Paul MacKlin

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the private member's bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant. The purpose of Bill C-330, an act to amend the criminal code concerning the desecration of the Canadian flag, is to make it a criminal offence to desecrate the national flag of Canada.

As my fellow parliamentarians would agree, the issue deeply touches all Canadians. Our Canadian flag symbolizes democracy, freedom, liberty and Canadian unity. The Canadian flag and all it represents must remain the pride of all Canadians as it always has.

To better understand the issue before us it is important to recall the beginning of our national flag, as others have this evening. The idea of a new flag was born as early as 1925 when a committee of the privy council researched possible designs for a new Canadian flag. Unfortunately the project was never completed.

The issue came up again in 1946 when an appointed parliamentary committee requested submissions for a new flag and received a noteworthy 2,600 submissions. Parliament did not formally vote on a design at the time.

It was during the fall of 1964 that the search for a national flag began which led to the present design. It came to be thanks to Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson who wanted a distinctive national flag to promote unity. John Matheson provided the conceptual framework. Dr. George Stanley provided the concept for the flag that is now seen across the country.

Although the significance of our national flag has occupied discussions on various occasions, the words that best describe our flag were spoken by the hon. Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate in 1965, during the inauguration ceremony held on Parliament Hill before parliamentarians and thousands of Canadians. Unknowing of the issue that would one day rise before us, he rightly stated:

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

It is to the last item that I draw the House's attention. We are all troubled when a symbol of our great country is mistreated. Burning, defacing, defiling, mutilating, trampling or otherwise desecrating a nation's flag will arouse the anger of all Canadians. However the question that arises is whether the acts, offensive as they may be, are sufficient to justify creating an offence under our criminal law.

Canadians are proud to be a tolerant and respectable people. We value our diversity of culture, religion and belief. We have incorporated into our constitution and legal system the fundamental principles of this wonderful country. One of these, derived from the value of tolerance, is freedom of expression.

It is well understood in our country that the actions Bill C-330 would prohibit amount to little more than an expression of political opinion. As troubling as they may be to some and perhaps most Canadians they are not deemed a criminal offence. If the government were to prohibit such actions against our national flag what other symbol of our nation should be so protected? Would the maple leaf be next? Where would we draw the line?

Other jurisdictions have attempted to deal with issues of this nature. Countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States have refrained from criminalizing the desecration of their flags. Attempts were made to do so but the legislation was deemed unconstitutional.

[Criminal Code, March 14th, 2002]

Madam speaker, I am pleased to respond to Motion No. 376 introduced by the hon. member for Surrey Central. The motion proposes to amend the criminal code to expand the definition of first degree murder to include the death of a firefighter who is killed while combating a fire that was deliberately set, and to amend the provision that deals with arson by adding language that addresses the death or injury of a firefighter.

I agree with my colleague that firefighters play a crucial role in the protection of human lives and property in Canada. I recognize that firefighting is an extremely hazardous occupation and like all Canadians I am grateful for their bravery and commitment to public service.

The first of these two amendments would expand the definition of first degree murder in subsection 231(4) to include the death of a firefighter killed when combating a fire set by an act of arson. Where a peace officer or prison official is murdered while acting in the course of his or her duties, subsection 231(4) increases the offence of murder to first degree murder irrespective of whether the murder was planned and deliberate. The amendment seeks to extend this protection to firefighters.

The government is committed to protecting firefighters from dangers associated with arson. However we do not believe that the proposed amendments are constitutionally possible. The supreme court has found that there is a constitutional requirement that for an individual to be found guilty of murder, he or she must have formed a subjective intent to kill prior to committing the act.

Murder is either first degree murder or second degree murder. In most circumstances first degree murder is when it is planned and deliberate. However when a police officer or prison official is murdered in the course of his or her duties, the offence becomes first degree murder regardless of whether it was planned or deliberate.

It should be noted that subsection 231(4) does not give special protection to police officers or prison guards who are killed while in the course of their duties. It addresses the situation of a police officer or prison guard who is murdered.

It is inappropriate to expand the definition of first degree murder in subsection 231(4) to include firefighters who are killed while combating a fire set by arson because in such a crime there is not normally the requisite intent to kill a firefighter for the offence to be murder. The death of a firefighter in such a situation would be covered by the charge of manslaughter where the mental element requirement is the objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory, or by the charge of arson causing bodily harm.

