Peter Mancini

[Judges Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Senate amendments to Bill C-37.

I reviewed some of the comments that I made on behalf of my party some time ago when this bill was first introduced. I compared this piece of legislation to a recipe that my grandfather brought to this country from Italy some time ago. I said that as much as my grandfather would try to pass that recipe onto his children, when he would taste the sauce he would say “You got a little bit of it right and whole lot of it wrong”. I said that this bill was very similar to that sauce.

The Senate has added a dash a salt but nothing particularly to improve the flavour of this legislation. What remains tragic is that with this legislation there was an opportunity for the government to address some fundamental issues.

I will pick up on the comments of my colleague from Charlesbourg. He talked about cutbacks in the provinces. He talked about hospital beds. He talked about the kinds of things that matter to Canadians at a time when this government is determined that we should give judges a substantial increase in their salaries.

I am not going to talk so much about hospital beds. I am going to talk about the justice system and where those funds might be better funnelled at a time of increasing demands on the courts, at a time when we are looking at a role for victims to play in the courts, at a time when crown prosecutors who have to enforce the laws are finding their hands tied because of lack of resources, and at a time when the RCMP and law enforcement agencies are finding their budgets slashed.

When we are determining how the very sparse funds have to be divided up, increasing the judges' salary at this point in time when this country has other problems is perhaps not the wisest and most judicial, if you will, use of funds.

I sit on the custody and access committee. One complaint we have heard continually is that when there is a dispute in family law it cannot be resolved for months because of the backlog in cases. There is a lack of legal aid availability for parties who are seeking to bring their matters before the court. There is a lack of court clerks. There is a lack of all kinds of necessary instruments to bring matters to court and to have them resolved quickly. When matters are not resolved quickly before the courts, it results in increased tension between the parties. The parties take matters into their own hands and there is increased concern.

These funds might have been better spent in improving the justice system in the provinces. That is in the family law courts. Let us look at the criminal courts.

More and more powers are being delegated to provincial court judges with fewer and fewer resources. Again this means longer waiting times for court hearings. It does no good for the accused, who lives under a cloud of suspicion while waiting for his or her day in court. It does no good for the victim, who waits for months and months in a system he or she never asked to end up in in the first place.

The cuts to the provinces have resulted in increased waiting times in both the criminal and family courts.

Also, as has been raised by this side of the House, the RCMP training centre out west is being closed down. I am meeting with a group of people in my own riding next Monday when the House is down. Seniors in my riding have been told that when they press an alarm, it will only be responded to if the person pressing the alarm can guarantee that there is a break and enter.

I practised criminal law for some time. It was a rare occasion when one could say to the criminal breaking into the home “Hold on for a minute while I call the police to confirm that you are here. Would you take the phone and let the RCMP know that there is a reason for them to come”. I do not blame the RCMP officers for this. The reality is that they do not have the resources to respond unless they can be sure there is a crime taking place. At the same time that this is happening, we are increasing the wages for some of the wealthiest people in this country. I again question whether that is the best use of resources.

There was also a golden opportunity, which I have spoken to the Minister of Justice about, to review the method of appointment of judges. The parliamentary secretary has said in support of some of the Senate amendments that the criteria in terms of determining judicial compensation ought to be accepted and it is something the government looks favourably on. I would suggest we ought to revamp the criteria for the appointment of judges before we revamp the criteria for increasing their salaries and determining whether they ought to get it.

This country has some very good judges. I do not want to diminish that for a moment. The late Justice Dickson was an example of a fine judge. He moved this country forward in his position as a supreme court justice. There are hundreds of good judges in this country.

Every now and then we hear about an appointment to the court that is simply a patronage appointment. It is well known certainly on the east coast and in the province I come from that part of how one gets to the judiciary is to make the right contributions to the parties in power.

Just this summer there was an appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Prior to her being a judge, she started her career as a lawyer and a keen organizer for the Liberal Party. The reward for that was an appointment to the public utility board in Nova Scotia which paid some $75,000 a year up until the age of 75. This was a pretty nice plum and everybody thought she was satisfied with that. As it turned out, she was a classmate of the Minister of Justice, I think the year behind. She was not too happy on the utility board and found herself appointed to the supreme court. That appointment met with considerable criticism in the province. It was not the only one.

