Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a very clear and definitive answer to the question that my colleague just asked the hon. member. Has Canada already committed troops to this UN initiative? Yes or no.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
The Balkans December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a very clear and definitive answer to the question that my colleague just asked the hon. member. Has Canada already committed troops to this UN initiative? Yes or no.
Criminal Code December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. She touched on some very important concerns raised by the bill. I agree that the inconvenience caused by this kind of advertising is significant and will become more significant. However, I question whether the Criminal Code is the appropriate instrument to deal with this nuisance. Basically that is what it is, a costly nuisance. Ought we as legislators to be creating a criminal offence out of what basically is a nuisance? I do not think we should be.
If this matter is going to be dealt with, it ought to be dealt with under the Communications Act. That is the proper area where we should be looking at restricting this kind of advertising, if that is the wish of Canadians.
For the information of those who are watching this debate I would like to read exactly what the bill states. It is very clearly covered in clause 1:
Every one who sends to a person or organization through a telephone network an unrequested facsimile communication advertising for sale any goods or service is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars.
We saw what happened when the government attempted to curtail the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. From my understanding that was turned back because it violated freedom of speech and so on. Would this fall into that category as well? It may or may not, but it is certainly a question that would have to be addressed.
How would this affect advertising? Would this apply to the Internet as well where there is no costly intervention? As the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill pointed out, reams and reams of paper are consumed by those who are not interested in this kind of advertising. What about the Internet? It seems that it may in many ways be replacing the fax machine. Would this apply to the Internet? According to my understanding of what I just read in the bill it would.
We have to ask whether businesses are willing and prepared to create a negative attitude toward their product by antagonizing those very people they are contacting by advertising their goods and services. Are they willing to do that? In other words, are the pressures of the free market system not adequate to keep this thing from getting too far out of hand, the whole idea of seeing reams and reams of advertising they want nothing to do with on the fax machine in the morning?
Eventually there is going to be a backlash to this if it gets beyond a certain point. The advertisers will see that it is harming their product and the image and the profile of their company. Ought we not leave this kind of matter in the hands of the consumers who, when they are fed up with this kind of thing, will surely let the sponsors of the advertising know where they stand on it?
What about the benefit? Surely there has to be some benefit derived from this kind of advertising, otherwise they would not be doing it. Should we deny the people who are receiving some benefit from this advertising by introducing this legislation?
I do not have much more to say about the bill. The hon. member from the government side covered it very adequately. I can dispense with my concern about it falling into the area of the Criminal Code. The bill should come under the Communications Act.
We should let the market forces deal with this kind of issue. If we as legislators are to look at this kind of practice, it should not be criminalized. Simply sending advertising over the telephone lines should not be a criminal offence. If it is to be prohibited at all, it ought to be done under the Communications Act.
Justice December 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last week we asked the justice minister the same question. Of course the solicitor general responded by saying he would get back to us. He has not got back to us with the information. At that time we were quite specific on what we were referring to.
I will ask the justice minister about the alternative measures program. The program as defined under Bills C-37 and C-41 will place a tremendous financial challenge on the provinces which are tasked with the administration of the program. What financial agreements if any has the justice minister devised in co-operation with the provinces, or is he just going to ignore the cost of this legislation to the provinces and force this legislation on them together with the financial requirement?
Justice December 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial financial agreements for the administration of justice expired over two and a half years ago. The Liberal justice minister has failed to renegotiate these agreements within that period.
I ask the justice minister: What is the status of these agreements? Are they in place and if not, why are they not?
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by my hon. colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka.
When we look at Bill C-110 we are looking at nothing new. We have looked at this kind of approach to the unity question in Canada for the last number of years and it is a failure. If anyone questions the failure of this kind of approach as contained within Bill C-110, all we have to do is look across the floor every question period and see the evidence of that failure which sits 53 strong in this House. For years and years and years we have heard this same kind of approach and it has failed.
One of the most discouraging aspects about this bill is the process. At least two premiers have expressed vehement opposition to it. If the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka believes it is just us Reformers who are trying to split factions and have factions fight against factions, let me quote from the front page of the Globe and Mail . Mr. Roger Gibbins, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, says: This is little short of a constitutional coup d'état by the Prime Minister''. Mr. Philip Resnick, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia, states:The Prime Minister hasn't just got a Quebec crisis on his hands, he may also have an incipient revolt of the western provinces on his hands''.
