John Maloney

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-18.

The bill before us today is in part the product of the work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The standing committee tabled its report “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving” on May 25, 1999, one year ago. The committee appended to that report a draft bill that the government followed very closely when it introduced Bill C-82 on June 7, 1999.

At the time of introduction, Bill C-82 included a provision that would have increased the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment. This provision was removed from Bill C-82 and then placed in Bill C-87. As amended, Bill C-82 passed and came into force on July 1, 1999. Bill C-87 died on the order paper.

In October 1999 during this current session, the government tabled its response to the committee report on impaired driving. The government response indicated the intention to reintroduce the provision found in Bill C-87 that would increase the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment. In December 1999 the government introduced Bill C-18 which includes the provision relating to impaired driving causing death.

Raising the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death will indicate that this crime is viewed with the same seriousness as manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death, which also carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I remind the House that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst offender and the worst set of circumstances.

Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a unanimous decision in the Proulx appeal. In the course of its reasons the court noted that:

—dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for which harsh penalties plausibly provide general deterrence. These crimes are often committed by otherwise law-abiding persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably, such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties.

To the extent that penalties deter, the amendment would help in the battle against impaired driving. The increased penalty would also be valuable for its denunciation of impaired driving causing death.

Bill C-18 also includes, as promised in the government response to the committee's report, a provision that was recommended by the committee but not included in the draft bill. This provision would amend section 256 of the criminal code by adding drugs as a basis to seek a warrant to obtain a blood sample.

This section currently allows a peace officer to apply for a warrant to obtain a blood sample from a driver based on alcohol consumption in certain circumstances. The peace officer must reasonably believe that the driver, within the previous four hours, was involved as a result of the consumption of alcohol in an accident resulting in injury or death. Also, it must be the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner that the driver is unable to consent to the taking of a blood sample and that taking the sample would not endanger the life or health of the person. It is anticipated that situations where police will seek a warrant for a blood sample based upon drug consumption will be relatively few and that these would involve illegal drugs or the abuse of legal drugs.

With the impaired driving causing death provision and with the blood sample provision, the government will have acted upon each of the recommendations for a specific criminal code amendment contained in the standing committee's report “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”.

Bill C-18 includes two other amendments. It would change the French version of the definition of a motor vehicle to indicate that these are vehicles moved otherwise than by muscular power. The English version does not have this problem.

Finally, Bill C-18 would delete the offence of driving while prohibited from the list of indictable offences that are within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge under section 553 of the criminal code. Bill C-82 of the previous session raised the maximum penalty for driving while prohibited from two years imprisonment to five years imprisonment. The charter of rights requires that an accused be given the right to a jury trial for an offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or more. The amendment in Bill C-18 will bring section 553 into compliance with the charter.

I am pleased that we have seen progress over the past dozen years in reducing the fatalities involving impaired driving. However, there is yet much distance on the road that lies ahead of us on our journey to eliminate impaired driving. Legislation alone will not eliminate impaired driving. I think we can agree that continued efforts by governments, public and private organizations, and families and individuals are required to eliminate impaired driving.

[Access To Information Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to comment on Bill C-206 which makes extensive amendments to the Access to Information Act.

First, I would like to take a moment to comment on the remarkable effort my colleague the member for Wentworth—Burlington has put into producing his Bill C-206. Many of us consider it to be an accomplishment to produce a private member's bill that contains one or two clauses. The member for Wentworth—Burlington has met many administrative hurdles. He has tenaciously persevered, which perseverance has brought us to this debate today. Bill C-206 contains almost 35 clauses. Overall it proposes a major overhaul to the Access to Information Act.

Second, I would like to speak about the importance of the Access to Information Act and its role in promoting government openness and transparency. Without a right of access enshrined in a piece of legislation, all talk about government transparency is, in the final analysis, somewhat hollow.

I wish to make some general remarks on the bill itself. My position is that there are certain concepts expressed in the Access to Information Act that we should be extremely careful about revising. That is, whatever reform of the act is carried out, it must, I believe, respect certain ideas.

One idea relates to personal information. First, the residents of Canada are obliged to give the government all kinds of personal information about themselves. This is referred to as the collection of personal information. Next, the government is obliged to use in specific and limited ways the personal information of Canadians that it has collected. The Access to Information Act also permits and governs disclosure of that information. Right now I wish to focus on disclosure.

Disclosure is probably the most potentially controversial aspect of dealing with personal information. Government must be careful when it changes the rules in a way which increases the government disclosure of personal information. What is at stake is Canadians' confidence in their government and their willingness to provide the government their personal information. For this reason I encourage the members of the House and the committee that will be examining Bill C-206 to pay great heed to the question of when, under the Access to Information Act, personal information gets released.