That is unfair to the judges who legitimately serve this country well, who achieve their appointment on merit. We need to have a discussion about this. I have indicated to the Minister of Justice that there ought to be a subcommittee of the justice committee that can explore and ensure a fair method of the appointment of the judiciary. Citizens look to the judiciary in some ways to set the moral standards of the country. They look to parliamentarians. They look to people in authority.

This is a time when we are talking about youth crime and young offenders who appear before judges. It is very difficult to present to them the argument that the society we want them to participate in is one that is fair and just if some of the very people they appear before received their positions on the bench not because of their understanding of criminal, family or contract law, but because of their connections to particular parties. This was a missed opportunity.

Some of the amendments that were put forward by members of the justice committee from the Reform Party and the Bloc party were good. It is too bad that the government could not have supported them. It did support one of those amendments. The amendment put forward by the Bloc which had to do with the actual pay increase would have been well received. It is too bad that the government did not choose to accept that in the same way it accepted the amendments from the Senate.

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments. They are thought provoking and, in that light, I have two questions which I would like the member to comment on.

The first one is that I have read recently that crime statistics are down and that the homicide rate is the lowest it has been for 30 years in this country. There is every indication from those statistics that in this country homicide rates are down. I would like to have the member's thoughts on that.

Secondly, we have heard a number of stories, anecdotal evidence if you will, from the hon. member concerning cases that he has heard about. I appreciate what he has told this House, but oftentimes I am concerned that we hear the interpretation of events. We are all subject to that. We read the headlines. I wonder if he was in the courtroom for those cases and if he has heard the other side.

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 1998]

I am told there is no conspiracy. I am told that by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I agree with her because I am sure she would like to be at the justice committee today as well.

Let me talk about some of the good things in this legislation, and there are some good things. One is the year and a day rule that is changed in the Criminal Code.

The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice has talked about the history of this aspect of the legislation. It is an old anachronistic piece of legislation. It is time that it was changed. I think we in all parties can agree that the Minister of Justice by amending the Criminal Code to get rid of this section has done a good thing.

There are some other good things. Toughening the laws that deal with those who abuse children in the form of child prostitution is a good move. I have had many conversations with colleagues in my party from Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax who see the growing trade in child prostitution. We recognize that this has to be dealt with by tough measures in the Criminal Code. I think the bill, by amending those sections that deal with prostitution, goes some way to deal with that.

On the issue of telemarketing fraud, as technology invades all our lives, changes the way we work and changes the way we do business, it also unfortunately creates one of the enhanced opportunities which technology creates, the opportunity to commit crime in different ways. Telemarketing fraud is one of those ways.

Telemarketing scams are widespread. They cost North Americans billions of dollars yearly and do not know any borders. It is important that the changes cracking down on telemarketing fraud are a first step in dealing with that kind of crime.

Particularly susceptible to that crime are seniors and people who perhaps are not as sophisticated with the whole telemarketing system as younger people who have grown up with the technology. It is important that the government recognizes the people who are vulnerable and deals with that appropriately. I think the bill does that. I am somewhat congratulatory to the minister for dealing with that.

The counterfeiting proposal has been addressed by other members today. That too is a good measure. Money laundering is a serious problem. Last year I was contacted by a radio station in Montreal that wanted to know my opinion on the fact that Canada was named as a nation of primary concern by the United States because we were a source of money laundering. It is not something that makes Canadians proud. The government has taken some initiative to end money laundering and to deal with counterfeiting.

The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke before me referred to her colleague from Charlevoix. The taking out of circulation $1,000 bills is a good suggestion. I do not know why the government would not accept it. It is something that could go some way toward stopping money laundering. Unfortunately the government has not accepted it. It could have improved the legislation somewhat if it had done so.

The bill also deals with conditional sentencing. Conditional sentencing is a section in the sentencing provisions. It is an opportunity to deal in a particular way with those who commit crime. It ought not to be abused. When it is abused it harms all those who might take advantage of the program.

