House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-7.

Topics

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough concerning interference in the work of Information Commissioner John Reid by Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated that in his letter to Mr. Reid the privacy commissioner had carried out what amounted to an attack on the information commissioner, an officer of parliament. He argued that this alleged attack eroded public confidence in the institution of parliament and constituted a contempt both of the House and its officers.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for having drawn this matter to the attention of the Chair. I would also like to thank the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for their thoughtful contributions to the discussion of this point.

A small number of individuals have the special distinction of being officers of parliament. So great is the importance which parliament attaches to the responsibilities entrusted to these individuals that they are appointed by resolution of parliament rather than by the governor in council.

Because of the special relationship that exists between these officials and the House of Commons, any actions which affect them or their ability to carry out their work are watched with particular attention by members.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has brought before the House legitimate concerns about a situation involving the attempt of the privacy commissioner to influence the information commissioner. This attempt has been carried out by way of a letter—an open letter, not only made public but widely disseminated by the signatory—at a time when the case in point is being appealed to the supreme court by the information commissioner.

There are in my view two questions which need to be addressed in the case before us. Has there been interference in the information commissioner's ability to carry out his duties? Has the privacy commissioner conducted himself improperly?

I have examined with great care the letter sent by Mr. Radwanski to Mr. Reid. The letter unquestionably attempts to influence the information commissioner and seeks to exert that influence by reference to the interpretation of statutes and court decisions.

It is not my place to weigh the arguments which the privacy commissioner has put forward, nor will I speculate on whether or not the letter will prove persuasive to the information commissioner, but I must conclude that in itself the presentation of views by one commissioner contrary to those of another cannot be considered as interference.

Indeed, it must be recognized that there is a natural tension between the concepts found in the Access to Information Act and those enshrined in the Privacy Act, so that it can come as no surprise that the officers charged with the responsibility of implementing these two acts may well hold differing views on issues of great substance. Thus, the letter does not in my view interfere in the information commissioner's ability to carry out his mandate.

Now to the matter of the conduct of the privacy commissioner, irrespective of the views which the privacy commissioner's letter contains or even the egregious language in which he chooses to express those views, I can find nothing in his letter which might be taken as a threat or intimidation. One may regret that this representation has been made by way of an open letter and one may be dismayed that this has been presented in the media as an unseemly squabble between one officer and another, but these are matters of opinion or judgment and as such are not for the Chair to address.

The second point to be considered is whether the action of the privacy commissioner in writing, sending and making public this letter constitutes a contempt of the House.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated that, in his view, the privacy commissioner had overstepped his statutory role by his attempt to influence the information commissioner in this way.

But, as the hon. member himself went on to point out, it is not part of the Speaker's mandate to comment on points of law.

The Speaker of the House of Commons has no role in interpreting the mandate of the commissioner under the Privacy Act. However, as the remarks made by the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary indicate, there are differing views as to the proper role of the privacy commissioner.

Members may conclude that there is a need to examine the role of the privacy commissioner and, more to the point, the privacy commissioner's own understanding of his role. There already exists a forum for such an examination and that is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would commend that committee to hon. members as the body to which they should have recourse to pursue questions of mandate, where the issues of appropriate communication might be further explored with both the officers themselves.

Neither the privacy commissioner nor the information commissioner is an agent of the government. They are both officers of parliament. It is their responsibility as well as ours to see that their relationships to each other and to parliament are maintained and strengthened.

Communications Security Establishment CommissionerRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, two copies of the 2000-01 annual report of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

May 28th, 2001 / 3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who are concerned about the genetic engineering of food, plants and animals.

The petitioners point out that the techniques and the science involved are very new, yet the practices are expanding very rapidly. They also point out that this genetic engineering now involves the manipulation of the most basic building blocks of life and that the long term effects of genetic engineering of plants and animals on human health and the global ecosystem are completely unknown.

The petitioners call upon parliament to persuade the federal government to introduce clear labelling of seeds and food products that are genetically engineered so that both farmers and consumers have a clear choice.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned about the sanctions in Iraq. These petitioners, as before, are appealing that the sanctions be lifted. They point out that the sanctions are not having an effect on the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but are in fact having a tragic effect on the children of Iraq in particular.

This petition has involved a vigil by the petitioners at my office in Peterborough, a vigil that takes place every week on Fridays at noon. People in Peterborough are very concerned about it. They call upon parliament to do all it can to lift the sanctions on Iraq and to help the children of that country.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the citizens of Peterborough asking parliament to do all it can to return VIA service between Toronto and Peterborough. These petitioners point out the environmental advantages of this, such as the reduction of greenhouse emissions, for example. They also point to reductions in accidents and in costs on the highways and to the improvement of Peterborough as a business centre, an educational centre and a centre for tourism.

