Kevin Sorenson

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, our committee has been brought together to go through Bill C-36. We are mandated by Parliament to go through the anti-terrorism legislation. Why do we have to do that? We have to do it because it is mandated by Parliament, but one of the major reasons we have to do it is that the police came to the justice committee and said that because of the lack of police officers, they have had to take the officers who are dealing with the organized crime files and put them on the terrorism files. That is what is going on. We are risk managing terrorism in this country. We are risk managing files.

The minister has asked if we could start going through some of the things that we discussed five years ago, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and all the different parole issues. It was done five or six years ago. It is time that the government took the recommendations, the ones that it has accepted, and put in place measures that would address the issues.

Let us do our terrorism law. We will address corrections if time permits. At the present time, as the hon. member has stated, the member for Saint John has had a heart attack, but we will keep working as hard as we can on that committee.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I rise tonight to take part in this debate in memory and out of respect for four fallen constables: Constable Anthony Gordon, Constable Leo Johnston, Constable Brock Myrol and Constable Peter Schiemann.

My sympathies and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of these fallen officers who were killed. My gratitude and admiration are with all those in this country who work and serve to make our communities a safer place to live and a safer place to raise our families.

The tragic death of these officers is a sad reminder of the all too often violent nature of our society and the reason that there is a growing need for more police officers all across the country.

No part in Canada is immune from violence in which innocent lives are destroyed or lost. Families are torn apart, police officers are murdered or injured in the line of duty.

In the wake of these murders, it is so hard to refrain from pointing fingers in fear that we would be accused of exploiting this tragedy.

After learning of the tragedy in Mayerthorpe, the media contacted me and we issued a press release condemning initially illegal marijuana use and the grow op industry. The commissioner had done it and the minister had done it. In hindsight, we were perhaps a little too quick and a little too harsh. However drug use, the drug trade and the carnage it causes are a harsh reality in this country that must be changed and cannot be denied.

What I did not mention out of respect was the firearm registry and the very simple fact that it did absolutely nothing to deter James Roszko, a man with a violent history, from acquiring and using his firearm. Roszko, as many other criminals, illegally bought and brought firearms across the border. Since the death of the four constables there have been numerous articles and editorials written about the Firearms Act not being a deterrent and therefore I am not going to belabour that point tonight.

There was also a mention of our lax sentencing laws and the failure of our justice system to convict and hold dangerous offenders such as Roszko. Over his 46 years, Roszko faced multiple charges and, although most were violent crimes, he was rarely convicted. For threatening to kill and sexually abusing a teenage boy over a 10 year period Roszko was given two years in prison.

I would strongly suggest that this type of lenient sentencing is courtesy of the Liberals who, over the last 10 years, have made reintegration the guiding principle of our corrections and parole system as opposed to the protection of society as being the guiding principle.

Now that the constables have been laid to rest, this tragic situation needs to be carefully examined and analyzed to determine all the factors so we can prevent such tragedies in the future. Police officers in this country deserve at least this much.

Last week, police officers all across the country came to Parliament Hill for their annual lobby day to bring forward their wish list or their list of concerns. Topping their list was a national drug strategy that would incorporate the balanced approach that we have learned about here with supply and demand of illicit drugs. They wanted more for prevention, more for education, more enforcement, treatment, rehabilitation and research. They recognize drugs as a major problem in our country.

Canadian police are calling on the Liberal government to improve our corrections and parole system and to restore confidence. In the name of officers killed in the line of duty, such as another officer, Sudbury Constable Joe MacDonald, the police are asking that first degree murderers spend a minimum of 25 years in prison, not in a club fed, not in a resort style prison, and with no eligibility of parole; a just improvement that the Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports.

They are asking that section 745, the faint hope clause, be repealed so that 80% of applicant killers who are granted early release serve their full life sentences; another measure that we on this side of the House endorse.

Before closing, I would like to touch on a concern that was brought to my attention by Chief Chalmers of the Camrose City Police and by Detective Lorne Blumhagen who was here in Ottawa last week, and that is the closure of the Edmonton forensic lab.

Forty per cent of Canada's forensic work is currently done in the Edmonton lab, and 100% of Canada's break and enter analysis is done in Edmonton. Yet it is being closed, much to the frustration of police in Alberta and all across the west.

