Code that possibly could put Canadians at risk and bring to even further disrepute the criminal justice system?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in response to the question from my colleague, this discussion paper does not reflect government policy. It is intended only to stimulate a consultation about the fundamental principles of the criminal law.

We hope through this process of reform to put in place a general part of the code that will last another 100 years. However we cannot do that without examining the issues that arise. We have listed this among others. However I want to assure the hon. member that I oppose a general defence based on culture and I will never introduce it so long as I am minister.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is consulting and delaying. He obviously does not know what to do.

His trial balloon on criminal intoxication would mean that intoxication could be used as a defence because there would be a separate punishment for voluntary intoxication, with consequences of half or less the maximum of the main offence; in other words a drunkenness discount.

Is the minister suggesting that even for something as serious as murder, if someone is intoxicated they could receive only half or less of the regular sentence? Or, will he toughen the Criminal Code rather than opening more escape hatches?