Debates of June 9th, 1998

Supply

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take a moment to point out that the question was very explicitly asked three times and no answer was forthcoming.

I want to take a different turn on the justice discussion. Quite often the justice system seems so gigantic, so distant and so impregnable that people feel there is nothing they can do or that it might not have an impact on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing more personal than the justice system if you have been involved in it or have had to deal with it. The example I will use shows the lack of direction and the wrong focus we have in our proposed spending estimates that we are talking about today.

Justice is about people and how it affects them. I want to talk about how the justice system has failed a family in my riding, a family that has gone through a great deal of suffering from three arms of the justice system. They have all failed to some degree to recognize the situation and to take the appropriate steps to help this family.

I am talking about James Mills who was murdered on July 24, 1991 while in custody of Corrections Canada. He was murdered while under an arm of the justice system in Canada. At the time and since then, suggestions have been made that there were serious errors made at the time of the murder on behalf of Corrections Canada. I do not know if that is true, but the accusations have been made about the disruption of the crime scene. Perhaps it was a shortage of training. Perhaps it was a shortage of staff. In any case there was a deficiency that caused an awful problem.

Eventually the RCMP were called to the scene of the crime, another arm of the justice system. The RCMP have investigated this. It still tells us that there is an ongoing investigation but there are still no results. Again, the third arm of the justice system, the crown prosecutor, was involved. Even though charges were recommended on two previous occasions, they have never been laid.

The family of Mr. James Mills has waited seven years for an answer. There is no answer. There is no explanation of what happened at the crime scene. There is no explanation of how he was murdered. There is no explanation of how it could happen right under the nose of the justice system in Canada.

The family, especially the father Mr. Robert Mills, has been haunted for years and years. All he wants is an answer. He wants to have an explanation of what happened, why his son was murdered, how he was murdered and why nothing was ever done about it. The solicitor general still says and maintains to this time that the case is still under investigation.

Looking for answers, Mr. Mills and sometimes Mr. Mills and myself have met with top level senior RCMP officials. We are trying to get answers. The commissioner of corrections came to Amherst to meet with Mr. Mills. We were hopeful that he would bring information with him. That did not arrive. It did not happen. We did not get any new information, even though the commissioner came to Amherst and we appreciated that.

We have brought up questions in the House of Commons month after month. We have been in the media. We have even used the access to information office to try to get information on what happened. Where was the deficiency? Where did the system fail? How can the Mills family be let down so badly when their son was murdered right under the nose of the justice system? How did the other parts of the justice system fail? Was it lack of training? Was it—

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First of all, I apologize to the hon. member for having cut him off in midstream, but I think that there is now consent for the following motion, and I would invite colleagues to verify if they are unsure. The motion would be the following:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, the business to be considered under Government Orders on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 shall be the report stage of Bill C-25; a motion relating to the appointment of the information commissioner; the third reading of Bill C-30; and the consideration of Senate amendments stage of Bill C-4;

That, no later than 5 p.m. on all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-25, all questions shall be put and a division or divisions thereon deemed requested, provided that the said division or divisions may not be deferred;

In other words, we will vote at 5 p.m. tomorrow on Bill C-25.

That during the remainder of the sitting on that day, no quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motions may be received by the Chair, provided, for greater clarity, that it is confirmed that an amendment proposed to a motion under Government Orders is not a dilatory motion and is therefore admissible under the terms of this order and provided that, when debate concludes on Bill C-4, the question then under consideration shall be deemed to have been put, a division thereon requested and deferred to 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 1998; and

That the House shall then adjourn and shall meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, June 11, 1998 and the ordinary daily routine of business shall be taken up at that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my impression that the wording of the motion that was agreed to did not include any reference to quorum calls.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would put it to the hon. House leader that this perchance is something that could be debated behind the curtains and we will come back.

I would like to catch the mood of the House. Does the hon. the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded during that little interruption that I am dividing my time with the hon. member for South Shore. I neglected to say that at the beginning.

In any case, we are back to the Mills family who have lost their son who was in the custody of Corrections Canada, the justice system in effect, investigated by the RCMP, the justice system in effect again, and the crown prosecutor of New Brunswick, again the justice system. It has now been seven years that they have been waiting for answers, explanations, anything at all, any scrap of information, but there has been nothing.

We asked for a final report from Corrections Canada. We were promised that we would get a final report on November 20 and we were to get a report of the investigation and all aspects surrounding the death.

On November 20 we were presented with a report that was mostly all blank pages, not an ounce of new information, nothing more for the Mills family, nothing to give them a little peace or contentment or any information that would allow them to let this go away. In fact three arms of the justice system have failed the Mills family: the RCMP, Corrections Canada and the crown attorney.

Meanwhile, it has not got enough money to provide the training at Corrections Canada or whatever the problem is, or it does not have enough officers to investigate the situation properly, the government is talking about spending anywhere from $85 million for this gun registry process and now it is talking about $133.9 million this year alone. In any case, it is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars and this money could be spent in adding training, equipment, facilities and officers to the police forces and Corrections Canada which could really serve a purpose and do some good.