A year and a half ago I stood in the House and repeatedly questioned the former solicitor general about the wisdom in closing the RCMP DNA forensic labs in Edmonton, Regina and Halifax. On each occasion I pointed out that the RCMP forensic scientists were frustrated, police were being hampered in their investigations, and court proceedings were being stalled because DNA testing for urgent cases was taking three times longer than the RCMP's mandated timeline. Unfortunately, the former solicitor general refused to listen.

Madam Chair, I am splitting the time with the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

Last month we learned that the RCMP will one day have a massive five year backlog of requests for Criminal Code record checks if these obsolete processing systems are not replaced soon. The police are coming forward.

The Canadian Police Association and other associations have recognized the major concerns. Given this huge tragedy, if the government would move on at least some of the concerns, we would stand and applaud the government. The Liberals' snooze button has not been hit. They are still sleeping at the switch.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, is my colleague aware that the commissioner of the RCMP is like a deputy minister in the government? The gentleman blamed Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP for not keeping those detachments open in Quebec.

We on this side of the House have been concerned and frustrated for a long time with what we call the politicization of the police force. In the APEC report, which came out 2201, Judge Hughes said that one of the things that had to be addressed in the federal government was the politicization of the police force, the fact that the commissioner of the RCMP sat as a deputy minister of his government.

It is easy to stand here on a night that we are trying to talk about changes to a judicial system and talk about our own little areas in our provinces. My colleague is in the government in power and it has not addressed any of the concerns that the judge brought forward about the politicization of the police force. If he really believes that Commissioner Zaccardelli is not listening, then maybe he should tell the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

The parliamentary secretary says that it's coming, it's coming. It is five or six years later and we know how the government acts. The Air-India issue has gone on for 20 years.

The Canadian Police Association has made some recommendations. We have had a tragedy the likes of which we have never seen before and yet the government is just sitting still. The government is caught in neutral and is spinning its wheels.

Am I to believe the hon. member that we should just wait for the inquiry and do nothing, not be moved to any action? Is that what the government is going to do, just sit around and wait and not be moved to take any action?

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, the hon. member said that there will be an inquiry and we will learn what will happen. That is the point of our take note debate tonight.

I believe this gentleman could have sat on the committee, but in 2000 we had a corrections and conditional release study where 52, maybe even 54, recommendations were made to help protect society in a much greater way. The government to this day has not moved on those recommendations.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

I rise today in support of the Conservative sponsored motion calling on the government for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air-India bombing on June 23, 1985. I do so in memory of the 329 victims of the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, upon learning of the verdict, dismissed having an inquiry, concluding that there are questions that will just never be answered. These are questions such as why CSIS erased tapes containing vital information; questions like what role, if any, certain Indian diplomats who were apparently Indian intelligence agents in Canada played before the Air-India bombing; questions like why it has taken 20 years for a verdict of not guilty to be handed out.

I stood in the House in June 2003 and asked the then solicitor general if he could put an end to the 10-year wait for justice to be served and immediately initiate a royal commission of inquiry. I prefaced my question by reminding the solicitor general that in 1993 the then leader of the official opposition, Jean Chrétien, promised that the Liberals would “continue to press the government to create a royal commission to look into the Air-India disaster”. Another promise made, another promise broken, even though it was the last government.

I reminded the solicitor general that 10 years had elapsed since that promise had been made and Mr. Chrétien's Liberal government had been in power and for as long as he had been in there, that promise remained still to be fulfilled. Surprise, surprise, still the promise has not been kept.

The solicitor general on that day responded to my question by saying “even if we want to do a public inquiry, it would be inappropriate while the court case is going on”. Then he went on to say, “However, I would refer the hon. member to the annual report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee of 1991-92 which reviewed it extensively”. I countered in that debate by saying, “of the 329 people killed on Air-India flight 182, 280 were Canadians, 80 of whom were children, yet both the previous administration and the government refused to initiate a commission of inquiry”. I said, “Recent allegations only serve to remind us that Canadians and the rest of the world deserve to know exactly what transpired on or before the June 23, 1985 disaster. Will the solicitor general immediately initiate that commission of inquiry?”

My question once again met with resistance from the solicitor general who asserted that everything CSIS did in respect of Air-India “was done properly” as concluded by SIRC. The solicitor general's assertion and SIRC's findings were, however, vehemently contradicted by statements of the assistant commissioner of the Air-India task force, RCMP officer Gary Bass.