However if a fire were planned and set with the intent to kill a firefighter, then it would be first degree murder because by its very nature the act of setting a fire to kill a firefighter is planned and deliberate. As such a firefighter who is the target of a direct intention to kill is protected by the criminal code to the same degree as a peace officer or prison official.

Let me emphasize that in no way does the government believe that firefighters are less worthy of protection than peace officers or prison officials. For example, if a police officer were killed while attempting to save an individual trapped in a fire that had been set deliberately, the charge would not fall under subsection 231(4). Likewise if we take the example of a situation in which a police officer is killed in a high speed chase, the offence would not be murder because there was no intent to kill. A person is not charged under subsection 231(4) solely because a police officer has been killed. There must be both an intent to kill and the knowledge that the person killed was a police officer.

The motion also calls on the government to amend section 433 of the criminal code dealing with the crime of arson by adding language that addresses the death or injury of a firefighter engaged in combating a fire or explosion that is deliberately set. This provision already carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment should any person be harmed by a fire that was deliberately set and of course extends to firefighters.

In 1990 parliament responded to the concerns of firefighters in regard to arson by making several amendments to the criminal code. The focus of the law shifted from crimes against property to the danger that arson poses to the life, safety and property of all Canadians and in particular to firefighters. In addition the maximum penalty for bodily harm suffered from arson was raised from five years to life imprisonment.

We cannot support the motion for the reasons that I have outlined in my remarks. The government, like the hon. member for Surrey Central, is concerned about the safety of firefighters and is grateful for their bravery and commitment to public service.

[Verbal Abuse Prevention Week Act, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-414 is designed to raise awareness of the negative consequences of verbal abuse in our communities, schools and workplaces. The bill would designate the first week of October in every year as verbal abuse prevention week throughout Canada.

I commend the hon. member for his dedication and insight in bringing this important issue before the House. I know I share the view of many in the House in thanking him for his role and contribution and for bringing an issue to the forefront today which is all too often ignored.

Canadians should be able to live in an environment free from degrading, demeaning and harmful behaviour, an environment where respect and dignity within families, between neighbours and friends, and within society generally is nurtured.

The Government of Canada is supportive of the intent of the bill. I have no doubt that all members support the worthy goal of enhancing awareness of this preventable harm.

Verbal abuse has a profound emotional effect. It can undermine confidence and make individuals reticent to participate fully in our society. It affects families but it also affects our communities throughout Canada. The detrimental effects of verbal abuse are recognized as serious and far reaching.

Verbal abuse is about power. It is usually directed at those who are more vulnerable in our society such as the young, the elderly, persons with mental or physical disabilities, and new immigrants. In short, it is directed at those who are unable to walk away.

Verbal abuse is often an important aspect of an abusive relationship. Not all abusive relationships result in visible scarring. Sometimes the scarring or damage caused by the abuse is internalized by the victims and affects, as we have just heard, their self esteem in significant and long lasting ways. Indeed, statistics show that those who hold the least power and resources in society are most often emotionally abused.

Sometimes verbal abuse is manifested through bigoted statements aimed at members of visible minorities. This kind of verbal abuse has significant effects not just on individuals but on the fabric of Canadian society.

What can the Government of Canada do to address this serious concern? There are legislative measures in place designed to deter the most serious forms of verbal abuse in communities and workplaces. Provisions of the criminal code are aimed at imposing sanctions against those who verbally threaten people with serious harm.

The Canadian Human Rights Act has provisions prohibiting harassment in the workplace on any enumerated ground of discrimination. Part of the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is to promote public education in this area to prevent harassment.

Anger management programs have been developed for both adult and youth offenders. The recently enacted Youth Criminal Justice Act provides front end measures to help young offenders recognize the harm they have done and develop alternate means of handling anger.

However legislation alone is not sufficient. Verbal abuse can take many forms that do not necessarily involve threats of violence or criminal behaviour. Degrading comments such as insults, ridicule and name calling are all behaviour which, although not necessarily criminal, diminish the identity, dignity and self worth of the person to whom they are directed.

It is vital that children be protected as much as possible from all forms of verbal abuse. Children spend much of their daily lives in school settings. An increasing body of research reinforces the contention that bullying manifested through verbal abuse has a profound effect on the social and emotional development of young people.

It often causes fear, distress or harm resulting in victimized children feeling alone at school and unaccepted. They are also more likely to be unhappy and have low self-esteem. Ironically, they are more likely to be bullies themselves.

However, addressing bullying and issues of school safety is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. In many cases they have established their own specific rules programs relating to verbal abuse at school.

