David Pratt

[Ethics Counsellor, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon. What some of this relates to, in dealing with the ethics counsellor, is obviously the ethics of the government and the question of ethics in public service in general.

From that standpoint, the debate this afternoon has not really addressed some the broader issues that we in government face in terms of ethics. If we go back, for instance to the beginnings of this government in 1993, what we saw was an honest commitment to correct the errors of the past. God knows, we had a number of errors in the past in terms of ethics in government from the previous Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. Books have been written about the issue of ethics in the previous Mulroney government.

I was around here working as an assistant at the time of the first Mulroney parliament, from 1984 to 1988. What I witnessed, and some of the files that I worked on at that time, was absolutely astounding. I think back for instance to the case of Robert Coates, the former defence minister, who was discovered in a strip club in Germany with secret NATO documents in briefcases with him. Of course he was called upon to resign, and once it was discovered what he was up to, he did in fact resign.

However what bothered some of us at the time was the fact that the Mulroney government just had no idea as to what the concepts of ethics were, what they meant in terms of public confidence and what they meant in terms of the larger issue of the consent of the governed. It is absolutely essential to establish in the public mind some competency, some sensitivity to issues of cleanliness in government , if I can put it that way.

I think back to the case of the former solicitor general Elmer MacKay who by all accounts was an honest individual but who was drawn into a situation with the former premier of New Brunswick, Richard Hatfield, in connection with an investigation relating to marijuana in 1985. I remember that very well, and the result it had on people's confidence in government, the fact that there were these secret meetings between the former solicitor general and the premier of New Brunswick related to an RCMP investigation.

The impact that had, certainly on the people to whom I spoke, was very profound and it resulted eventually in a repudiation of the government of--

[Commonwealth War Graves Commission, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the important work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is celebrating its 86th anniversary on May 21.

Through the years, the commission, supported by Veterans Affairs Canada and our Commonwealth partners, has contributed greatly to the commemoration and remembrance of the achievements and sacrifices of those who gave their lives for peace during the first and second world wars. This includes over 110,000 Canadians who paid the ultimate price.

Sir Winston Churchill once said that these beautifully maintained graveyards and monuments would, “preserve the memory of a common purpose pursued by great nations in the remote past and will undoubtedly excite the wonder and the reverence of future generations”.

I salute the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for its mission of caring for those sacred places which will help future generations better understand the magnitude of the sacrifices made by our Canadian troops and those of our allies.

Lest we forget.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the point of some of my comments was certainly to enumerate the fact that a lot of the system in terms of missile defence is in place.

The important thing for the hon. member to keep in mind is that at the present time it is very clear that it is unlikely that any state in the world that could be categorized as a rogue state for instance, would have the capability to hit continental North America with a missile. That is a given.

What is not in question is that the missile technology which exists right now and what is being proposed in terms of national missile defence is a layered system. It attempts in some cases to get the missile at the launch or close to the boost phase when the missile is rising in the air in what is called the mid-core space when it actually, in the case of an intercontinental ballistic missile, is travelling in space, and in the terminal phase.

I would agree with the hon. member that at this point there is no state that has that capability. However, there are many states which are working toward that capability and in the next 10 to 15 years will clearly have that capability.

It is not just the states that possess these weapons of mass destruction, because we have seen in terms of proliferation, countries like North Korea selling missile technology to other states. Perhaps the hon. member would agree with me on this point, that in the case of short range or shorter range missiles that are launched from cargo ships, at this point they probably present a more dangerous threat to continental North America.

What the Americans are trying to do is not something in which just the Americans are interested; it is something that NATO has bought into through its strategic concept and it is something that was declared in the Prague summit last November as being important, not just theatre missile defence, but expanding that to protect populations. The British are certainly on side as are many others. The Danes are on side. The U.S. is working right now with Asian powers in terms of Japan and South Korea to protect those countries as well.

What we are seeing is an attempt by the United States to protect its own populations certainly. However, it is one which in terms of the investment is able to protect the continental United States and the friends and allies of the U.S. over the course of the next 10 to 15 years as some of this missile technology evolves.