While SIRC concluded that CSIS's erasing of the wiretaps did not result in a loss of evidence, RCMP officer Bass contended just the opposite. The assistant commissioner of the Air-India task force stated, “The gross inaccuracy of the SIRC review report will be immediately evidenced to anyone who reads it”. Mr. Bass also contradicted the conclusion of the SIRC report that CSIS's actions did not lead to the loss of any evidence.

I would like to quote from a June 10, 2003 Globe and Mail article regarding the assistant commissioner's statement, which I referenced when I questioned the solicitor general on that occasion:

“If, in fact, someone in the RCMP made the statement there were no intercepts of evidentiary value, they were clearly wrong,” he said.

He challenged SIRC on the credibility of the investigation into whether the government of India had any involvement in the bombings.

The SIRC report stated that CSIS passed the issue to the RCMP to investigate and the RCMP determined that allegation was without foundation.

The article went on to state:

"The truth of the matter is that the RCMP never thoroughly investigated the issue, which means that apparently no one did," Mr. Bass said.

Mr. Bass reportedly went on to say:

If a public inquiry were appointed into the investigations of the Air-India disaster, CSIS and, to a lesser extent, the RCMP will be subject to “severe criticism”. The fact that some part of the criticism will be with the benefit of hindsight will not soften the blow to any great extent.

Again I suggested to the solicitor general that he finally admit that SIRC's findings were wrong and that he initiate a full public inquiry into the Air-India disaster and the ensuing investigation, as strongly suggested by the RCMP assistant commissioner responsible for the Air-India task force. Again the answer from the solicitor general was a strong no.

I would like to remind those members who have been here since 1995, especially the Liberal members, that in 1995 the then Liberal member for York South--Weston, John Nunziata, moved a motion in this House asking the government to immediately take steps to initiate a royal commission of inquiry into the Air-India disaster.

During this debate, Val Meredith, one of our colleagues who was from Surrey--White Rock--South Langley, pointed out that on April 4, 1995 the then commissioner of the RCMP, Phil Murray, appeared at the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. When asked by Ms. Meredith whether he was opposed to a judicial inquiry, he stated this:

We are not at all opposed to having a judicial inquiry. Our only concern was to undertake the judicial inquiry while the investigation was still active.... I have made a commitment to the Solicitor General that when we reach a point where we feel that we are at an impasse, I will at that time come forward and indicate so.

Former solicitor general Herb Gray confirmed the commissioner's commitment by saying:

It is not considered appropriate to have a commission of inquiry while there is an active investigation. However, the commissioner has confirmed to me that if there is an impasse in the investigation I will be informed. I want to assure my hon. friend that if there is such an impasse I will immediately discuss this matter further with the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately the former RCMP commissioner and the Right Hon. Herb Gray retired many years ago and therefore were never able to make good on their commitments. There are ministers and solicitors general who could pick up this very appropriate promise and deliver on it but they refuse to do so.

Also during the debate on Mr. Nunziata's motion, the former member for Vancouver East, Liberal member Anna Terrana, said:

We need a royal commission because if a train full of Canadians on Canadian territory were blown up we would find immediate justice. These Canadians cannot be brought back. We must find justice for them because they are silent....In this tragic instance when no justice seems to have been served, when we value ourselves as those who speak about justice and human rights, we have to intercede on behalf of those who cannot speak.

That is what the Liberal member said at that time, that we must intercede. I agree with her, as everyone in this House should. She spoke about the victims. She spoke about apprehending the perpetrators of those and bringing them to justice.

I heard the Minister of Public Safety today. She talked about closure. She talked about bringing closure to the victims, but she did not talk about justice. She did not talk about making sure that justice was served. How can there be closure without justice? How can these victims have closure without justice?

Today in the House the Minister of Public Safety announced that she would seek independent advice from an eminent person before determining whether or not an inquiry was needed, meaning she has totally ignored the wisdom and reasoned advice from former Liberal members such as I have quoted. She has ignored the promise of her former boss, Jean Chrétien. She has ignored 61% of British Columbians who believe a public inquiry should be held.

The minister is ignoring her former cabinet colleague, Herb Dhaliwal, who bravely broke ranks with his party and agreed with our call for an independent public inquiry. As the leader of the official opposition pointed out:

Disturbingly, [Herb Dhaliwal] even suggests that [the Minister of Public Safety's] refusal of an inquiry results from RCMP and CSIS pressure.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety is very disrespectful, ignoring the opinion of this House, because she says she is moving regardless of what the House says.