The government has made some necessary changes to the conditional sentencing provisions so that when an offender is alleged to have breached or violated his or her conditional sentence and is arrested, the conditional sentence will now be stopped from the time of the offender's arrest until the conclusion of the court hearing. That is a progressive move by the government.

There is, however, the downside of the bill. There are some things in this omnibus legislation that cause me concern. One of them that we have to balance—and I am not saying it is entirely wrong—is the section that amends the Criminal Code to allow for a non-contact clause at bail hearings.

Many people may know but some may not know what that means. At the time of arrest there is a delay between the time of arrest and the time the bail hearing is held to determine whether or not an offender is permitted to be released or whether he or she ought to be incarcerated.

At the time of the bail hearing the judge can impose all kinds of conditions. One may be that the offender have no contact with certain individuals. That is a necessary protection because with some offenders there may be a concern that they will threaten other witnesses or that they will interfere with the administration of justice.

In changing the legislation the government is saying that at the time of arrest before the bail hearing a non-contact clause can be imposed. The good side of that is that if the judge has concerns about witnesses being interfered with or the administration of justice being interfered with it gives the judge an opportunity to prevent that. On the other hand, if there is a presumption of innocence we have to ask very real questions about a judge being able to impose a non-contact clause.

There is also a particular area that causes me concern, that is the family law area. Although this is a Criminal Code change it spills over into the family law. In many cases when there are allegations of domestic violence or allegations of any kind of crime being committed, this will allow the judge to impose a non-contact clause which may interfere with family court orders that are currently in existence involving access to children, custody or whatever. It is one in which we have to find a balance. There are some good points to be made in favour of it but there are also some concerns.

The final item is the gaming provisions that have been addressed by other members who have spoken today. They cause me particular concern. I have to ask why gaming provisions, provisions that deal with people having the right to gamble on international cruise ships, have been lumped in with very serious changes to the Criminal Code. We are dealing with child prostitution, money laundering and conditional sentencing. Somewhere in between all these important changes are sections that deal with international cruise ships and the right to gamble.

It was my suggestion that those sections ought to be taken out of this omnibus bill and introduced on their own merit. The debate concerning those is different than the debate concerning amendments to the Criminal Code and the criminal element. Had the government done that, there may have been all party support for some of the very necessary changes to the Criminal Code to make our communities safe. The failure of the government to do that makes me wonder if there is not some sleight of hand here.

I have real concerns about the cruise ship provisions. The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke prior to me is in favour of them, at least I took that from her speech. I should put before the House, just to illustrate what we are dealing with, that I come from a community where casinos were just introduced. That has resulted in a large casino in the downtown core that has siphoned off business from many local small businesses on the main street: the local restaurants, bars and entertainment venues. Many of those businesses have lost their revenue to the casino. The casino has hired many people. Some of those who were displaced in one section have found jobs in the other.

The legislation will allow tourists on cruise ships to gamble when they are in Canadian waters. This will have a direct impact on the community I represent. Tourism is being touted by many, especially on the government side, as the saviour of the economy of Cape Breton. We have managed to attract a large cruise ship industry. It has done some economic good. Many people on cruise ships come to the main street to buy souvenirs. They take part in activities, attend museums and purchase goods. They go to the restaurants. However there is only so much money to go around.

I have a real concern that by encouraging cruise ships to allow gambling when they are in Canadian waters—and I appreciate that within five nautical miles of the port they will not be able to do that—we are siphoning off some of the disposable income that might better be spent in the community where these tourists are destined.

Let us be absolutely frank. The reason for having a tourist industry is to invite people to spend money in our communities on goods and services local people can produce. I question the wisdom in terms of economics of allowing cruise ships to have onboard gambling. I questioned some justice department officials who appeared before the justice committee on this issue, as did other colleagues of mine, and I have not received satisfactory answers.

The other side of that gaming provision allows the provinces to introduce dice games. There are people who have real concerns about the influence of gambling in their communities. We know gambling can be an addictive form of behaviour. We all know the stories of people who have gambled away their life savings in some situations because they could not help it.

Those sections cause me concern. It would have been prudent and wise for the Minister of Justice to separate those sections of this omnibus legislation and introduce them separately in the House where they could be debated. We now have to accept the bill in its entirety. We can be supportive of cracking down on crime, making communities safer and preventing child prostitution. The minister is also asking us to accept provisions dealing with gaming. It would have been nobler, perhaps, had she separated those issues.