In many cases of verbal abuse, the abused remain silent while the abuser continues to repeat and sustain the pattern. If left unchecked, abuse does not get better over time, it only gets worse.

Enhancing awareness of verbal abuse and helping to put an end to it is a goal this government believes is important and must be addressed. Indeed this government and our provincial and territorial partners have a number of strategies in place to reduce the incidence of verbal abuse and to provide some measure of increased protection for those faced with verbal abuse and its effects.

Included in these strategies are initiatives to combat the underlying social conditions that often find expression through verbal abuse. These initiatives range from community and school education campaigns to raise awareness about the nature and harmful consequences of emotional abuse, to programs to promote safety and non-violent ways of behaving in schools, workplaces and communities, to treatment programs and other assistance for those living in an emotionally abusive environment.

Verbal abuse is increasingly being recognized as a form of violence that has potentially devastating consequences for its victims. More can and must be done to reduce the incidence of emotional abuse and to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the long-lasting damage such abuse may cause. Indeed as a responsible government, we want to find the most appropriate way of dealing with the harmful effects that verbal abuse may cause. Enhancing awareness, promoting education and building respect for human dignity will help.

While the government supports the intention of the bill, we believe that the legislative route is perhaps not the most effective method to respond to this problem in our society. Instead, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners and others in finding the best tools and responses to address the harmful effects of verbal abuse.

[Property Rights, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

The Minister of Justice feels strongly about the important role of property rights in our society. Property rights represent one of the fundamental pillars of the legal system and our democratic society. Indeed our legal system is replete with protection for property rights.

However, the Minister of Justice cannot support the motion because it raises some important concerns.

The motion is merely the latest in a series of efforts aimed at amending the Canadian bill of rights and the Constitution Act, 1867 to increase property rights protections. Most recently the issue was raised in this Chamber in 1999 by the same member in the form of Bill C-237 and was afforded considerable debate at that time.

It is very important that before the House assigns additional tasks to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the full schedule and heavy workload currently facing the committee ought to be considered.

As the idea of increasing protection for property rights has been debated on numerous occasions in the past and has repeatedly been rejected, there is no need to use the precious time, energy and resources of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to revisit the issue.

During the discussions and debates preceding the introduction of the charter, a significant amount of time and consideration was given to the idea of including protection for property rights. The idea again surfaced during the lead up to the Charlottetown accord. However, in both cases the notion of entrenching property rights in the charter was strenuously resisted by the provinces as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction and as a restriction on their ability to legislate in areas involving property.

In this regard it should be remembered that section 92(13) of the Constitution Act assigns much of the responsibility for regulating property to the provinces. This is not to say that the federal government cannot legislate in ways that affect property, but its jurisdiction is limited in these respects.

At the federal level for example, we have environmental laws, land use laws, laws providing for the establishment and operation of corporations and the ownership and disposition of shares, laws on banking, laws on bankruptcy and copyright laws. Each of these laws touches in some way on the ownership and use of property. Each of these laws serves an important public purpose. Each of these laws also contains provisions to ensure that people are treated fairly.

Property rights are a fundamental part of our legal system and the law provides in many ways for their recognition. Canadian law contains innumerable protections for property rights, whether in the common law or by statute.

More specifically, the protection afforded to property rights contained in paragraph 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights is one such expression. The section recognizes the right of an individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.

Further, numerous federal statutes contain provisions to ensure fair dealing when property rights are affected, by providing for fair procedures and for fair compensation, that is in shareholder laws, banking laws, criminal laws.

Our common law tradition as well offers significant protection for property rights by virtue of the common law presumption of compensation when someone is deprived of property. This notion forms a fundamental part of our legal system.

On the whole, people in Canada enjoy a very high degree of protection for their property rights under the statutes and common law applicable at the federal level, including the provisions of the Canadian bill of rights. Property rights are ingrained in our laws, whether legislated or judge made.

The ample protection afforded to property rights reflects the value that Canadians place on property rights. The right to own and dispose of property is a basic component to our way of life.

As important as property rights are, as Canadians, we have also recognized that these are not unlimited rights. We have many laws that regulate the ownership and use of property in Canadian society. Municipal laws, environmental laws, laws regulating incorporation and the operation of limited companies, laws regulating the division of family property, succession and estate planning laws and personal property security laws are just some of the myriad of laws that place socially necessary limits on either the ownership or the use of property.