Bill C-206 would require the disclosure of information held by the government after 30 years. The Government of Canada is concerned that automatic disclosure of personal information the government has held for 30 years could lead to an infringement of an individual's right to privacy under the charter.

Individuals expect their confidentiality to be maintained when they provide government with their personal information. Canadians may fear that Bill C-206 would lead to an erosion of their right to expect privacy and confidentiality from their government. Let me give an example. Income tax returns contain a lot of private and personal information that should be continued to be protected. No one would want his or her income tax information to be accessible at any time.

The privacy commissioner has also expressed his concerns about the impact the bill would have on the privacy of individuals and on the confidentiality of personal information.

Another issue of great importance is what approach to take to confidential commercial information. As I mentioned in relation to personal information, businesses in Canada are obliged in a number of circumstances to give the government various types of highly confidential commercial information. It has been pointed out that if we reduce the level of protection on valuable confidential commercial information, then I am afraid that businesses may begin to think that the risk involved and the cost of doing business in Canada is too high.

Let me give you a concrete example. If I had a business and thought that, in order to get the government to approve a new product, I would have to let my competitors have access to confidential business information, I would certainly be reluctant to give that information to the government.

There is a theme running through my comments and it is this. I am entirely in favour of trying to increase government openness. Indeed, I hope that this issue will be properly addressed by whatever reform of the Access to Information Act goes forward. At the same time we should remember that letting the sun shine in on government operations, which is good, is not the same thing as letting out people's personal information or businesses' confidential information. The question of disclosure is extremely sensitive and should not be undertaken without careful consideration and consultation.

Finally, we should bear in mind that there is more than one solution for dealing with a piece of legislation that may no longer be working quite as well as it should be. We tend to think automatically that a statute must be fixed by making amendments to it. In fact, the way a statute works can be fixed by improving how it is applied and administered.

I am not suggesting that improvements in the application and administration of the access act would be the whole answer. However, I wish to suggest to the House that we not rush into amending the act before we are certain that this fairly drastic course of action is what is truly needed.

If we are going to reform the act, surely it should not be undertaken without first conducting broad public consultations to allow all those who have an interest and a stake in this legislation to express their views.

Parliament's information watchdog, the information commissioner, made this very suggestion when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last November. He stated that proposals for access reform should be formed by a variety of perspectives and that it would be preferable for consultations to be conducted on a broad scale, allowing all stakeholders to have a say. I certainly agree with this view.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question of the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton regarding Scotia Rainbow Incorporated.

Scotia Rainbow Incorporated is an aquaculture operation headquartered in Arichat, Nova Scotia, and operating a number of sites throughout Cape Breton Island and northeastern Nova Scotia. The community of Arichat lost hundreds of fish processing jobs as a result of the groundfish moratorium and a corporate decision to demolish the fish plant, the community's largest employer.

Last year Scotia Rainbow employed up to 250 people on a seasonal basis at various sites on Cape Breton Island. The company projects employing up to 300 people on a seasonal basis this year. Scotia Rainbow is one the largest aquaculture operations in Nova Scotia. It is an export oriented company with products sold in Japan and the United States.

Recently Scotia Rainbow encountered financial difficulties. On February 28, the Bank of Montreal issued a demand notice pulling its $10 million line of credit. The bank obtained court approval for the appointment of an interim receiver on March 2.

In response, Scotia Rainbow filed a notice of intention to file a proposal with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on March 10. This notice of intent effectively prevents the bank from proceeding with the liquidation of the company's assets until the court determines that there is no likelihood of Scotia Rainbow being restructured into a viable company.

On May 19, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia extended the deadline for the filing of a restructuring proposal until June 30. At present the company is working to find further private sector investment in order to restructure its financing and effectively replace the financing provided through the Bank of Montreal.

The federal government has to date invested approximately $8.8 million into Scotia Rainbow. The $8.8 million was provided through a $1 million repayable contribution or loan from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, an interest bearing loan from the Farm Credit Corporation of $5.8 million, and a $2 million investment from the transitional jobs fund administered by Human Resources and Development Canada.

Of this total, $800,000 have been repaid to the Farm Credit Corporation. Of the $8.8 million, $5 million were provided for the initial startup of the company. The remaining $3.8 million from the Farm Credit Corporation were provided for the expansion of the company, which was partially completed prior to the Bank of Montreal sending its demand letter.

[Crime Prevention, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government supports communities as they devise innovative ways of making our homes and streets safer. Earlier this week the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice announced 46 projects in Ontario alone for roughly $1.9 million. Since its inception in 1998 over 1,000 projects have been put into effect for roughly $28 million.

The government's crime prevention strategy succeeds because it works with and draws its strength from Canadian communities.

[Justice, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have called upon parliament to increase the penalties with respect to cruelty and the people who would purposely injure animals.