The recently announced $32 million crime prevention initiative is the same thing. It is public relations and there is nothing in it for the police. I read in the Toronto Sun on June 7 “another $32 million down the drain”. The article went on to state “The minister's crime prevention initiative is more of the same molly-coddling that has made a joke of the Young Offenders Act and if Liberalism at its worst may be defined as public boondoggles premised on good intention, then this justice minister is a true Liberal having a bad day”.

The fact of the matter is that the latest report from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics states that 1994 had the largest decline in police strength since 1962, the year when statistics were first kept. It goes on to state that in 1962 there were 20 criminal infractions per police officer. But in 1994 there were 47, far more than double the number of infractions or criminal offences per police officer. That indicates where the money should be going. It should be going to these issues and not the issues where the government has focused the money.

We now have the fewest number of police officers since 1972. In addition to that, the police officers we do have are now preoccupied with the long gun registration, the Young Offenders Act and all the things the government has brought in.

We think a better plan would be to take the long gun registration money, put more officers on the street and give them more tools to work with.

No wonder people like the Mills family wonder how our justice dollars are being spent. The large amount of money in the justice department estimates should be redirected to be useful, functional and directed where it is most needed.

Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my time over to the hon. member for South Shore.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have to endure the possibility of questions and comments first.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. member would like to explain to the House who administers and hires and fires policemen. As far as I know it is the municipal authorities and not the federal government.

I fail to see why he is referring to our crime prevention initiative. It is a collaborative effort of the federal, provincial and municipal authorities in order to prevent crimes and ensure that we do not need more policemen in the long run. We can start preventing crime at the age of zero instead of at the age of 17 when it is too late. We want to prevent crime from the very beginning to ensure that eventually there will never be crime again in this country.

The $32 million will be a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities.

How does the member explain the fact that the hiring and firing of policemen is a municipal responsibility, not a federal one?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Certainly our municipal police are hired but some of the things the government is doing, such as the gun registry, are going to take so much of their time. Instead of being on the street they are going to be registering firearms, implementing the Young Offenders Act and all the other aspects the government is downloading. The government is supposed to pay half of the costs of the implementation of the Young Offenders Act and it is only paying 30%. The municipalities and the local police forces are also supposed to implement the gun registry.

As an aside, not all police officers are hired by the municipalities. The RCMP certainly play a big role in my part of the country. It is a federal agency, federally funded and federally paid.

Some of the $133.9 million already spent on the gun registry could supply police officers with better tools to work with or to put more policemen on the street. That is where I think the money should be going instead of to these programs.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has considered that there are more parts to the country than Cumberland—Colchester. In a city like Windsor, Ontario, which abuts on the great city of Detroit, Michigan, we see the impact every day of having no gun control and having no gun registry. Every night when we watch the news on television we see shootings in schools being treated as though they are car accidents. I do not want Canada to turn out that way. I want Canada to be a distinct and different culture from that of the United States.

Does the hon. member think by having people wear sidearms and by not taking care of things such as crime prevention and our children that this will be a better place? Does he believe that municipalities do not pay for the services of the RCMP? I think he is on a stretch here.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would say the opposite is true. The hon. member asked whether I was aware there were other areas than Cumberland—Colchester like Windsor. I think the government is not aware that there are other areas such as Toronto, Mississauga, Windsor and maybe even Ottawa. There is also a vast part of Canada that is rural and we do not see the need for a gun registry.

The member also asked whether I believed in gun control. I certainly believe in gun control. My government, the government I was a part of between 1988 and 1993, brought in very good gun control that emphasized safe storage of weapons, training and elimination of dangerous weapons. We did not bring in a gun registry.

This is all about a gun registry, not gun control. Yes, I believe in gun control. We put it in and put it in well.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I almost hate to interrupt.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Hon. members are getting excited in the debate, but we have another matter before us. The government House leader is rising on a point of order which no doubt is important and which all hon. members would want to hear.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some four or five minutes ago I read a motion and sought unanimous consent which at that time still needed further review by some hon. members. I will put it that way.

If you were to seek consent to adopt the motion I put earlier I believe you would perhaps receive it. I will dispense with reading it again because the table already has the text and it has been read into the record.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The government House leader has asked me to put a motion that was read some time ago. Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Read it again, please.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will read the motion in a minute. Is there consent to put it?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly with much interest that I rise to speak to the motion to fund the continued business of the government in power today. I would specifically like to speak to gun control and to the justice issue which I think are interesting points.

I have been sitting here listening to the debate and have been extremely interested in a lot of the comments coming from the government benches. It is obvious that they have totally mixed up gun control. They do not understand the difference between Bill C-17 and Bill C-68.

It is time we had a little lesson in history. I am going to use an analogy. If anybody in the House happens to be a fly fisherman, I would like him to listen to this analogy. We had a situation in 1993 where we had just gone through a major debate in the country on gun control and an election. What ensued from that debate was Bill C-17 which at the time was a very responsible bill on gun control.

What happened? We ran a federal election and we elected, much to the chagrin of many Canadians, a disjointed and separated parliament. We did not have an opposition that was interested in being an opposition. We had a government with a huge majority. It was bereft of ideas—

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were what I would describe as further consultations and I think you would find consent to put the motion now and that the motion would be carried. It has already be read into the record and I think members have had time to consider it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?