I would ask the hon. member to consider those comments. We are getting all sorts of comments like that from our western colleagues. Surely there must have been some lessons learned from the Charlottetown accord and the Meech Lake accord. Surely that top down approach in process alone spells doom and failure in terms of acceptance by the people of this country, particularly in the area where I am from.
I ask my hon. colleague if he would respectfully address those areas that we have to deal with in dealing with this bill.
Witness Protection Program Act November 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, as a a new member of the House, having been here only two years, it is always discouraging and dismaying for me to see not only in the House but in committee when the minister, through his parliamentary secretary or through his own directive, indicates what he wants the committee or the House to do, and everyone else on the government side simply follows suit regardless of the impression the amendments make on their own common sense.
It is dismaying for me to hear that the government is not going to support this amendment regardless of the common sense that it makes, regardless of the protection that it might provide in terms of checks and balances for the witnesses who are dragged into this system because of circumstances, perhaps in many cases beyond their own control. The government side is not prepared to honour the checks and balances that would protect the vulnerability of the witness entering into this program.
Let me tell members how vulnerable those people are. They come into the program because their life or the lives of their children may be threatened. They know that unless they abide by the wishes of their handler he or she can have an enormous impact on pulling the protection program out from under them.
What we are asking for in this amendment is simply a degree of accountability on the part of the commissioner who will be administering the program. Having served 14 years with the Mounted Police I know the commissioner never knows anything about things that often happen at the grassroots level because the only channel of communication he has are the reports he reads from people who prepare the reports at the grassroots level.
Consequently there are many things that could happen and are happening to these witnesses according to the testimony we have heard which places them at enormous vulnerability, where their grievances are not met and where they have absolutely no recourse. They ought to have a reasonable degree of recourse through their elected representatives who would review the program on an annual basis with these requirements. What does the commissioner have to provide for in his report to the solicitor general? What is it? Practically anything he wants unless there are some type of guidelines, the type of guidelines provided for in this amendment.
We do not want to know the names or the places of residents or any other factor that would place the witnesses in a vulnerable situation. Absolutely not. That is not the purpose of this amendment. What we want to do is have a degree of accountability in greater depth than a casual report from the commissioner. We see these kinds of reports. They have been submitted to the minister, whether from SIRC or some other statutory requirement.
They simply say what they want to say and withhold whatever information they want simply because there is no statutory requirement to provide that information. This amendment would go a long way to establish a reasonable check and balance on a program that involves innocent people and places them in very vulnerable situations. I support this amendment and I will be supporting the bill.
When we create these sorts of bills we ought to ensure citizens are provided the greatest degree of protection possible and not those who administer the program.
I urge all members to seriously consider and support this bill. It provides the reasonable checks and balances this kind of program ought to have.
Witness Protection Program Act November 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the amendments to Bill C-78. This bill came before the justice committee. As a member of the justice committee I heard witnesses address their concerns about the bill.
One of the concerns I want to address and which this amendment focuses upon is the enormous degree of vulnerability of many of the witnesses who come under the 14 or 15 witness protection programs across Canada. We heard testimony indicating that these witnesses are very vulnerable. For some of them, their lives are in danger. They have received threats yet they want to do the right thing and provide the evidence to ensure that the justice system works and that those who are involved in organized crime and in criminal activities are brought to justice. Some of the testimony we heard from the witnesses raises serious concerns in this area.
I have the brief submitted by Mr. Barry Swadron, a lawyer who acts on behalf of witnesses who have challenged the program because of the violation of what they believe to be the agreement the police forces have made with them. He states: "By the time protected witnesses get to lawyers, it is often to undo harm that could have been avoided had they consulted lawyers earlier. Police officers often discourage about to be protected witnesses from retaining lawyers with respect to proposed arrangements. A number of protected witnesses have been advised by police authorities that a lawyer will not be able to help them. We have been told that police officers pressure witnesses not to consult a lawyer. Indeed the negative pressure has on occasion been prohibition". He concludes by stating that this is reprehensible.
