Alan Tonks

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I have had 25 years of working and serving at the municipal level. Right off the top of my head, I will try and give what I think is an accurate description of the municipal culture.

Municipal culture is close to the people. It is instant. Neighbours talk to their councillors at the supermarket about issues that affect them the most. They are issues on the street and issues related to their neighbourhoods. More and more they are larger issues with respect to transportation, sustainable development, growth strategies, availability of housing, homelessness and so on.

My contention would be that rather than a fixed date that is less, the fixed date should be longer.

There is no party system with respect to the local level of government. I tried to compare it to the presidential system in the U.S. Individuals come with their best intent. They lay out their value system with respect to what they think is best for their city or their township or whatever, and that is the basis upon which decisions are made.

I can only ask the member to compare that to the kind of issues that we deal with, the need for a consensus with respect to our party structure and the role of our committee system that deals with a bureaucracy that shadows and pales beside the bureaucracy that exists at local levels.

I would submit most humbly that this is like comparing apples and oranges. The public understands very well how their local government works. I do not think there is any need to attempt to apply the same fixed date culture concept there. That is far different from what we do in this place.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss in the House the motion for fixed elections. I do appreciate, too, that it is the desire of the opposition, in embracing a fixed election date, to stimulate a debate on what will make our Parliament more effective and responsive to the critical issues of our times. I think both sides of the House share that objective, and in fact a great deal of the discussion with respect to the democratic deficit has generated the kind of debate that we are involved in here.

I would suggest that there are some fallacies with respect to the motion put forward, and some false premises, I might add, that may not have been considered. I would like to put them out for the House to consider from my particular perspective.

First, may I say that the motion for fixed elections purports to introduce more democracy and accountability in the same manner as the motion for proportional representation. We remember that one being put forward.

The premise here is that fixed election dates would reinforce the concept of democracy, the ability for Parliament to remain vigilant and reactive in a dynamic way. If I may just digress for a moment, proportional representation was put forward in the same manner. I would suggest that if we look at proportional representation, we will see that it too was flawed in terms of the premise. I will attempt to trace that through to the fixed election date argument.

We heard that proportional representation would actually weaken traditional parliamentary institutions. Generally what would happen is that proportional representation would disaggregate public opinion. Instead of having a coming together of a consensus on a particular issue, we would probably have many more perspectives put forward. That would lead, in my opinion--and this was not part of the debate at the time--to the creation of special interest parties that would reflect special interest groups. Finally, that in fact would lead to the breaking down of the cohesiveness of Canadian society that in fact is reflected in the party system, through the party system, and is represented in the parliamentary tradition.

I would contend that this motion for fixed election dates, while it is well intended, is an attempt to replicate the presidential system without considering the impact on the parliamentary system. It is doing so by challenging under the rubric, let us say, of challenging executive authority as vested in the Prime Minister.

However, we should reflect for a moment on the differences between a presidential system and the parliamentary system, because if we think that south of the border the system is working so well with fixed election dates, we should keep a few things in mind. First, while there is a fixed term for the president, there are staggered terms of two years for the rest of congress. While they have a fixed election date, there are checks and balances within the presidential system in that the continuity and the responsiveness of congress provide for a dynamic institutional response to issues of the times with a balance of corporate memory in the congress.

While the president is in a fixed term, the congress is in an alternating mode. Therefore, the congress is in fact representing, to some extent, the response to the major economic questions of the time. There is a continuity of issues that have evolved through the term of that president and that congress. With a fixed term, after the term is up of the president, the whole congress and the president could be shifted out the door. There is that check and balance in terms of that responsiveness.

If we think of just that for a moment, if we wanted to achieve the same thing with fixed elections in the parliamentary tradition, would we then say that it would be very important that there be that corporate memory and that there be the stability that would come from the presence in the House of parliamentarians who would be elected on the issues and the vision of how to respond to our times? Would it not then be in keeping, with attempting to trace the comparison with the presidential system, to talk about a staggered term for members of Parliament? Think about that. Would this not be confusing for the electorate? Who do they want within the fixed term of Parliament? Who do they want to support? We would have some parliamentarians across the country who would be elected at different times.

