Debates of May 8th, 2003

Fisheries

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Member for LaSalle--Émard

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for eight years the member for LaSalle—Émard was simultaneously Minister of Finance and owner of Canada Steamship Lines. As minister he received 12 separate briefings on his private business. A vice-president of Canada Steamship Lines told the CBC program Disclosure that the company had moved its operations to Barbados because of “changes in Canadian tax rules”.

Would the government confirm that those changes were made in the member for LaSalle—Émard's first budget and can the Prime Minister categorically declare that the former minister did not influence the changes in Canadian tax rules in his budget which caused his company to move its activities to Barbados?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the right hon. gentleman has been raised before in the House. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has time after time clearly indicated that he recused himself from all cabinet discussions in which any interest of his might be affected. That was the case. Time after time this has been looked at and time after time it has been proved that he really is absolutely without blame on any aspect of this.

It really would be advisable for the right hon. gentleman, in his last week or two in the House, to adopt a higher tone and more appropriate behaviour.

Fisheries

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is seeking a constitutional amendment to seek shared jurisdiction and equal management over the fisheries. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs today flippantly said a constitutional amendment will not bring back the fish.

If we had had such an amendment we would not have lost the fish in the first place. In light of this, will the government consider--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. It is impossible to hear the hon. member's question.

There is too much noise. The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor. I cannot hear a word he is saying. The Chair has to be able to hear.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in light of this, will the government consider discussing such an arrangement not only with Newfoundland and Labrador but with other coastal provinces so that the resource can be managed properly?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment. I quote the former Tory minister of fisheries, Mr. John Crosbie, who said that the problem is “happening everywhere in the world. It's not just off the east coast of Canada”. I think Mr. Crosbie is quite right. It has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.

Justice

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister knows that conditional sentences have been granted to violent offenders, some convicted of manslaughter and rape. He also knows that the courts have ruled that conditional sentences are not off limits to violent offenders because the government failed to restrict their use in legislation.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Was it the intent of this government to allow convicted rapists and other violent offenders to serve out their sentences at home?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that conditional sentencing is a part of our overall sentencing program. It has been in place now for six years. It seems to work amazingly well. It does a great deal to keep our overcrowded prisons from excess prisoners who should otherwise be serving in the community. As far as I am concerned at the moment, the justice and human rights committee is examining the exceptional cases. It is completing its review and will report to the minister and to the House.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think those who believe that conditional sentences are working amazingly well are those violent offenders who are serving out their sentences at home.

If the Minister of Justice agrees that rapists should not be serving their time in the community and that these are only exceptional cases, why does he not immediately amend the Criminal Code to allow the use of conditional sentences only for non-violent offenders, an idea that the Canadian Alliance has been demanding for years?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, only those offenders who do not pose a risk to the public are considered for conditional sentences. The committee is examining the entire matter of conditional sentencing to make certain that this process is being followed. Over six years, conditional sentencing has proven to be a valuable resource to justice in this country. We are only going to look at the exceptional cases when the committee reports back.

National Defence

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the missile defence shield issue has been back in the forefront for the past few weeks now. We are learning how divisive an issue it is, splitting the cabinet and the Liberal caucus, although not one iota of the plan has been seen by anyone.

Does the Prime Minister not find it strange that the government is preparing to negotiate on a project of this scope without first presenting it for discussion in the House of Commons? Does he not feel that would be the minimum required?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing strange about it. The government has not yet made a decision on this.

What is going on is a good discussion within the Liberal caucus. It has been discussed within caucus, at the caucus committee meeting, and in cabinet. There is plenty of brain power within the Liberal Party for such discussions. Why would there be no discussions within the Bloc? Is brain power lacking there?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has adopted the position of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as its own. It has accepted the committee's position, and the committee has already expressed opposition to the weaponization of space.

Cabinet is now preparing to negotiate a project that will lead to just that. I do not know whether the minister is following the intellectual development of my argument. This defence shield project will cost millions of dollars and on top of that we learn that no one, including the government, knows all the details.

Does the Prime Minister not find this premature to say the least, as well as imprudent, to move on this project before these conditions are met?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have just explained, the weaponization of space has been opposed by the government for years. We continue to be opposed to these policies. This will not change. So that is what the government policy is.

Child Pornography

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all over the world governments are uniting to wipe out the scourge of child pornography. Only in Canada do we have a government that allows this industry to continue to exist.

Having been told repeatedly by Canadians that there is no merit, artistic or otherwise, in such filth, the Liberals have decided there might be some public good to be found in graphic illustrations of child exploitation.

Will the justice minister explain to Canadians how he can defend the existence of child pornography by searching for evidence of some public good?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are all in this House against child pornography. I do not think there is any question about it.

We are bringing forward and have now before the committee legislation that we believe will be effective in dealing with child pornography. Despite the fact that the opposition disagrees, we believe it will be effective and we will support that legislation.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know there has never been any artistic merit in child pornography and Canadians know there is no public good to be found in depraved illustrative material that exploits children.

When will the Minister of Justice do what is right and what Canadians want and introduce legislation declaring that child pornography is indefensible at every level, and lay down strict sentencing guidelines for those found guilty of trafficking in it?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are against child pornography, but in the process of trying to deal with that before our courts, one of the examples of public good is that our prosecutors have to be able to deal with the material in order to prosecute.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Liberals' Criminal Code provisions that instruct judges to be more lenient to aboriginal criminals.

We on this side of the House understand that discounting sentences for criminals means discounting justice for their victims. In the near future the murderer of RCMP constable Dennis Strongquill may be given a more lenient sentence because of his aboriginal status.

If Dennis' six children were to come here and ask the government to explain why they do not deserve equal, equitable justice in this country, what would the government say?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to aboriginal offenders, special alternative measures are available in certain cases, but in this case, the murder of a police officer, there is a mandatory minimum sentence and those alternative opportunities will not be available.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is totally irrelevant and is of absolutely zero comfort to the victims of crime.

If there were a maximum sentence imposed it might be relevant but it is not relevant. Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to be peeking out from under a blindfold to see what one's skin colour is.

The government should be ashamed of having this provision. This is the only country in the world that asks judges to be social workers and asks judges to peer out and see what the race of the offender is.

Liberal justice is two tier justice. It is race based justice. It is colour coded justice. The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians are equal before the courts and aboriginal victims of crime deserve equal justice.

I ask the government to--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are of the opinion that the penalty ought to fit the crime. In this particular case that the hon. member raises, there is no question that it applies equally to all.