House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.
Justice June 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, during an investigation, Canadian police forces may request information from foreign authorities. The Department of Justice is then responsible for forwarding these inquiries to the foreign authorities.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell us whether it is standard procedure within his department to send letters to foreign authorities containing clear accusations against a Canadian citizen, when his department has no proof of that individual's guilt?
Regional Development June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, $1 million is almost a joke. Why is the minister saying he is giving $1 million, considering the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency did not hesitate to grant a $7.5 million fund to make up for the closing of the Cornwallis base, in Nova Scotia?
Regional Development June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec.
On several occasions, the City of Saint-Hubert made representations to the minister, including one for the obtention of a fund to promote and maintain employment in the region. We now know that the closing of the land force command headquarters and of the other facilities in Saint-Hubert will result in the loss of 1,400 jobs.
Can the minister tell the House if his government intends to provide a fund to promote and maintain employment in the region, to make up for the negative impact of this closure?
Airbus Planes June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Justice explain his allowing a letter to the Swiss authorities on the Airbus affair to go out over the signature of Ms. Kimberly Prost, a senior official in the department for which he is responsible, without a check of all of the pertinent information concerning this matter?
Airbus Planes June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
A few days after he assumed his duties, the Minister of Justice met with RCMP investigators in order to provide them with information concerning Swiss bank accounts connected to the Conservative Party. This morning, the minister has denied being behind the Airbus purchase investigation.
Can the minister tell us, if it was not he, who within his department or the government is behind that investigation?
Justice May 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, such a serious error by a senior public servant demands quick action on the part of the government.
Is the minister prepared to table the report of the inquiry sought by his department by the end of the present session and not in the summer when no one is here?
Justice May 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, in responding to a question in the House, he refused to say whether he would make public the report on the inquiry sought by his department on the assistant deputy attorney general's interference with the chief justice of the federal court. The minister agreed to make public only the action he would be taking at the end of the inquiry.
Why is the minister refusing to make public the complete report of the inquiry by Mr. Dubin on such a serious case of undue interference in the legal system?
Criminal Code May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to this bill. Essentially, what the member for Scarborough West is attempting to do with this bill is prevent a person convicted of a crime from benefiting from the crime through a book, a video or some other work. It would be inconsistent to condemn an act and yet allow someone to benefit from it. I therefore support the intent of this bill, which is to correct an uncommon situation, but one we saw recently in the Olson case and which could arise again at any time.
It is indeed fairly rare that a person who has committed a crime has the gall to display it in the full light of day in a video or a book. However, since the law currently contains no provision against such behaviour, there is a gap to be filled, and this is what the member for Scarborough West is proposing.
Our role as members of this House is to propose or support measures intended to bring our laws into line with reality. When a member sees a gap and takes the initiative to introduce legislation to correct the matter, we must put aside our differences and vote in favour of his bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, in his speech on May 15, applauded the motives that led the member to want to amend the law to prevent criminals from writing the story of their crime or threatening to do so in exchange for money.
He went on to say, and I quote: "The very idea that a criminal who has committed a violent act or a series of violent acts, such as in the Bernardo case, could actually benefit financially from the recounting of his or her criminal acts is extremely offensive to many. If the victims of those crimes are made to be subject to those accounts, are they not being victimized again?" He added: "It is therefore something which I believe should be addressed and I commend my colleague for attempting to do so through this bill".
However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is against this bill because it would unduly limit freedom of expression in a free and democratic society, as stipulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In our opinion, we can answer this by saying that section 1 of the charter allows for the restriction of certain rights within reasonable limits that can be justified in a free and democratic society. It is under section 1 that courts can justify random vehicle searches to check the drivers' blood alcohol level.
Section 163 of the Criminal Code prohibits the publication of something obscene or a crime comic. The Supreme Court recognized that this violation of the freedom of expression was justifiable.
While it is true that the bill before us restricts freedom of expression by depriving a person of copyright royalties, there is a rational link between this restriction and the widespread disapproval generated by the release of a video or a book by an offender. This bill seeks, among other things, to protect the privacy of witnesses and victims, so as to encourage them to report a crime and to testify before the courts.
We feel that such an objective justifies restricting the freedom of expression of an offender. Many measures seeking to protect witnesses actually violate certain basic guarantees, but are deemed acceptable by the courts, including provisions allowing witnesses to testify outside the courts or in camera. Even the right of the accused to cross-examine a witness can be restricted in order to protect the victim. In certain situations, the court can also ban the publication of any information that could lead to the identification of the plaintiff or a witness. As you can see, the Criminal Code already provides for several restrictions on freedom of speech in order to protect the witnesses. The restriction proposed in this bill seems to have a similar intent, in my opinion.
The parliamentary secretary has also opposed this bill because this matter is under provincial jurisdiction, dealing as it does with civil rights, specifically the right to write a book and make a profit from it. I can understand this objection, but the intent of the bill is not to regulate artistic creation, but to preserve the anonymity of witnesses in criminal proceedings and deter crime. To the extent that the objective sought is obviously within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, it can decree all the ancillary provisions necessary to ensure that its legislation is effective and complete.
That is precisely what this bill does, and I will therefore vote in favour, despite the fact that the member for Scarborough West objected to my witness protection bill. I have tried not to be influenced by this in my comments today, and especially in my analysis of his bill.
Finally, one final argument raised by the parliamentary secretary in opposition to this bill runs along the lines that the creation of a work by the author of a crime cannot be added to the list of proceeds of crime, since the simple fact of writing a book is not, in itself, a criminal act, even if this book is a recitation of criminal activities for which the author has been sentenced. In this regard, I do not share the view of the parliamentary secretary. I do not see why the definition of "proceeds of crime" would not include money arising from the publication of a work describing a crime. The advantage of using this definition is that the product of the publication can be seized and confiscated.
This is therefore an entirely appropriate technique in order to put some teeth into this legislation, which is an improvement to the Criminal Code.
[English]
Justice May 30th, 1996
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that anyone can file a complaint with the judicial council, but the difference is that, when the complaint comes from the Minister of Justice of Canada, the council has to initiate an inquiry. That makes quite a difference.
I would like the minister to tell us why he is still refusing to file a complaint, in his capacity as justice minister, against the chief justice of the federal court. Could it be that he is afraid of having to appear before the board of inquiry? Does he have a guilty conscience?
Justice May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In a ministerial statement yesterday, the Minister of Justice indicated that he was responsible for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the justice system. Yet the minister refused to order an inquiry into the actions of the two federal court judges who have violated their duty to remain neutral and impartial. His inaction has now prompted the judicial council to open an inquiry into the actions of Justices Isaac and Jerome.
Why did the Minister of Justice skirt his responsibilities under the Judges Act and not order himself an inquiry into this serious matter calling into question the impartiality of the chief justice of the federal court?