Paul MacKlin

[Canadian Flag, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue, one that involves freedom of expression and dignity. It is one of our important national symbols. In other words, it is a debate over values.

The motion proposes that a legislative committee of the House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

This issue has been addressed in this Chamber recently. As the government has previously indicated on those occasions and as my fellow parliamentarians would agree, this issue deeply touches all Canadians. Our Canadian flag symbolizes democracy, freedom, liberty and Canadian unity. The Canadian flag and all it represents must remain as it always has, the pride of all Canadians.

While debating the issue before us, it is imperative that we consider the principles that should guide the elaboration of criminal law. In policy terms we must remember that criminal law in a free and democratic society such as Canada must be reserved for wrongful acts that seriously threaten the fundamental values of our society.

Let us ask ourselves what values do we wish to protect? It is well understood that the actions that the committee would look into prohibiting would amount to the expression of a political opinion by act or gesture. As troubling as these acts may be to some and perhaps to most of us as Canadians, there are other fundamental values that need to be protected which indeed our flag also represents.

Canadians are proud to be a tolerant and civilized people. We value our diversity of culture, religion and belief. We have accordingly incorporated into our constitution the fundamental principles of this wonderful country. These are some of the values that our flag represents.

Let us recall the words spoken by the hon. Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate, in February 1965 during the ceremony inaugurating the new flag, which was held on Parliament Hill before parliamentarians and thousands of Canadians.

Before the charter, before the issue of desecration of a flag was ever considered and on knowing of the issue that would one day arise before us, he rightly stated:

The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion.

The acts contemplated by this motion simply do not amount to actions that require a criminal sanction. We must keep in mind that expressions, judged distasteful by the majority, are not in and of themselves a basis for restricting free expression in a free and democratic society.

In short, criminalizing these acts would go against the fundamental values for which our nation flag stands. That is, representing Canadians without distinction as to belief or opinion.

I propose that what really upsets us the most is the message conveyed by that act. The reality is that the message transmitted, usually disagreement with government policy, is disturbing. We must understand that however disturbing this message may be, putting limits on the expression of political opinion is nothing to take lightly. We cannot justify criminalizing an act because we do not like the message it conveys. That is not the Canadian way.

It is noteworthy that other countries have also refrained from criminalizing the desecration of their flag, countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although the United States has attempted in the past to do so, the legislation was judged to be unconstitutional. In Canada it would be very likely that such legislation would not survive a charter challenge.

Freedom of expression is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and flag burning is recognized as a form of political expression.

I share the views of a vast majority Canadians that desecrating our national flag is truly an offensive behaviour. Those who commit such acts do nothing to forward their cause. However, while it is objectionable behaviour, because it is a form of political expression, it is protected by the charter and cannot be criminalized.

[Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the second reading debate on Bill S-41, an act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language.

The bill is necessary to resolve any uncertainty with respect to the constitutional validity of certain instruments of a legislative nature such as regulations and orders in council that are still in force today but, at another time, may have escaped bilingual enactment and promulgation.

From time to time doubts have been raised about the constitutional validity of some regulations. The bill would dispel any such doubts and ensure compliance with the language guarantees of the constitution. Perhaps just as significantly the bill would demonstrate and strengthen respect for the equality of status of both official languages in all federal legislation.

Parliament has a duty, both legal and constitutional, to ensure compliance with the language provisions, which were written into our constitution in 1867, and later supplemented by the official languages acts of 1969 and of 1988, as well as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982.

In its third report tabled in parliament on October 30, 1996, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations expressed the view that some federal regulations made in the past by the governor in council were unconstitutional and of no force and effect because they had been made only in one official language.

The bill would correct any potential constitutional defect arising from regulations and orders in council made only in one official language but published in the Canada Gazette in French and English. Such legislative instruments would be automatically and retroactively re-enacted in both languages.

In effect the bill would replace by general reference, without amendment, all regulations and other instruments of a legislative nature for which English and French versions have been published in the Canada Gazette by giving the published versions legal authority and retroactive effect.

This legislative technique does not require that reference be made to each instrument or that each by physically re-made by the regulatory authority. It is an efficient, cost effective and legally appropriate solution to the situation identified by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

The bill would be given retroactive effect pursuant to the widely recognized powers of parliament . This is required to ensure that everything done in the past in reliance upon federal legislative instruments is validated. This is only right. Persons who have had notice of the existence of the legislative instruments at issue and have consequently arranged their affairs should be confident in the legal validity of their actions.