It is important to remember that the prime minister, unlike the president of the United States, is the leader of the party that is in power. That is his or her rather limited executive authority. He or she as prime minister would not enjoy the opportunities for veto. The mechanism that the prime minister has to keep in mind is that he or she has to maintain the confidence of the House, not to the same extent the president obviously would in a presidential system.

I would contend that at any given time it would be difficult under a system with a fixed election date to replicate that kind of authority, the same dynamics and ability, to hold the government to account. If there were that kind of ongoing rotation within the Parliament to try and keep that kind of consistency, people would not really know who the government was. I think that there are problems there.

The other point I would make is about the checks and balances which we wish to maintain through the parliamentary system, rather than weakening the system and making it less responsive. I would contend that it is more responsive to have a term set out, but within that term there are mechanisms whereby the government could be called into account by Parliament for various reasons. Of course the one that we have as our tradition in the Westminster system, the convention, is the vote of non-confidence through the budget or through money allocations.

If we think of this in the changing context of our times, the nature of the issues that have been facing Parliament have made it absolutely necessary for the parliamentary institutions to be more vigilant because more information is in the hands of our pluralistic society, through our interest groups.

I need not refer at great length to the issue that is affecting this Parliament at this very time. It is sparking the whole issue of whether there be an election. It is the sponsorship issue and the challenging with respect to the stewardship of tax moneys.

I would like to rest the case not on those who are totally opposed to reform. I would like to make that clear. Through the action plan that has been outlined in the House, there are members on both sides who wish to see reform. However, I think it is wrong-headed to pursue it from the perspective of a fixed election date alone, as if that would be the grand panacea.

The facts would lead us to the conclusion that within the context of a term, with the nature of financial and taxation issues which are of great question to Canadians, the government has to be vigilant. The government has to put forward its agenda and be prepared to defend it. The stewardship of tax moneys has to be transparent.

In fact there was a time when the auditor general reported once a year, and that was it. There was this huge, voluminous report that was thrown down. There was no role with respect to the committees. There was no role in how to deal with the estimates to the extent that the oversight provisions of committee should be raised. Those issues were not the substance on the agenda of other parliaments.

Here we are talking about those very issues in a more non-partisan way. If we are absolutely determined, as we should be, to be the stewards of the public interest, financial, social, environmental and so on, the issue does not have as much to do with how long we are here. It is how we make the institutions of the parliamentary system work more effectively while we are here.

That is why it would be my humble opinion that the issues related to proportional representation, how we get there and the terms of a fixed election date, comparing perhaps the presidential system or even systems in developing countries or whatever, are really to deflect what the essential issue is, as has been put forward by the Prime Minister and by the opposition side. That is how we can be more effective as parliamentarians, through the institutions of government in the parliamentary system. We can focus primarily on the committee system and from that look at the relationship to the oversight structures, such as the secretariat of Treasury Board, Treasury Board, the office of the Comptroller General, the role of the Auditor General, the role of committees in terms of project and program review and how the system becomes more stimulated and accountable.

Those are the essential issues. I would suggest, as I have said before, that the issue is simply not one of arriving at a fixed date with respect to how long this Parliament will sit.

I put those forward as very quickly responses to the points raised by some of the members who have a sincere desire to make Parliament more accountable. However, a fixed date for elections I just do not think will cut it.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, under other circumstances I am sure the concerns and points raised by the member would have some application, but if the member would look at the record of speeches on second reading, this was one that I particularly was very interested in and I spoke to the bill at that time. I am sure the member will appreciate that not everybody has the opportunity to sit and listen to all the speeches. We have certain aspects that we are interested in responding to.

I was extremely interested in how the bill would in fact fit the circumstances that are evolving with respect to terrorism. I thought I made it quite clear that this framework of legislation would respond and make it, through treaties, better for the international community to mobilize its resources to deal with cross border realities such as those that are related to weapons of, not mass destruction but of great destruction to civil society as we know it.