I wish to assure the House and the country that normal and legitimate practices, such as hunting, fishing, agricultural works and animal husbandry, which are legal today will be legal tomorrow when the bill is passed.

[Prisons, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the question posed seems very difficult to understand. Perhaps I could have more particulars before responding to it. When a criminal offence is committed then charges should be laid.

[Youth Justice, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, costs are a very serious factor in the execution of youth justice. We are always open and negotiations are going on now with the provinces to look at this split.

The hon. member's question was a very good one and we will take it under advisement.

[National Defence Act, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on second reading of Bill S-10, an act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the criminal code.

The bill follows up on an earlier piece of legislation, the DNA Identification Act, which received royal assent in December 1998. That act provides for the creation of a national DNA databank which will contain DNA profiles of convicted offenders and unsolved crime scenes.

As members of the House will recall, parliament endorsed a post-conviction scheme for the databank because it will ensure that all charter requirements are met. Bill S-10 does not change this important feature or the other key elements of the DNA Identification Act. It does fine-tune the legislation to create a more comprehensive and effective national DNA databank.

Bill S-10 also proposes some practical changes to ensure the smooth and effective implementation of the databank. The data bank is scheduled to be up and running by the end of June this year.

We therefore urge hon. members of the House to give Bill S-10 prompt consideration so that we can move quickly to introducing this powerful investigative tool to improve public safety for all Canadians.

I want to share with members how Bill S-10 was developed, how it will work, its benefits and how the bill was improved as a result of its passage through the Senate.

The bill addresses a number of proposals that were recommended by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when it reviewed the original databank legislation. At that time the Senate committee proposed ways to better protect privacy interests and promote the databank's operations in an open and accountable manner.

Bill S-10 amends the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act to include the national DNA bank profiles from offenders who are subject to the military's code of service discipline and who are convicted of serious and violent offences. This amendment will ensure that we have a more complete databank that is not limited to civilian offenders.

For the purposes of the National Defence Act, a designated offence includes all the current criminal code designated offences as well as those service offences that are similar in nature to the criminal code offences.

Military judges will be authorized to impose databank orders on persons subject to the code of service discipline after they are convicted of a designated offence. The DNA profiles obtained from these offenders will then be entered into the databank's convicted offenders index.

The National Defence Act is also being amended to authorize military judges to issue DNA warrants for military police investigations of designated offences committed within or outside Canada by someone who is subject to the code of service discipline. This will assist military police in conducting more efficient and effective police investigations.

I want to emphasize that the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act mirror the current provisions in the criminal code. They include the same constitutional and privacy safeguards.

To enable parliament to monitor the ongoing operation of the databank, Bill S-10 includes new accountability measures. The RCMP commissioner will have to submit an annual report on the operations of the national DNA databank to the solicitor general. The solicitor general will then report to both Houses of parliament. Through this report, parliament will regularly receive valuable information about the databank's operations and will be able to assess whether it is meeting its intended objectives.

The parliamentary review provision in the DNA Identification Act has also been amended to give a Senate committee the same authority as a House of Commons committee to independently review the act.

The statement of principles in the DNA Identification Act is also being expanded to clarify that bodily samples and the resulting DNA profiles can only be used for law enforcement purposes. Bill S-10 makes it clear that such misuse is prohibited.

To ensure the smooth and effective implementation of the data bank, Bill S-10 also makes some practical changes to the criminal code. These changes were identified during recent consultations with the provinces and territories in planning for implementation of the databank.

Federal and provincial heads of prosecution noted that the current law is unclear as to when a court does not have to make a databank order. Therefore, the criminal code is being clarified. Bill S-10 will require that the only time the court is not required to make a databank order is if the prosecutor advises that the person's DNA profile is already in the data bank.

To deal with offenders who may be transferred out of a province before a databank order can be executed, provincial court judges will be able to endorse an order that was granted in another province.

Two criminal code provisions that have not yet been proclaimed are also being repealed. These provisions would require a peace officer to inform a person specified in a DNA warrant or data bank order that he or she may express a preference on what type of DNA sample to give, and for the peace officer to take that preference into account.

These provisions could cause uncertainty when a person's preference conflicts with a judge's discretion in the the DNA warrant or order. Uncertainty cannot be allowed to enter into this important process. Giving a person a choice on what type of sample to provide is also unnecessary in law.

The criminal code provision allowing a person to consent to the use of his or her existing DNA results for the databank is also being repealed. This is because Canadian forensic labs do not support sending to the databank bodily substances or DNA profiles obtained from the criminal investigations. Re-using an old DNA profile is not feasible because there is no way of verifying whether it actually belongs to the person specified in the databank order.