The bill makes provision for the possibility that some legislative instruments may also have been made in one official language only and published in that language only or not published at all. The governor in council would be given authority to re-enact such instruments and to give them retroactive effect.

I wish to reassure the House that the bill is required only for greater certainty. The government is confident its legislative instruments are valid. The validity of a proclamation published in English and French but made in English only in 1921 was challenged in the lower courts several years ago. There are currently no court cases in which the validity of such instruments is challenged. However, the risk that such arguments could be raised does exist and the government has the duty to address it.

I commend the bill to the House for consideration and passage. The bill is about respect for the equality of status of English and French. The bill would provide for greater certainty and ensure that all acts of parliament and government regulations respect the constitutional language requirements. The bill would ensure the continued application of the rule of law.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), introduced by the hon. member for Surrey Central.

The bill relates to the critical role that parliamentarians have to oversee the exercise of delegated legislative powers. For the past 30 years the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has performed an invaluable service to the House and the Senate, as well as to the Canadian public generally in its review of statutory instruments made under acts of parliament.

In 1986 the role of the standing joint committee was augmented by the addition of chapter 14 to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. This chapter provides what are often called disallowance procedures for the revocation of statutory instruments. These procedures involve the tabling of a report by the standing joint committee containing a resolution that a statutory instrument be revoked. If the resolution is adopted it becomes an order of the House to the government to revoke the statutory instrument in question.

To date, these disallowance procedures have been used to adopt a total of eight resolutions. The disallowance procedures of the standing orders process have worked well. The government has complied or is preparing to comply with all of the resolutions that have been adopted by the House.

Today we are being asked to consider a bill that would significantly extend the existing provisions for the parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation. It would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to include disallowance procedures similar to those that already exist in the Standing Orders of the House Commons.

However, there are some important differences between the current disallowance procedures and those proposed in the bill. The first is that the bill proposes to move beyond the traditional role of holding the government accountable to the House. It proposes that the House revoke statutory instruments itself. Another difference is that the proposed procedures would extend to all statutory instruments and not just to those made by the government, as is the case with the procedures in the standing orders.

Although I firmly support the procedures in the standing orders I have serious concerns about the bill. I would like to highlight these concerns by discussing the differences I have noted between the bill and the disallowance procedures in the standing orders. As I mentioned, the procedures in the bill provide that a resolution of the House would be effective to revoke a statutory instrument.

Under the existing procedures in the standing orders it is up to the government to decide whether and when to revoke a statutory instrument in response to a resolution. This might be described as a fail safe mechanism, which would be lost under the proposed provisions of Bill C-202. The fail safe mechanism allows the government to safeguard against gaps in the law that might result from the revocation of a statutory instrument and that might have unforeseen consequences.

This safeguard is particularly valuable when flexibility is necessary to give the government time to consider the implications of a disallowance report. A fail safe mechanism also helps to avoid gaps in the law.

Often there is a need for some regulatory measures and if the disallowed measures are not appropriate then alternative provisions are needed to replace them. The development of alternative provisions usually requires significant capacity to develop regulatory policy as well as familiarity with the regulated community.

This requires technical expertise and a consultative process that the government is generally in the best position to provide. This is recognized by the fact that parliament has delegated to the government the regulatory powers in question.

Another concern is that the bill would extend existing disallowance procedures to non-ministerial regulations. The bill provides that disallowance procedures would apply to any statutory instrument. This includes a vast number of documents, many of which are made by bodies that operate independently of government. Examples include administrative agencies such as the CRTC and the Canadian Transport Commission; the courts that make rules of procedure; aboriginal law-making bodies such as Indian bands; agricultural marketing boards; and local port authorities.

Although current disallowance procedures are appropriate for regulations made by ministers of the crown, it is not at all clear that they would be appropriate for the wide variety of other law-making bodies that make statutory instruments. The extension of disallowance procedures to instruments made by these bodies could raise the prospect of inappropriate parliamentary involvement in the affairs of bodies recognized as requiring a degree of autonomy in conducting their affairs.