I do not question what the member has raised in terms of what he thinks is the motivation of the government. I can only respond with respect to my interest in the bill. I am sure there are other members who feel exactly the same way. I would hope that when they do rise to speak to a bill of this nature that they would not be subjected to any unfair commentary that would question their motives.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading of the government's initiative to update the Transfer of Offenders Act.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as it then was, after diligent and detailed consideration as has been pointed out by previous speakers, has returned Bill C-33 for the House's final consideration. These legislative proposals have since been reinstated as Bill C-15. I agree with previous speakers who have noted that there is nothing in the legislation that might delay the passage of the bill.

Bill C-15 is an important and necessary piece of legislation in which we take great pride in helping to fashion it into a final product that will become law. As the name implies, the force of the legislation will be felt far beyond Canada's borders. It provides the international community with yet another example of Canada's progressive criminal justice system which combines the best aspects of correctional practices and the implementation of the law. Bill C-15 would do so by balancing the need on one hand for fair and humane treatment of offenders with on the other hand the need to respect the systems and philosophies of other countries.

The proposed bill maintains most of the purposes and principles of the Transfer of Offenders Act as it was proclaimed back in 1978. However, it should not be surprising to any members that a 25 year old law might well be due for some important changes.

At the outset, I would like to answer a number of questions raised during committee proceedings and asked by hon. members opposite.

The government has been asked if the amendments to the Transfer of Offenders Act violate in any way Canada's sovereignty or bring into disrepute the administration of Canada's justice system. The answer is in the negative. They do not. As a matter of fact, most states wish to cooperate with one another within the parameters of criminal justice. All states prohibit certain conduct and attempt to deter it through the enforcement of criminal laws and penalties.

Modern technology and the ability to travel very quickly have increased the opportunities for the commission of crimes in countries other than one's own. Numerous examples of that have occurred in the last few weeks.

States have a common interest in working together to prevent and respond to criminal conduct that transgresses and transcends those boundaries. Such cooperation actually protects the sovereignty of states by preventing offenders from escaping the justice systems. This is exactly what the transfer of offenders scheme allows states to do by allowing for the transfer of offenders and the enforcement of the foreign sentence by the receiving state.

One of my colleagues has described how the bill deals with differences in the severity of sentences. In brief, if a foreign sentence by its nature or duration is incompatible with the law of Canada, the sentence must be adapted to the sentence prescribed by Canadian law for a similar offence. For example, a foreign court may hand down a custodial sentence of 10 years for common assault. In order to be enforced here in Canada, the foreign sentence would be adapted to the maximum custodial sentence of five years for assault provided by the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-15 would reflect the standard treaty of provision of adaptation of foreign sentences to meet the parameters of Canadian legal requirements.

Finally, how will Canada deal with a different system of offences where the offence is not recognized under Canadian law? The answer is somewhat technical.

Bill C-15 sets out what is known as the rule of dual criminality. This rule is satisfied when an act is criminal in one state and has the same general qualification in another. This is a rule of customary international law and a requirement of most treaties signed by Canada, because the enforcement of a foreign sanction for an offence that does not exist in Canada, such as adultery, could violate essential constitutional principles or even contravene protected fundamental human rights. Bill C-15 sets out the concept and principles of dual criminality as a condition of transfer.

Having said that, Bill C-15 provides that the rule of dual criminality does not apply to the transfer of children. That was the intent of the question that I asked the previous speaker. Although a child may have been convicted of an offence for which there is no equivalent in Canada, this will not preclude his or her transfer to Canada.

Let me add that Bill C-15 provides that children are not incarcerated when they are transferred to Canada. They are remitted to their legal guardian and the child welfare system will provide the framework within which their particular needs will be met.

Providing necessary continuity, the new international transfer of offenders act will continue to provide for the implementation of treaties with other countries for the international transfer of offenders.