We saw it with Iraq. I will conclude with this comment. We know that in a state like Iraq, it evolved from liquid propellants to solid fuel propellants The proliferation of that sort of missile technology does present a serious threat.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate. I have listened with great interest to some of the previous speakers. I am not referring specifically to the previous speaker, but to listen to some of the comments and arguments one would think that somehow or other the United States has morphed into Canada's evil twin, that it has evil nefarious intentions throughout the world. This does not sound to me like the country that is right next to us and which is our best ally and trading partner. It does not sound to me like the country right next to us where we have so many business contacts, social contacts and family contacts.

It leaves me a little confused to say the least in terms of some of the motives that have been attributed to the United States through the course of this debate. We have heard a lot of what I would describe as cold war rhetoric, rhetoric that really fails to appreciate the current situation in terms of where we are at strategically today, post 9/11, where the world has evolved to since the end of the cold war.

We know that there is a threat. There is clearly in my view a threat out there and it is posed by two things principally. It is posed by cell based terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. I do not have to go into the various incidents that have occurred internationally over the last number of years, but I could enumerate some of them: the bombing of the USS Cole ; the embassy bombings in east Africa; the bombing in Bali; and of course the events of September 11.

What many people have failed to appreciate in terms of this changing environment was very well summed up in an op-ed piece in the New York Times a number of months back. It was written by a fellow named Thomas Friedman. He talked about the new strategic environment that we face as being the world of order and the world of disorder.

The world of order in his view, and I share this view, is constituted by North America, Europe, Russia and China, that is, countries that have a stake in terms of allowing their economies to grow, that are based generally on the rule of law, which are making projections into the future in terms of economic growth and the welfare of their people. These are the countries of order.

The countries of disorder on the other hand are countries that fall into three categories principally: rogue states, failed states, and what Friedman termed as messy states. Clearly Iraq, although it is not now, would have been in the rogue state category, along with North Korea and to a large extent Iran as well. He looked at the failed states as well, states like Liberia. Until a few years ago we could probably have put Sierra Leone in that category also, and perhaps states like Somalia. The messy states are where there is certainly a problem with proliferation of weapons, confrontation and terrorism and sometimes organized crime is involved in terrorism as well. He enumerated countries like Colombia, India and Pakistan, states that are to a certain extent largely or somewhat unpredictable in terms of where they might be going.

We know that in terms of weapons of mass destruction there has been a quantum change in the strategic environment since the end of the cold war. The end of the cold war, in terms of the destruction of the Soviet Union, threw open the floodgates in terms of the knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

We have certainly seen that in the case of what has been called the 10 plus 10 over 10 agreement that was discussed at the G-8 last year. It involves bringing more and better controls over the Soviet Union's former nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal as well as the delivery systems for those sorts of weapons.

We have seen literally billions of dollars invested by the United States and Canada and other countries of the western world to bring these weapons of mass destruction under control. We know that there are at least 30 to 35 countries that have all sorts of ballistic missile technology. We know there are at least 25 countries that either have sought or have acquired weapons of mass destruction in terms of nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological weapons.

This is a serious problem to say the least. It boils down to the knowledge that is out there in terms of weapons technology and how best we as the world of order can deal with some of this weapons technology and protect our citizens. For me, protecting our citizens is the bottom line. There is a threat out there and it has to be addressed.

Another point I wanted to raise in connection with this debate is the fact that this is a defensive system. In fact many elements of the system have been in place for a number of years now. The ballistic missile defence system essentially is composed of five elements.

The first is a ground based radar which has been around since the 1960s. The second is space based sensors which have been around since the 1970s in terms of the U.S. defence support program. We tie into that as well through Norad. We have the benefit of those systems through Norad in terms of the ground and space based sensors. Canada has been part of that thus far.

There is also what is called an X-band radar. The capability of this radar is such that it allows the United States when tracking a missile to determine what is a warhead and what is a decoy. That is the third element. It has been around for about the last eight years and has been tested significantly over that time. The tests have yielded quite good results.

The fourth component is what is referred to as the battle management command, control and communications which essentially lines up the interceptor with the incoming missile. It is a series of software and hardware that is essential in order to be able to intercept the missile. That is where most of the research and development is headed. That is where the dollars will be invested in the coming years.