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. I have many remarks, some of which will echo comments already made by other parliamentarians here today.

I will start by saying for those who are listening to this debate or who are reading Hansard that this is an omnibus bill. That means this bill is a catch all, as has been commented on by other members in the House. The bill affects not just the Criminal Code but other statutes as well. It is a fairly large omnibus bill. Like all complex and large pieces of legislation, there are some good things in it and there are some things that cause me some concern. The government has gone some way to deal with crime issues in this bill but perhaps not far enough on others.

It is to me no coincidence that this bill comes before the House today at this particular hour. I was just speaking with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who comes from the same province as I come from. He is a member of the Conservative Party. He and I sit on the justice committee.

Yesterday this bill was not on the Order Paper but it is today. Ironically at this very hour the Minister of Justice is appearing before the justice committee to deal with the extradition bill and to answer questions from members of the justice committee who might have questions for her. I certainly have many questions but of course it is difficult to be in both places at the same time. Is it a coincidence that this bill comes before the House today so that I cannot question the minister? I do not know.

I will move on to talk about some of the aspects of the bill. I do not want to be hard on the Minister of Justice.

[Apec Inquiry, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like a long time ago that a few students in British Columbia began to look for justice as a result of what happened at the APEC conference in British Columbia.

The legal complexities of this matter grow daily. The matter goes from the Public Complaints Commission to the federal court and back to the Public Complaints Commission, and yet the students are expected to represent themselves.

If this government will not set up an independent inquiry, will it at least reconsider its position and provide funding for the students' legal counsel?

[Justice, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has publicly decried the recent murder of an American doctor. He said that the United States will not tolerate violence directed at those providing legally protected medical services.

Our Prime Minister has said nothing. Three doctors providing legal abortions for women in Canada have been shot in the past four years. Why has the Prime Minister not spoken out?

Will the government announce additional support for the task force investigating the shooting?

[Apec Inquiry, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the allegations about the comments the commissioner made came from the government's lawyer.

If that is the situation, when did the government know about these allegations and why did it not deal with them initially?

[Apec Inquiry, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of question period the Deputy Prime Minister said “Pay attention to my answer”. We did. He said “We will wait for a statement from the commission and when we know what is happening we will make a judgment”.

We know what is happening. Justice has been denied to the students who sought answers. The commission is mired in distrust. It is adjourned until November 16. The matter has been referred to the federal court.

When will he set up a judicial inquiry?

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there are two underlying assumptions I think Canadians need to recognize.

Regarding the first point made by the hon. member, the students are the ones who lodged the complaint. Why in the name of God should they have legal counsel? The underlying assumption in that question is that those who dare to challenge authority ought not to receive the support of the state in that challenge. The underlying assumption is don't dare question those with pepper spray because you have no right to and certainly the state will not protect you.

Second, he said what would happen if there was no protection. The RCMP is perfectly capable of providing protection. The Prime Minister's office is not an expert in that area.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Having served on the justice committee with the member, I know his questions are often to the point. This is one that is because it goes to the very core of what I was saying.

Without proper legal representation, that trail is left to the students themselves. There will be some assistance by the counsel for the commission. He is to be commended and he said he will do what he can to assist the students.

I have very real questions regarding this forum even getting that far. This is why I wanted a judicial inquiry into the matter to begin with. In the absence of that, it is left to the students to try to find a way to infiltrate the very corridors of power in this country.

What that means is issuing subpoenas, understanding what subpoenas mean, understanding the time limits under which they can be served and understanding the rules under which they can be served.

I dare say few members of this House understand those rules. There are many lawyers who do not practice courtroom litigation. I dare say many of them would not understand the rules.

In the absence of legal counsel for those students, they are left to figure out the very complex rules of getting documents that the government will say are protected by cabinet secrecy, mark my words. It will say that and it is left to the students to figure out how to launch an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada to open the door to get those documents.

Those students will have to figure that out because they do not have a lawyer but the lawyers for the government will know the ways to close those doors before they are even open. I think that is the answer to the hon. member's question.