The purpose of the act and the treaties signed between Canada and foreign states could be generally described as essentially humanitarian. Canadians convicted and detained abroad in difficult conditions may be allowed to serve their sentences at home and foreign nationals may be returned to their home country. In the case of returning Canadians, the treaties promote public protection, as offenders are allowed to serve their sentences in Canada and to be gradually released into the community according to the legal restrictions that are applied through the criminal justice system. Otherwise they would simply be deported from the country where they were convicted of an offence, however serious, at the end of their sentences and would arrive in Canada with no controls being put upon them whatsoever.

At the same time, as has been mentioned, the treaties in all cases respect foreign sentences. Countries that send offenders back to Canada are assured that the sentences determined by their courts will be enforced by the Canadian criminal justice system. Let us make it clear that offenders who are returned to Canadian institutions will not be coddled. Other nations recognize this and agree with the condition that will be imposed and implemented through this treaty, that the terms of transfer before the offender is moved will be agreed upon.

The Transfer of Offenders Act as it stands continues to serve useful purposes. We are here today to bring it up to date. The world has changed; to say that would be an understatement. The style and content of international treaties must change to keep up with these circumstances.

There are the obvious changes brought about by the birth of new nations and the rebirth of others. We need only look today at the expansion of the European Union by 10 nations to know that the map of the world is in a state of change itself. Many of these are also nations that have become independent of former allegiances, thereby growing more attuned to democracy and a concern for human rights.

These countries have a need to express these transformations internationally. What better way to extend our hands across cultural divides than by getting together to negotiate meaningful treaties, in particular within the criminal justice realities that we all face. This is the essence of international co-operation. I would suggest that within the context of international terror and the deportation of it, those are the kinds of treaties and relationships that we should be building upon.

In the process we learn from each other and forge new bonds of international understanding and co-operation. In this regard I might mention that the very first country with which Canada negotiated a treaty to transfer offenders was of course our friend and ally to the south. This treaty, dating back 25 years, with the United States is but another example of how the policies and programs with our American neighbours coincide with our own.

Since the act's proclamation in 1978, only technical amendments have been made to it, although more substantive issues have been identified. These issues have been brought forward with a broad range of interested parties since a consultation document was released in 1997. We have been developing in a very progressive way the stages and steps,and meeting different thresholds in the evolution of this legislation.

The wide ranging consultation identified what amendments would be advisable and necessary. This exercise has been followed by an exhaustive drafting exercise during which expert officials have identified what changes are possible given Canadian and international law.

As was outlined when Bill C-15 was introduced, central clauses of the amended act will set out the purposes and principles of the legislation. This may seem to be an obvious consideration in the formulation of a statute but a cursory survey of existing laws soon indicates otherwise.

An outstanding example of a statement of principles and purposes may be found in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as passed by Parliament in 1992. These important clauses have been invaluable as a guide for correctional practitioners. Having the force of law, they cannot be easily modified or tampered with and therefore they set a precedent of consistency in the administration of sentences.

In this age of mission statements and similar corporate commitments, one can easily recognize the importance of clear and steady guidance for those who must work within the confines and spirit of an act established to carry out the will of Parliament.

An equally modern aspect of these legislative proposals is that measure requiring a new level of information sharing between government authorities and offenders. Simply put, Canadian officials will be obligated to inform a foreign citizen under its jurisdiction of the existence and substance of an international transfer treaty between Canada and the country of citizenship, a function that our Department of Foreign Affairs carries out with regard to Canadians convicted abroad. While the duty is routinely discharged, the added force of law will formalize the practice to the satisfaction of those signing treaties with Canada.

Another new provision will make it possible for a foreign offender in Canada to reverse his or her application for transfer at any time before the physical transfer takes place. This important change would accommodate the rare occurrence where circumstances in the offender's home country change negatively in the period between application and the actual transfer.

The last specific point I would like to mention may prove to be the most important. This entails the new provisions to extend certain aspects of the transfer of offenders scheme to nations that have not yet joined the family of countries that currently have treaties with Canada for the transfer of offenders. One can see that circumstances might arise where such an accommodation would be essential to the well-being of a Canadian incarcerated abroad.