It is difficult to think of laws that do not affect or touch on property in one way or another. When we realize this it becomes incumbent upon us to ensure that protection for property rights is kept in balance with the other values of our society that are reflected in our laws and socially important legislation.

Increasing property rights protections under the bill of rights or the charter would have serious implications for the federal government's ability to legislate and regulate in a wide variety of areas and would have untold implications for federal laws. For example, it could affect everything from federal laws dealing with pollution to shareholder rights to divorce laws making provision for the division of property.

One only has to look at the American experience with constitutional property rights to understand the implications of extending property rights. In the United States property rights have been extended in ways that no one could have anticipated. This has led to huge amounts of litigation and has complicated and burdened the process of law making.

Early on in the history of the United States, important social reforms were struck down by the courts in the name of property rights. I am not saying that this kind of unfortunate judicial intervention would necessarily happen here, but we should be conscious of that possibility.

The protection of property rights is of course an important principle in Canadian society. No one in this Chamber would dispute that. While agreeing with the principle of protecting property rights, we must be cognizant of the impact that an increase in property rights protection would have.

In any event, as I have already indicated, it is very important to remember that our legal system presently and appropriately acknowledges property rights. The concept of property rights is fundamental to our legal system. It is the basis of the operation of our economy. This is reflected in the legal framework that governs our economy. Every day property rights guide our actions in the way we do business.

Contract law, real property law, personal property law and so on are built on the concept of property rights. Indeed our legal system could not function without it. As such, our legal system provides, as a matter of common law that has been built over hundreds of years through court decisions, basic protections for property owners. Hundreds of years of jurisprudence must not be lightly disregarded.

The common law provides basic protections for individuals regarding state action that affects their property. Statute law is also filled with protections for property rights. Whether we are looking at shareholder laws, banking laws, criminal laws or otherwise, these laws contain a wide variety of provisions that are designed to ensure fair dealings with property.

The hon. member's motion would have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine whether our current federal laws are in compliance with our international human rights obligations and in particular, whether they comply with article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

In this regard, it is important to note that the protection for property rights already provided by section 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights guarantees “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of person and the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.

We will continue to support property rights to promote respect for these and all rights of Canadians. However, we cannot support a motion that could result in reopening the question of increased property rights protections that would disrupt the current democratic balance of property rights and other rights, thereby putting into jeopardy social and economic laws and policies that are important to the people of Canada.

[Economic development, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, clearly we have made a great deal of progress. The online process is one way in which an individual can be very certain of getting accurate information recorded by the program.

For the member to suggest that there have been problems in the past is accurate and does reflect the situation of the past, but we are working now with much more efficiencies. We have simplified the forms and have done many things ensure that these errors will not occur. We will do our utmost to improve and continue to work with the program to ensure that all Canadians will feel not only that their information is properly recorded but that it is secure and private.

[Economic development, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on the current status of the registration process and to reinforce the government's commitment to making firearm registration more convenient and client friendly.

The previous minister offered to investigate the matters raised by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville when he originally asked the question almost four months ago. He did not take her up on the offer. On behalf of the government, I would like to restate that offer and extend it to all members of parliament if they have specific concerns.

I would like take the opportunity to outline the Canadian firearms centre's registration initiative. As part of the centre's commitment to client service and efficiency, the mailing of personalized registration forms to firearm owners and a limited time fee waiver has made its way across Canada.

Firearm owners in Atlantic Canada were the first to receive the personalized registration package and fee waiver in September. The package was then sent to licensed firearm owners in Ontario and Quebec in the fall, followed by Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the territories in December. The campaign will wrap up with the end of the fee waiver in Alberta and British Columbia on March 19.

The regional approach facilitates processing by staggering the applications received, ensuring a more timely response and that the quality of client service remains high.

Another new feature is online firearm registration. In response to these initiatives, Canadians are registering their firearms in record numbers. With 10 months left before the deadline, over 1.1 million of the 1.8 million licensed firearm owners, about 62%, have participated in the registration process. This includes more than 100,000 applications submitted over the Internet.

Over the last few months, the Canadian firearms program has completely restructured the registration process and implemented rigorous measures to ensure the integrity of information.

The new personalized registration form is mailed out directly to the licensee. When the 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.

Also within this process, existing quality assurance procedures have been reinforced to ensure that the system captures accurate registration information for the appropriate licensee. The government is committed to ensuring that stringent security and privacy protection are maintained.