This petition has support in eight federal ridings from Peterborough to the downtown Toronto area. These citizens call upon parliament to do all it can to return VIA commuter service between Peterborough and Toronto as soon as possible.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 2.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I resume where I left off before question period, when I still had a few minutes left to debate Bill C-7.

During question period it was obvious that the federal government either totally misunderstands the situation or lacks the political will to act.

The Prime Minister himself said that the legislation put forward by the justice minister would allow Quebec to continue to implement the current legislation. However, he was totally incapable of giving us a clear answer when we asked: “Why then not include that provision in the legislation?”

We are all of us legislators and we all know that when we specify or not something in a legislation, we do so deliberately. If the justice minister refuses to grant Quebec the right to continue living with the current legislation, even if the rest of Canada would have a more punitive law, a more rigorous law which would encourage young offenders to end up in prison, if this is the type of legislation the rest of Canada wants, let them adopt it.

If, as he said, the Prime Minister really wants Quebec to continue to enforce the existing legislation, I think that is most important. It is a fundamental question which goes well beyond the Conservative amendment. It is an important question because there is an extraordinary consensus in Quebec on this point.

All stakeholders are against Bill C-7. They say that we must be allowed to keep the existing legislation, which is giving good results because it has reduced crime and permits social reintegration and rehabilitation of our young people.

This legislation is not so easy on young persons. They have to answer questions and they have to understand their responsibility in what they did. The success rate is very high and few of them return to a life of crime, whereas the model proposed by the government is influenced by the strong right wing current spreading in the United States. It is also flourishing in western Canada and in Ontario. Ontario also wants amendments that would make for a stricter legislation.

Would the solution not then be for the minister to make it possible for us to end up with a bill that would allow Quebec to continue to enforce the Young Offenders Act while the rest of Canada enforces another law?

I would like us all to rise to this challenge. If the Minister of Justice accepted this decision, this approach, then in five or ten years we would be able to provide clear proof that the Quebec model yielded the best results, that it was the one to enable our youth to be reintegrated into society and not sent to the school for criminals. I hope we will have that latitude. The government still has the leeway to do so.

Today we are engaged in debating the provisions of the bill at the report stage, along with the proposed amendments. One introduced by the Bloc Quebecois has been turned down. These amendments will be voted on this evening. In the end, the government will also have the opportunity of deciding to redo its work, not start the third reading debate too precipitously but to give itself an opportunity to again consult those who are opposed.

This is not a partisan approach. It is not the Bloc Quebecois calling for this, nor the Parti Quebecois. It is all the Bloc Quebecois MPs here in Ottawa, along with the entire national assembly, which is unanimous in Quebec on this matter, along with all the stakeholders.

I hope the federal Liberal MPs representing Quebec ridings will be in solidarity with this position. If the Liberal members vote in favour of Bill C-7, then they will be quite simply voting totally against the wishes of all Quebecers who want the present legislation to continue.

Here we are faced with a fait accompli. In the report stage debate on the Conservative amendment, this view is important. It is not merely changing the details in a bill. No, for Quebec what is important is for this bill, as tabled by the federal government, not to apply to Quebec, for us to have the right to opt out and continue to enforce the existing legislation in order to get the results we have in the past.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I offer the fact that I am heartily sick of the bill. It has made its way through three parliaments and three separate incarnations. It has gone on for over seven years and has been subject to a 30 hour filibuster by the Bloc. At some time or another enough is enough. The bill has morphed through many changes over those years, but it is important to get it as right as possible since it will become the bible for youth justice.

The filibuster by the Bloc was quite irritating. It will never be happy unless it gets its own criminal code and youth justice bill. There is nothing the Government of Canada could or should do to try to make the Bloc happy. The Bloc cannot be accommodated. We should move on.

The problem with a filibuster is that only one person gets to speak. It is the ultimate insult to parliamentary democracy. I have to listen to the member but he or she does not have to listen to me. The corollary result is that it leads to legislative fatigue and amendments such as the ones introduced by the minister do not get the scrutiny they deserve because debate time is eaten up by those who were implacably hostile to the bill.

Even after the reintroduction of the bill and the committee's somewhat reluctant willingness to open up to deputations from the provinces we heard some evidence on funding and other issues. The evidence was somewhat dismal. I do not know whether the additional money is adequate, but when the deputy ministers and others were asked directly about additional increases to the CHST, both in cash and transfers, their responses were somewhat platitudinous and disingenuous.

A cynic might suggest that the ministers from the various provinces send their minions to Ottawa for one last squeeze at the federal government after they had already won or lost their internal provincial dispute within their departments over the allocation of the new federal money that had already been transferred through the CHST. It is a bit of a mug's game and every province always claims that it never has enough resources, read money, to do the job.