There are other aspects of Bill C-15 to explore but I will leave those to my hon. colleagues and, in due course, to the consideration of those in the other place. I urge them all to join in the passage of these necessary measures. I urge all members of the House to support the bill and send it on to be scrutinized and passed in the other place.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate a little on offenders who may be children, who fall into the category of young offenders. What would the application of the bill be where children would be found guilty perhaps in a very harsh extraterritorial environment when they are transferred to Canada? What aspects of Canadian codes and jurisdiction apply in those cases?

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Day was celebrated yesterday and let me present a bright and simple idea for this occasion. It is called the compact fluorescent light bulb.

Last month our government launched the one tonne challenge. It is a campaign to directly engage Canadians in making environmentally friendly choices and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are an ideal solution to reducing energy consumption. One such light bulb will use only one-quarter of the electricity required by a standard bulb. It will also last up to 10 times longer.

If we replaced just one regular light bulb in every household in Canada with one of these compact fluorescents, we would save $73 million in energy costs and reduce greenhouse gases by almost 400,000 tonnes. This would be equivalent to taking 66,000 cars off the road. This is literally a bright idea.

I urge fellow parliamentarians to lead by example and install one fluorescent light bulb in every house in the country.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which, as everyone knows, is the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-12 proposes a broad package of reforms which seeks to ensure that the criminal law meets the concerns and needs of all Canadians, especially those who are most vulnerable among us, our children.

The bill has five key components. I would like to go through them one by one and give illustrations of how the bill would be implemented.

The first one is strengthening the existing child pornography provisions by broadening the definition of written child pornography and narrowing the existing defences to one defence of public good.

What this means in reality is that the existing defences for child pornography would be reduced to the single concept of the public good. A person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public good it serves.

The bill now defines the public good as including--and I think this is important--“acts or materials that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art”.

The proposed reforms would also expand the existing definition of written child pornography to include material that is created for a sexual purpose and predominantly describes prohibited sexual activity with children. The current definition of child pornography applies only to material that advocates or counsels prohibited sexual activity with children, and this is strengthening the concept that at the end it is the ultimate public good that must be served.

The second component is the creation of a new prohibited category of sexual exploitation of young persons, as evidenced by the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including: the age of the young person, any difference in age between the young person and the other person, and the degree of control or influence exerted over that young person.

This provision would provide new protection to young persons between 14 and 18 years of age. Under the proposed reform, courts could infer that a relationship is exploitative based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the younger person. This new category would focus the court's determination on the conduct or behaviour of the accused rather than on the consent of the young person to sexual activity.

The third component is to increase the maximum penalties for offences against children and make the commission of an offence against any child an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

These tougher sentencing provisions include, under the government's reform proposals, penalties for offences that harm children. The maximum sentence for sexual exploitation would double from five years to ten. The maximum penalty for abandonment of a child or failure to provide the necessities of life to a child would more than double from two to five years. The abuse of a child in the commission of any Criminal Code offence would also have to be considered as an aggravating factor by the court and could result in a tougher sentence.

The fourth component is the facilitating of testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses by enhancing their ability to provide clear, complete and accurate accounts of events while at the same time ensuring that all of an accused person's rights are protected and respected.

These measures to protect children and other vulnerable persons as witnesses involve several reforms which will help ensure that participating in the criminal justice system is less traumatic for the victim or witness. Current Criminal Code provisions would be expanded to allow all witnesses under 18 to benefit from testimonial aids in any criminal proceeding, not only those involving sexual and other specified offences.

These aids include providing testimony from behind a screen or by closed circuit television or having a support person accompany the young witness. Current provisions generally require that the Crown establish the need for a testimonial aid. Given the potential trauma of the courtroom experience for young witnesses, the proposed reforms acknowledge the need for an aid.