The final element of the system is the ground and sea based interceptors, some of which are largely in use right now. As a matter of fact some of these systems are in use by the Canadian Forces themselves. When we look at the American system in terms of the Aegis class destroyers which fire a standard missile, an SM-3 missile, the Canadian Forces in our Iroquois class destroyers have the SM-2 missile.

With respect to our own missile defences, we purchased in the 1980s what is referred to as the ADATS system, the air defence and anti-tank system, which has the capability to intercept missiles in their final phase before hitting earth. In terms of the ground based system, the Minuteman II missiles are being used, which have been around for many years.

A lot of this technology is not new. A lot of it has been around for a long time. What we are talking about is simply upgrading the current systems that are in place and giving them the additional capability to do the job in terms of intercepting missiles.

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies. I look forward to hearing his comments.

I have just a couple of minutes left and I have not begun to address some of the other issues I would like to address. I hope there will be some questions, but I will conclude simply by saying that Canada has to be involved in this initiative. It is part of our defence policy in my view and it is essential for the protection of Canadian sovereignty.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. members who have spoken on this issue. The hon. member for Surrey Central, the hon. member for St. John's West, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

What we have heard during the course of the debate is a clear indication of sympathy on behalf of hon. members for the principles of the bill, specifically as they relate to the issue of first degree murder and the provisions within the bill which would provide for any firefighter killed in the line of duty as a result of an act of arson in having that first degree murder conviction apply.

I had the opportunity to go over very briefly one of the Supreme Court cases that deals with the issue of intent, which is really central to this whole concept of first degree murder, and whether it should apply and whether objective foreseeability should be something that is part of the construct which goes into a first degree murder charge. Obviously under our Criminal Code it is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed. There are a number of fairly complex legal issues that have to be dealt with in relation to that issue.

I have had the opportunity to speak to the chair of the justice committee as well the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. In the course of the committee's deliberations on this, I very much hope that we have a thorough examination of the issue. Hopefully we will have representatives from the Department of Justice to go through some of these legal issues for us. Hopefully as well we will have representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters who obviously have a very significant interest in this legislation and moving the bar forward in terms of the protection of firefighters. I would like to see that happen. If necessary, I would like the committee to take as much time as it needs to flesh out these issues so perhaps we can build on what already exists in Bill C-32.

As I mentioned in the past, some American states, as the previous hon. member mentioned, have protections for firefighters in place. Now granted, the U.S. justice system is significantly different from our justice system in terms of the charter of rights, how we interpret that and their bill of rights and how the Americans interpret that in terms of the constitutional rights that have grown up over time in the United States. Obviously from that standpoint, a direct comparison is not always appropriate. What is important is the Americans have been able to extend protections to firefighters in a significant way.

From the comments of members on both sides of the House of Commons, there is a general desire to do the same thing here in Canada. I would suggest we try to do at the committee. I suggest we examine very carefully some of these legal issues so if there is a way to extend this protection to firefighters, then we can do that in a constructive way.

I will also indicate through the Chair that I will be following those committee deliberations very closely and I will also have some questions for the legal experts on this. Not only do members of the House want to see the objective to provide greater protection for firefighters achieved, but the people of Canada would like to see it happen just as soon as is practically possible.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the way to resolve this issue of members not having an opportunity to speak is simply to ask for unanimous consent for the following:

That the debate be allowed to continue on the subject matter of Bill C-269 until 6:30 p.m. when it is deemed to have been adopted.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think at all that it is a question of theft of ideas or anything like that. I gave the hon. member credit for advancing this issue. Other members in the House have spoken on it as well and have spoken very fervently and passionately on the need to protect firefighters. I think there has been a real recognition and realization as well, post-September 11, 2001, that this issue is a very real one and that it needs to be dealt with.

However I give the credit to the firefighters themselves who have done a good job in terms of fleshing out these issues, making the government and members of Parliament aware of them and ensuring that the government is responsive to the problem that currently exists.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Bill C-269 would create two new criminal offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder when a victim is a firefighter acting in the line of duty. I would first like to address the aggravated assault provisions of Bill C-269.

In recent years Canada's professional firefighters have faced a growing and serious threat from illegal drug operations, which are often rigged with hidden devices designed to kill or injure anyone who interferes with them, particularly public safety officials.