The Bloc filibuster resulted in much less time than one would have liked to review the amendments. Just before the rise of the last parliament the minister introduced quite a raft of amendments in response to the evidence to which she had listened over the course of a number of months. For instance, the amendment which gives regions, read Quebec, the option to raise the age of exposure to adult sentences from 14 to 16 for the six presumptive offences offends the notion that there is one law for all youth regardless of where they happen to reside in Canada.

In the name of flexibility a youth on one side of the Ottawa River runs one risk and on the other side a lower risk of receiving an adult sentence for the same offence. Sometimes local needs and circumstances create a Swiss cheese result across the nation. Allowing provinces to opt out would however be ridiculous, but allowing a province to dictate the threshold to obtain flexibility is somewhat problematic.

In the name of flexibility we have created a patchwork which begs for a constitutional challenge. Assuming that Ontario has a low age threshold of 14 and Quebec has a high age threshold of 16 for the six presumptive offences, a well advised youth might well do his criminal work in Hull rather than in Ottawa. How much sense does that make? How ironic, for in some bizarre way it almost attracts criminal activity to Quebec.

Quebec made certain claims that it had a kinder and gentler system. The evidence however suggests otherwise. Mr. Bégin claims to have a system geared to rehabilitation. What Mr. Bégin has is a system of diverting youth from the criminal justice system, which has specific sentencing and evidentiary requirements, to a child welfare system where periods of incarceration are sometimes indefinite and frequently longer than specific sentencing requirements. The evidence for the offence is somewhat less rigorous than one would get in a criminal court. Again, if our proverbial delinquent is well advised, he should commit his crime in Ottawa rather than in Hull, as the offence would be dealt with in a more rigorous fashion.

Lord help us from those who claim to be locking them up or treating them for their own good. That is a great way to lose a kid in a system over a relatively minor offence.

The disingenuous argument of Quebec is even further disingenuous when it is contradicted by the fact that Quebec actually had the second highest rate of transfers to adult court.

In Ontario the government holds to the myth that punishment alone protects society. Research does not support that view. It could be argued that if protection is the most significant issue, as is punishment alone, it is counterproductive and only leads to a well trained young criminal as opposed to an amateur. Adult time for adult crime is a catchy phrase but just awful youth policy.

I am quite incensed by some of the incidents I read about in newspapers. If individuals are locked up and the proverbial key is thrown away and then they are pitched over the proverbial prison wall after they have done their time, a criminal disaster is waiting to happen.

Ontario is rampant with contradictions. It was invited to participate in the parliamentary hearings and declined to do so. Having done so, it then set up its own hearings. Ontario's big thing is moving kids from the youth system to the adult system. It has made repeated statements to that effect. Unfortunately the evidence does not support its contention because last year it only moved six kids from the youth system to the adult system.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize the member is making a fine speech regarding a certain issue, but it does not really pertain to Motion No. 2. Before he ends his speech I would like to hear his comments on Motion No. 2.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

We have heard the comments of the member for Wild Rose. I am sure that at some point in time the hon. member for Scarborough East will tie in his previous remarks in the two minutes left in his speech.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking somewhat tangentially to the issue before us. We are dealing with a filibuster. We are dealing with a motion which has to do with the issue of whether we should continue to debate this ad nauseam after seven years.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Chair could inform the hon. member that it is impossible to have a filibuster when we already have time allocation.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his limited edification on such an obvious matter. As I was indicating before, the issue before us is the time that Bill C-7 has taken up before parliament and in particular the time that has been wasted by the rampant contradictions of members opposite and their provincial counterparts.

The so-called gentler society in Quebec actually put 23 kids into adult court whereas Ontario's incarceration rate in that regard was less.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would only ask the hon. member who has the floor what is the motion he is talking about.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the final point I want to make, as opposed to the points my hon. colleagues want to make, is that Canada over-relies on incarceration. If the bill does one thing alone, hopefully it will reduce incarceration for young offenders.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there no such thing as a speaking rotation? All the parties have spoken. Members of the NDP have not yet had a chance to speak. May I have a chance to speak on behalf of the NDP?

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I am following the order that has been agreed to by the House leaders. According to my list, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona is scheduled to speak after the Alliance member and a Liberal member.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am the NDP House leader and I did not give you any list.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

You were number four in the first rotation, and there was no speaker. Now we are in the second rotation and you will be speaking after the Alliance member and the Liberal member.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion with the parliamentary secretary who I thought was going to speak for the government. I did not rise at the time because I thought I was allowing the government to speak. Instead, another government member spoke and now you are telling me I lost my spot.