Bill S-10 contains another important change to the criminal code and the National Defence Act to promote the accuracy and integrity of the national DNA databank. Peace officers, or persons acting under their direction, will be required to take fingerprints at the same time that DNA samples are collected for the databank. This will enable the police to verify the identity of the person specified in the DNA databank order.

By comparing the person's fingerprints with those contained in the RCMP's automated fingerprint identification system, the police will know whether they are taking a sample from the right person. Fingerprints are also useful in verifying the identity of a person when a match occurs in the databank. Not only will this measure enhance the reliability of the databank but it will also protect a person who has the same name as an offender specified in the databank order. To ensure the complete privacy of fingerprints, the bill makes it clear that they may only be taken for databank purposes.

As a result of the improvements proposed in Bill S-10, Canada will have a more complete and effective databank that will better protect the public from repeat violent offenders. The legislation includes practical changes to ensure that the data bank can be successfully implemented and that parliament can oversee its operations over time.

All provinces and territories, the police, victims and the public are looking forward to the databank's timely implementation. It will be an important milestone and a long awaited tool to improve public safety.

I would therefore urge the hon. members of the House to support Bill S-10 so that we may proceed quickly in ensuring that its proposals are passed by the time the databank is implemented.

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the import of the MOX fuel test sample from the United States to Canada and the helicopter flight in Canada, I want to assure hon. members that the shipment complied with all Canadian legal and regulatory requirements. The shipment complied with the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Transportation and Packaging of Radioactive Materials Regulations, the requirements under the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the standards set by International Atomic Energy Agency.

The MOX test sample shipments are safe. The trace amount of radiation is so small that it poses no significant risk to health, safety or the environment. The fuel is in a stable, solid, ceramic form inside a sealed zirconium alloy element and transported in a container. As I stated earlier, it meets Canadian and international standards. It is not soluble and cannot spill, ignite or explode. It is not a powder that can be inhaled. The transport of the fuel samples is subject to all the requirements of Canada's regulatory system, which fully protects public health, safety and the environment.

The MOX fuel test shipment from the United States was safely transported to Chalk River Laboratories on January 14, 2000. The U.S. Department of Energy has clearly stated that this is a one time shipment of a small quantity of used mixed oxide nuclear fuel to Canada.

The mixed oxide fuel, MOX, test project is part of an international non-proliferation initiative to find a safe and secure manner to render surplus Russian and American weapons grade plutonium inaccessible for future use in nuclear weapons.

The plutonium that has been declared surplus by the U.S. and Russia already exists and will continue to present a real proliferation danger until it can be reduced to a form that cannot be readily used for weapons purposes. The use of MOX fuel in a nuclear reactor is one of the methods by which the plutonium can be rendered effectively inaccessible for weapons.

Canada has agreed, in principle, to consider the use of MOX fuel in Canada as part of its contribution to international disarmament initiatives. The Government of Canada believes that Canadians share a common desire to create a safe and secure world for future generations and are prepared to take appropriate action, provided that public health, safety and the environment are not compromised in the process.

In conclusion, I must stress that undertaking this test does not oblige Canada to agree to the large scale use of MOX fuel in Candu power plants in the future. Should any such program be proposed at some point in the future, stringent conditions will apply, including full public participation prior to entering into the program.

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's previous suggestion, the issue of petroleum product pricing is a regular agenda item at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings of energy ministers. Natural Resources Canada officials also maintain an ongoing consultation with their provincial colleagues on issues relating to petroleum product markets.

The increases in crude oil prices are the result of increasing world oil demand, due largely to economic recovery in Asia and production restraint by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, also know as OPEC.

OPEC members agreed to increase production at the OPEC ministerial meeting in March. This should ease some of the pressures, although not entirely, due to the demand for fuel and the status of inventories.

The inventory situation is one that should improve somewhat over the year. Reduced inventory levels throughout North America since last summer have kept prices high on spot markets. However, in the early part of 2000 the increased demand for distillates, diesel and furnace oil resulted in price spikes to record levels in certain centres in Canada.

This situation was the result of additional heating demand due to frigid weather and the North American and European refineries purchasing large volumes of low sulphur distillate on the spot market to conform to environmental regulations that became effective January 1, 2000.

The federal and provincial governments have some shared responsibilities in relation to crude oil and petroleum product pricing. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are the only two provinces which currently regulate retail gasoline prices. The provincial governments are responsible for the regulation of retail pricing. The federal government has the authority for competition law and policy and for international and interprovincial trade.

When the federal government regulated crude oil prices during the 1970s and 1980s it was in response to very large and persistent price increases. Under the western accord of 1985 the governments of Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia agreed that domestic crude oil prices should be deregulated.

The best option before us is to continue to defend primary reliance upon competitive markets to set prices, even as we work with other members of the International Energy Agency to promote oil market stability.