The committee heard testimony on this bill indicating that the agreements witnesses enter into in many cases are not upheld. They are not provided with the protection. They are not provided with the benefits they need. This new bill was scrutinized by those witnesses to determine whether or not there were checks and balances to ensure that they had recourse should their handlers not fulfil their end of the agreement.
Mr. Swadron goes on to say in his brief: "Swadron Associates have received dozens of telephone calls from across Canada and beyond from the types of persons described above". He is talking about the protectees. "They are of both sexes, various ages and from many walks of life. A substantial number have become our clients. We advise some. We negotiate on behalf of others. Sometimes we must resort to litigation where police forces are sued in order to obtain the contractual benefits that these protectees have entered into".
He also states: "You would be amazed at the hardships faced by these individuals. They experience the worst type of cultural shock. Not only are they forced to forge new beginnings in strange surroundings, but also to erase their much more familiar past. The degree of assistance they receive from police authorities varies significantly. Every aspect of daily living that you and I take for granted has for them been inexorably altered. Even attending to basic needs such as arranging accommodation, obtaining health care, getting a driver's licence, opening a bank account, or placing children in schools becomes insurmountable".
When we examined this bill we examined it from many perspectives and points of view. I was most concerned about whether or not the bill provided adequate checks and balances for the very sensitive and vulnerable position many of these witnesses find themselves in.
As I said earlier, many have been threatened. They fear for their lives and those of their spouses and children. They are very susceptible to the manipulation of the handler. Unless the handler is very conscious about the duties and responsibilities that they must discharge to the protectee under the agreement, often the conditions of the agreement are violated. Then the protectee is left in an extremely vulnerable position where they either have to seek their own remedies or seek the support of legal counsel if they wish to pursue what they consider to be benefits that have been withheld from them. As Mr. Swadron says, it creates an enormous problem within the witness protection programs.
Mr. Swadron referred to Bill C-78 as a police protection program rather than a witness protection program. He centred on what was at that time clause 19 of the bill. Clause 19 has been withdrawn and was done so by the government. Of course, we on this side of the House support that withdrawal because what clause 19 provided for was the protection of the RCMP. If the RCMP could simply raise the defence of having acted in good faith, then no protectee could sue the government successfully. That was withdrawn because of some of the concerns which were raised by witnesses and some of the concerns I am raising today and which the amendment to which we are speaking addresses to some extent.
Clause 19 was withdrawn so that if there are areas of culpability in terms of discharging the requirements of any agreement, there is no legal barrier that would interfere with the right of the protectee to seek litigation in order to establish what they consider to be benefits from the agreement.
I am very much in favour of the withdrawal of clause 19 which is no longer in the bill. However, I also have great concern about some of the testimony provided. The commissioner alone has absolute power and authority to determine not only what witnesses enter into the program but the conditions of the agreement as well as the right to rule on any concern a protectee might have.
I support this amendment. It would provide the means whereby individuals can address the minister who can then be held accountable by the elected representatives of the House as to how these contracts are administered. I support the amendment and I will be supporting the bill.
I hope all hon. members will consider the testimony we have heard before the committee and the concerns I have raised with regard to the extreme vulnerability of the witnesses. We must ensure there are reasonable checks and balances within the legislation to protect them from abuse.
Criminal Code November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, what motivates, at least in part, my question to the justice minister is my knowledge of his stand on Bill C-226 when it came before the House.
I say to the justice minister that Darrel Crook, the convicted murderer of RCMP Constable Brian King, is appealing his parole ineligibility for first degree murder this February.
Will the minister put a stop to the further torment of Brian King's widow or will he subject her to reliving the brutal death of her husband one more time? Will he support the elimination of section 745 from the Criminal Code? Will he tell us of his intention today?
Criminal Code November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, victims groups, the police, the Reform Party and a majority of the Liberal caucus want the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code, which allows first degree murderers to appeal their sentence after serving only 15 years of a life term.
I ask the Minister of Justice, will he support the removal of this unacceptable provision by ensuring that Bill C-226 is brought before the standing committee before this session of Parliament ends?
Gun Control November 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have us believe that the provincial governments do not have any consideration for the safety of their communities and their streets and that only the federal government can see that kind of safety within the bill.
The federal-provincial financial agreements for the administration of gun control programs expired on March 31, 1993. I ask the government, what is the status of these financial negotiations with the provinces? Have these agreements been renewed and if not, why not?