The bill raises other concerns in addition to the two I have discussed. First, it would enshrine a parliamentary process in legislation. This would be a significant precedent which could invite court challenges to the business of the House.

Second, statutory disallowance powers that apply generally to all forms of delegated legislation are exceptional in Canada and parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom. Although statutory procedures are sometimes enacted for particular regulations, such general powers are not usual in these jurisdictions.

Third, the proposed procedure would not include a role for the Senate in the disallowance resolution. Although the Senate is represented on the standing joint committee it would have no role in approving disallowance resolutions. Some may argue that this presents no difficulties since the procedures operate through the political accountability of the government to the House. However under Bill C-202 the procedures would operate directly and automatically by force of statute. This could raise objections from senators about being excluded from decisions made under a statute the Senate helped enact.

The government is committed to ensuring parliamentarians have an effective role in overseeing the exercise of delegated legislative powers. In addition to implementing resolutions under the existing disallowance procedures in the standing orders the Minister of Justice, like his cabinet colleagues, is committed to addressing concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and making sure officials of their departments take the concerns every bit as seriously as they do.

I remind all members that the government always welcomes suggestions on how the working relationship between parliamentarians and the government can be improved.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition from many individuals in the Port Hope area within my constituency.

The petitioners are very concerned about VIA Rail and the ceasing of service to a number of Ontario commuter stops. They encourage the House to continue the service going into Port Hope.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that the member has stated before the House that the data he used in most of his intervention was really based on July 2001. The statistics that I referred to are statistics that are up to date and represent great improvements that we have made within the system.

The hon. member represents a party that has done everything possible within the House to stop the streamlining of this process and the making of this process more efficient. This was by the stalling and filibustering on Bill C-15B which finally forced the government to enter into time allocation to effectively bring it to a conclusion and advance it to the other place.

We are very pleased that we have now done so. It is now in the other place and we will see more benefits accruing to the legitimate firearms owners in Canada through that streamlining process. We look forward to having many registrations that will go through without error.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on the firearm registration process and to reinforce the government's commitment to public safety. We have become accustomed to the hon. member's frequent allegations about this public safety initiative and I intend to respond to this one as we have with all others.

The hon. member is alleging that the firearms registry is of limited use to the police. Let us first be clear that this public safety program is much more than a gun registry. It is a multi-facetted, practical approach that addresses the prevention of firearm death, injury and crime deterrence. That is why Canada's law enforcement community recognizes and supports the firearms program as an important public safety initiative.

In its testimony on Bill C-15B we heard the law enforcement community reaffirm its support for this program and its essential crime fighting tools. The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outlined the significant public benefits available through this program, which combines the screening of the applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crime in Canada.

Regarding the questions of the hon. member about errors in the system, I want to emphasize that errors reported to the Canadian Firearms Centre to date represent a tiny fraction of the firearm documents that have been issued.

As recently as April 27 of this year, 99% of the firearms in the Canadian Firearms Registry system were correctly registered according to identification and classification as required under law. Also, 99% of the licences were correctly issued to the right person living at the address stated with the appropriate privilege and safety training. There may be a small number of entry errors for which we have no statistics but when these are reported, they are dealt with promptly in co-ordination with the client. Firearms owners should verify the information on their firearm documents and contact us immediately at 1-800-731-4000 to report any anomalies and have the situation rectified.

There are currently 2.1 million individuals in the firearms database and firearms owners have been sending in their registration applications in unprecedented numbers. As with any other high volume operation, it is only natural to expect a small degree of entry error. That is why we remain vigilant and have recently made some improvements to further minimize the potential for error.

Over the past few months, the Canadian firearms program has completely restructured the registration process and implemented rigorous measures to ensure the integrity of the information. When the personalized registration application is returned for processing, the form is scanned including the bar code that identifies the licence holder. Manual data entry is eliminated which minimizes the potential for error.

Unquestionably, this program has been beneficial to the Canadian community at large. We believe it is an excellent program and it is working well. We believe that the errors that the member refers to are errors of at least a year ago.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as does occur at times in the House, obviously there is some discrepancy as to the way people view various statistics. Clearly the hon. member chooses not to accept the statistics I brought forward. That is his choice.