For example, a recent drug growing operation in New Brunswick was guarded by 30 spring loaded traps. In Nova Scotia, a boy was recently hit in the leg by a shotgun which was rigged to a trip wire in a marijuana field.

One of the most common traps set by criminals and organized crime, in an attempt to protect their drug growing operations, is a crossbow which is rigged to automatically fire at anyone who opens the front door, such as a firefighter entering a house to put out a fire.

Given that these drug growing operations often use illegal and unsafe electrical hookups, otherwise known as meter jumping, which cause fires, the dangers to firefighters in particular who are on the scene to battle a house fire cannot be discounted.

I believe that if we are to deter criminals from setting these traps in the future, we must amend the Criminal Code to provide more severe punishments for such acts. It was for that reason that I included provisions within Bill C-269 which would address this growing problem.

I am pleased that this is an issue which has not gone unnoticed by the government. On April 11 the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts. Responding to the dangers posed by these types of traps, sections of Bill C-32 would create a new criminal offence targeting anyone who sets a trap for a criminal purpose and intends to cause injury or death.

Bill C-32, which I fully support and which has the support of the International Association of Fire Fighters, would provide a maximum penalty of 10 years on anyone convicted under this new offence with an additional four years if that trap injured or killed someone.

I would like to quote from a press release issued by the International Association of Fire Fighters in support of the government's legislation. It says:

Canada's professional fire fighters will soon have important new protections from a growing threat.

The firefighters press release went on to quote the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Mr. Harold Schaitberger, as saying:

We are pleased to see the Government of Canada taking action today on this important issue of fire fighter safety.

In my view the Minister of Justice should be congratulated for this legislation which imposes stronger punishment on an offender and greater protection of Canada's firefighters than my own bill. Given that the government has introduced its own legislation which has the full support of Canada's firefighters and which I believe would provide greater protection to firefighters, I do not believe it is necessary or even helpful at this point to proceed with the amendments outlined in Bill C-269 regarding aggravated assault.

I would now like to speak on the second issue of first degree murder. The second criminal offence created by Bill C-269 is first degree murder when the victim is a firefighter acting in the line of duty. At present, section 231 of Canada's Criminal Code specifically refers to the death of a peace officer while acting in the line of duty. However there are currently no similar specific provisions or increased penalties to deter criminal acts that jeopardize the lives and safety of firefighters in cases such as arson.

Bill C-269 seeks to change that by giving firefighters the recognition they deserve and putting them on the same legal footing as police officers. I fully recognize that there are many difficult issues which need to be addressed surrounding such amendments to the Criminal Code.

For example, in Canada there is a constitutional requirement that to be convicted of murder it must be proven that the accused had intended to kill prior to committing the act. The question then arises: Is it possible to prove that a person who lights a fire intended to kill a firefighter called to the scene? I believe anyone lighting a fire which would knowingly put lives in danger can reasonably assume that his or her actions could result in the death of a firefighter. Did the person know a firefighter would die as a result of his or her actions? Perhaps not. However reasonably, in my view, the person should have.

For a number of reasons, amending section 231 of the Criminal Code to include firefighters, as I have suggested in Bill C-269, was not included in the federal government's Bill C-32.

I have spoken to officials from the justice department. They have expressed their concerns over the constitutionality of such changes, and I would agree that more detailed discussion is needed before moving forward with Bill C-269. I believe this is an issue that does require closer examination by parliamentarians, legal experts and firefighters themselves.

To conclude, every time a firefighter is injured or killed, that means one less professionally trained public safety officer is available to respond to situations which are dangerous to the public. As legislators, I believe we must do everything in our power to protect the people who serve us as firefighters from harm.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-269, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firefighters), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,it is my great pleasure to rise today to open the debate on my private member's Bill C-269, an act to amend the Criminal Code, respecting firefighters.

Bill C-269 seeks to give greater protection to firefighters by amending five sections of the Criminal Code and creating two new criminal offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder when the victim is a firefighter acting in the line of duty.

For years Canada's firefighters have been coming to Parliament Hill during their legislative days and speaking to individual members of Parliament, one on one, respectfully asking that they receive greater protection under the law.