For all testimonial aids, the judge retains the discretion to deny the aid or protection where its use would interfere with the proper administration of justice. In addition, the facilities to permit the use of a screen or closed TV circuit must be available in the courtroom before the judge can permit their use. Fundamental rights for the accused are fully respected under the proposed amendments.

These reforms also would allow children under 14 to give their evidence when they are able to understand and respond to questions. A competency hearing, which is currently mandatory, would no longer be required.

The fifth component is the creation of a new offence of voyeurism to criminalize the surreptitious observation or recording of a person in defined circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This new offence of voyeurism is influenced through the rapid technological developments of recent years. They have brought many benefits to Canadian society, but they have also had implications for such basic matters as privacy. Web cameras, for example, which can transmit live images over the Internet, have raised concerns about the potential for abuse, notably where the secret viewing or recording of people involves a serious breach of privacy or is made for sexual purposes.

The proposed offences would make it a crime in three specific cases to deliberately and secretly observe or record another person in circumstances where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists: when the person observed or recorded is in a place where one is reasonably expected to be in a state of nudity or engaged in explicit sexual activity; when the person observed is in a state of nudity or engaged in explicit sexual activity and the purpose is to observe or record a person in such a state of activity; or when the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

Distributing material knowing that it was produced through an offence of voyeurism would also be a crime. The maximum penalties for all voyeurism offences would be five years' imprisonment and the copies for sale or distribution of a recording obtained through the commission of a voyeurism offence would be subject to seizure and forfeiture. The courts could also order the deletion of voyeuristic material from a computer system.

I believe that Bill C-12's objectives are clearly stated and reflected in the preamble. Paragraph one states:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns regarding the vulnerability of children to all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect--

These words are an emphatic statement of purpose in Bill C-12.

Paragraph three of the preamble also notes as an objective that Bill C-12 seeks:

...to encourage the participation of witnesses in the criminal justice system through the use of protective measures that seek to facilitate the participation of children and other vulnerable witnesses while ensuring that the rights of accused persons are respected--

I believe we should all be readily able to recognize these objectives as not only important but fundamental to our collective efforts to provide better protection to our children and other vulnerable persons. I hope that all hon. members will support Bill C-12.

Much of the debate on Bill C-12 has focused on the proposed child pornography amendments. Canada's child pornography laws are among the toughest in the world. Bill C-12 will make them tougher still. I believe this bill's proposed expansion of the definition of written child pornography and the narrowing of the defences to one single defence of public good, now defined in Bill C-12, respond in a very direct and meaningful way to issues highlighted by the March 2002 case involving Robin Sharpe. I hope that all hon. members can support Bill C-12's child pornography amendments. I hope that all hon. members can support the bill.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last June the government wharf to Saturna Island was severely damaged by fire. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans inform the House in terms of what the government's plans are to repair that wharf?

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think the intent is to look at the Atlantic regional opportunity program.

I would suggest that with the full spectrum of needs that exist in the Atlantic region, shipbuilding obviously is one of those that should be evaluated. It should be incubated in such a manner that it does create the kind of jobs and economic activity the member would like to see. I am sure the government would support that. It should it looked at through the porthole, if members would pardon the nautical analogy, of the Atlantic regional expansion fund.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate a colleague who includes in his preamble the characterization of a member doing it to the best of his ability, which I did.

I indicated that the employer and employee contributions to EI had been reduced in the last two budgets. I indicated that the Auditor General had said that we should attempt to ensure that instead of transferring that fund into general revenues, it should be reinvested in matters relating to employment, such as seasonal employment, employees who find themselves in situations where they are without work.

What I did say also, and I am sorry the member did not hear it, was that while that is the direction of the government, I do not think the government should be faulted for investing general revenues in employee related initiatives, such as skills development. That is in keeping with the philosophy of reinvesting in job creation, job retraining programs that the employment insurance fund was designed for.

I would agree with the principle and the spirit of the member's question. Eventually it would be, I think in accounting terms, more correct to have the fund and out of that fund allocate expenditures that relate specifically to employment creation and employment insurance.