Quite frankly, the most recent statistics indicate that as of May 4 of this year we now have over 3,871,000 firearms registered. There is no question that there will be some degree of error within that registration process, but I think the hon. member does tend to exaggerate the ultimate errors within the system.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for the opportunity to again remind parliament and indeed all Canadians about the public safety benefits of the Canadian firearms program.

I am pleased to report that our practical approach to gun safety is already helping to cut down on firearm related crime in the country. The program does this by keeping firearms from people who should not have them and by encouraging legitimate owners to handle their firearms safely and responsibly. These important goals are being achieved in part through the licensing of firearms owners and the registration of their firearms.

The first phase of the program was the licensing of the firearm owners. As members know, they had to apply for a firearms licence by January 1, 2001. We are currently wrapping up the second phase of the registration of firearms. An overwhelming majority of Canadian firearms owners will have a licence and will have their guns registered well before the December 31 deadline.

This is the result of the approach that the Canadian Firearms Centre has taken. We applied the lessons we learned in the licensing phase of the program to registration. We have focused on making registration as simple as possible.

For example, the Canadian Firearms Centre sent personalized registration forms to every licensed firearms owner in Canada. Every owner had an opportunity to register his or her firearms free of charge. We also made it possible for them to register online. More than 100,000 Canadian firearms owners have done just that.

Regarding the hon. member's question on the errors in the system, I want to emphasize that the errors reported to the Canadian Firearms Centre to date represent a tiny fraction of the firearms documents that have been issued. As recently as April 27, 2002, 99% of the firearms in the Canadian firearms registry system were correctly registered according to identification and classification, as required under the law. Also, 99% of the licences were correctly issued to the right person, living at the address stated, with the appropriate privilege and safety training.

There may also be a small number of entry errors for which we have no statistics, but when these are reported they are dealt with promptly in co-ordination with the client. Firearms owners should verify the information on the firearms documents and contact us immediately at 1-800-731-4000 to report any anomalies and have the situation rectified.

There are currently 2.1 million individuals in the firearms database and firearms owners have been sending in their registration applications in unprecedented numbers. As with any other high volume operation, it is only natural to expect a small degree of entry error. That is why we remain vigilant and have recently made some improvements to further minimize the potential for error.

Over the past few months, the Canadian firearms program has completely restructured the registration process and implemented rigorous measures to ensure the integrity of the information. When the personalized registration application is returned for processing, the form is scanned, including the bar code that identifies the licensee. Manual data entry is eliminated, which minimizes the potential for error.

At the request of the firearms community, and I want to emphasize that, the firearms registration certificate does not carry the licensee's name to ensure privacy and public safety. The number on the registration certificate provides, when required, an electronic link to the owner of the firearm. This avoids disclosing the location of firearms should anyone other than the legitimate owner come into possession of the registration certificate.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I reviewed Hansard . As a matter of fact I was present in the House at least on one of the days on which the question was raised. It seemed to me the question indicated that maybe not enough expenses had actually been claimed. In fact there were questions raised, as has just been raised again, as to why there were not other expenses declared.

As I have already said, the minister takes his responsibility seriously. He has accounted for public funds in an open and positive way, the way which has been defined both by the treasury board rules and by the Prime Minister's directive. There has been a full and complete disclosure by the minister.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member opposite with care and I find it a bit baffling. While it is a complex issue, perhaps I could just distill the essential elements for him.

Earlier this spring treasury board clarified its guidelines with respect to the release of personal information requested under the Access to Information Act as it concerns ministers and their exempt staff. Names and expenses can be released. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his ministers and their exempt staff should consent to the release of their expenses when it relates to the expenditure of public funds.

The Minister of Industry has always stated that his office complied with both the spirit and the letter of whatever guidelines were in place.

Let me now turn to the specifics of the member's original question.

Given the short explanation I have just given, members can conclude for themselves that the disclosure made by the minister's office complied fully with treasury board guidelines as well as with the Prime Minister's directive with respect to the disclosure of expenses. In fact the Minister of Industry himself has confirmed this on numerous occasions as was mentioned by the hon. member.

I know that the minister takes his responsibility to account for public funds very seriously. He has explained many times that any expenses submitted for reimbursement at the public expense were incurred on government business and that any expenses not related to government business were not claimed.

All expenses incurred on public business were claimed and the information has been produced. Clearly, the minister and his office have been quite forthcoming.