After years of hard work by the International Association of Fire Fighters to make these issues a priority on the government agenda, I am pleased to report that with the introduction of Bill C-32 by the Minister of Justice and this debate tonight, the International Association of Fire Fighters can claim some success. Those years of hard work are finally paying off for the people who provide such a vital role in terms of safeguarding Canadians from the ravages of fire.

In particular, I want to thank Mr. Jim Lee, Mr. Sean McManus and Mr. Greg Hewitt for their work and dedication to Canada's firefighters. These three individuals have been crucial in putting the issues of firefighter safety on the public radar.

These issues are not new to members of Parliament or to the House. My own involvement with these issues goes back to December 2001 when I first introduced this bill in the House of Commons. I should say as well that I had a personal experience with a fire a couple of years ago which really reinforced my view as to how important firefighters are within our society.

The particular circumstances of that situation were that my wife and I had been out for dinner one Saturday at a friend's place in nearby Kanata which is adjacent to Nepean. I noticed flames coming out of a house on our way home. I stopped my car and a couple of other people stopped as well.

The first thing I did was I called 911 and notified the emergency response people that there was a fire happening and that they had better get there as quickly as possible. My second move, along with another couple of individuals who had stopped, was to see if we could get inside the house to make sure that there was nobody in the house.

I would say that we got to the fire fairly quickly in the sense that some of the flames were clearly visible but it seemed as though they had not consumed the entire house. However, by the time I got to the front door, the door knob on the screen door was already hot and it was clear that things were becoming very dicey from the standpoint of safety. I tried to go around the back of the House and use a garden hose on the fire, but it was not working. Very shortly thereafter the house was beyond hope in terms of saving the property of a family who obviously had worked very hard over many years to build their house and enjoy the benefits of their property.

Unfortunately the firefighters were responding from a distance of about 10 kilometres away. They got there just as the fire became completely uncontrollable.

That whole situation gave me a sense of the difficulties that firefighters have and how dangerous it is in terms of going into a building where their own safety is in peril. It just so happened that in that particular case, the fire had been set deliberately, unfortunately.

I would also like to take this opportunity to draw to the attention of members some of the contributions that have been made by other members of Parliament on the subject of protecting firefighters and their safety, notably the hon. members for Surrey Central and New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby. They have also brought important issues related to firefighter safety to the floor of the House of Commons through their own private member's bills.

As I indicated, by its very nature firefighting is a dangerous occupation and Canada's firefighters respond to a variety of emergency situations with the knowledge that their work may result in serious injury or death. Like police officers or the men and women of the Canadian Forces, firefighters perform their duties on our behalf knowing that at any time they may have to pay the ultimate sacrifice. It is disturbing to note as well that the number of deaths and injuries sustained by firefighters continue to rise.

Since my days as a municipal councillor with the former city of Nepean, I have had the honour of working with many local firefighters, firefighters like Ron Phillips, Steve McFarlane, Ron Ralph, Dave Stevenson, Mike Vervoort and John Sobey. These brave men, who I count among my friends, put their lives on the line to make us all safer.

While firefighters understand and accept the inherent danger of their jobs, they are often put in harm's way through deliberate criminal acts such as arson. These crimes are a deliberate attempt to cause harm, property damage or loss of life. These actions needlessly place firefighters at risk and must be deterred to the greatest extent possible.

As public safety officers and first responders engaged in a dangerous occupation professional, in my view firefighters are deserving of specific protection and measures under the law that would reduce the incidents of exposure to situations that could result in serious injury or death. As legislators, we have an obligation and a duty to use the Criminal Code to protect our firefighters from harm.

Before I get into the actual provisions of the bill, there are a number of what I would say very complex issues related to this bill. In that respect, one of the things I think would be useful in connection with this legislation is that rather than debating for another two hours some of the issues related specifically to the issue of criminal intent in the bill, the issue of mens rea in particular related to the first degree murder aspect of the bill, these provisions should perhaps be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There have been some consultations on this issue with members of various parties. At this point in the debate, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-269 be not now read a second time and that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I would like to put that motion to the House because there are some rather significant issues that must be dealt with, technical issues and issues related to possible charter challenges. The firefighters have agreed to this as well.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, April 28, the committee has considered and held hearings on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, and agreed on Thursday, May 8 to report it without amendment.