When licensees receive their registration certificate, they should ensure the accuracy of the information. If there are discrepancies, individuals should contact the Canadian firearms centre to rectify the situation.

To conclude, recent initiatives to streamline the registration process have increased processing efficiencies and enhanced overall effectiveness. More important, it provides a more user friendly way for Canadians to meet their obligations to register their firearms, and they are registering.

I thank the hon. member for his question and for the opportunity to bring this important initiative back to the House's attention.

[Justice, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for this very important question, for crime prevention is of great concern to all Canadians. The Government of Canada is addressing this with our national strategy on community safety and crime prevention.

Since the launch of this program, we have supported over 2,000 crime prevention projects throughout Canada. We have added just recently, $145 million over four years to the program. By investing in crime prevention, we are ensuring that our homes, streets and communities are better places to live.

[Courts Administration Service Act, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to lead off the debate on third reading of Bill C-30, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.

The principal objective of Bill C-30 is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada through certain structural modifications to these courts. At the same time, these amendments are intended to fully respect the courts' independence and to ensure the continued provision of the high quality of justice that Canadians have a right to expect from these courts.

The bill contains three important structural modifications to the courts. First, the consolidation of the current administrative services of the two, the federal court and the tax court, into a single courts administration service. Second, the creation of a separate Federal Court of Appeal. Third, a change in the status of the tax court to that of a superior court.

The most significant structural modification to the bill is the consolidation of the administrative services of the courts and the establishment of the courts administration service. The service would provide the administrative needs of the federal court, the tax court and the court martial appeal court. This would entail common management of all aspects of administration, including court facilities, registries and related real property and common corporate services.

As hon. members know, our constitution establishes that responsibility and power for courts administration be shared between the judiciary and the government. The government is responsible for providing and is publicly accountable for the necessary resources required to support the courts' functions while chief justices are responsible and accountable for the effective administration of the courts as it relates to the judicial function.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that to ensure the courts' institutional independence the judiciary must control all matters bearing directly on the adjudicative function.

However, delineating the respective authority and accountability of the government and the judiciary is not always a simple task. There is a large operational and policy area in which both government and the judiciary have an interest and a role.

Thus, in addition to the constitutional imperative that any model developed must respect the role of the judiciary and the government in the administration of the courts, the practical realities of this shared responsibility necessitated collaboration between the government and the judiciary in the development of the proposed structure of the courts administrative service.

The bill would establish a structure that would permit both the government and the judiciary, through the office of the courts administration service, with the chief administrator at the head, to collaborate in such a way as to maximize public accountability and judicial independence.

In addition to being supported by the courts affected by the reforms, these reforms will be welcomed by those served by the courts. The establishment of a single administrative structure will enable administrative improvements and efficiencies to be effectively realized while maintaining the high quality of service that Canadians expect from our national institutions.

I am very pleased to report that during the second reading debate, all parties indicated their support for Bill C-30. I would ask all hon. members of the House for their continued support.

The bill represents an unprecedented opportunity to put in place a model for court administration that will balance judicial independence and public accountability as well as create opportunities for realizing economies and efficiencies.

As hon. members are aware, the bill was introduced by the former minister of justice. I am very pleased to carry forward legislation that in my view creates an innovative structure.

I believe that with its appropriate balance between public accountability and the requisite institutional independence of the courts the service will become a model for other jurisdictions.

I thank the hon. members of the House for their attention today and ask for their support in the passage of Bill C-30.

[Research and Technology, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House to pay tribute to the members of my research, innovation and technology advisory committee which just presented me with their final report.

Last January, when I first gathered this group together, I asked them to look at my riding of Northumberland and work with stakeholders to form a vision for the technological future of my riding. It was my feeling that as a rural riding we faced unique challenges in the new economy that needed to be addressed quickly.

The hard work done by all members of this group has had long lasting effects right across my riding. In the coming months I look forward to working with the many stakeholders to implement many of the recommendations in the report.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to chair Susan Hale and the committee members for their great spirit of volunteerism that has lead to this report.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when I express my interest in rural Canada it is a very sincere interest in seeing rural Canada develop. As part of my interest in rural Canada, on the Prime Minister's task force on the future of agriculture in the country I have travelled from coast to coast in the last six months and talked to farmers about their interests in agriculture.

Quite frankly, for the most part their interests in those rural areas have to do not with guns but more to do with how they can seek and maintain a good standard of living. I think that is where we will be putting our efforts and our energy and therefore I am of the belief that this budget will carry us forward to reach that goal.