In closing, I would implore all members to support this motion. Let us bring closure. Let us find justice. Let us answer questions.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our justice critic, the member of Parliament for Provencher and former attorney general of Manitoba, for his concern with the Air-India disaster. He is on record for looking for ways to seek justice in this largest terrorist attack in Canadian history.

Given the fact that this was Canada's largest terrorist attack with 329 Canadians killed, 80 of them children, and given the fact that we have had other inquiries, such as the Somali inquiry, the Krever commission, the Gomery commission at the present time, and others, does it diminish the size of the tragedy by saying that we will have Gomery do an inquiry into missing dollars but the largest terrorist attack is not worthy of an inquiry? We have had a 20 year time lapse, from June 23, 1985 to 2005. There has been ample time.

As he already mentioned in his speech, the former prime minister called on the former government, the Conservative government, to set up a public inquiry or a judicial inquiry but now that the Liberals are in power they are refusing to do it.

Does it diminish the size of the tragedy when they refuse to do these judicial inquiries? Does the member know why they would say no?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety cannot convince her U.S. counterpart that some form of border crossing card is not necessary because she cannot convince him that the security of this country is adequate, especially given the Auditor General's report today.

If the Minister of Public Safety cannot convince the U.S. that passports or border crossing cards are not necessary, how will the government ensure that by December 2006 all Canadians will have the necessary ID to travel to and from the United States?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to today's Auditor General's report, the passport office is a mess. This observation falls on the heels of today's news that the Bush administration is set to impose increased security screening for Canadians. Because of the government's failure to take security seriously, rules are about to change prohibiting Canadians from entering the U.S. without a passport.

Has there been any attempt on the minister's part to convince the United States that a passport or some form of biometric identifier is unnecessary and extremely detrimental to trade and tourism between the two--

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the National Post has stated:

--their opponents seek to tear it up or vitiate it through use of the notwithstanding clause.

The result is that Canadians are being sold a false bill of goods...they are hearing misinformation and scaremongering from a government that seeks to ram the issue down their throats with a minimum of debate.

The National Post concluded that the dishonest approach the government had adopted was an insult, and I agree.

In January 2004 the justice minister asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether or not the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional. In its ruling of December 2004 the court refused to answer, putting the issue back into the hands of Parliament, and rightfully so.

The Conservative Party has been very critical of this government's attempt to duck difficult issues such as same sex marriage by deferring to the court.

When the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision that determined same sex marriages should be legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we immediately called on the justice minister to appeal the ruling, but he refused.

Effectively, the Liberal government sanctioned the court's ruling on social policy matters, rendered the justice committee's analysis of this issue irrelevant, ignored the majority vote in Parliament to protect the traditional definition of marriage and stifled the voices of Canadians. Furthermore, the Liberal Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister reneged on their commitment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

On June 8, 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, the then justice minister, stood in this House and said:

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.

The Liberal Deputy Prime Minister also stated, and listen carefully:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

The government has, without any constitutional requirements to do so, changed the definition of marriage. Another promise made, another promise broken. Given this broken promise and the many other broken promises, how can any of us trust the justice minister's assertion now that religious freedoms will be protected under the law?

The so-called protection that the government has offered within Bill C-38 regarding religious freedoms is totally inadequate. The Liberal government has been totally dishonest with Canadians suggesting otherwise.

The government has only proposed one tiny clause to protect religious freedom, a clause that states that religious officials will not be forced to solemnize marriages. It has done this knowing full well that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that this clause is not within federal jurisdiction. The solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility.

Furthermore, nothing in Bill C-38 addresses issues currently facing churches, temples, synagogues and mosques, such as being forced to rent out space for same sex marriages.

The solemnization of marriage might be outside the federal jurisdiction, but religious protections are well within this government's sphere. Parliament can ensure that no religious body will have its charitable status challenged because of its beliefs or practices. Parliament can ensure that beliefs and practices regarding marriage will not affect the eligibility of a church, synagogue, temple or religious organization to receive funds.

The government may have neglected to protect religious freedoms in Bill C-38, but the official opposition will not. We will be proposing amendments to provide substantive protections for religious institutions in the context of federal law. We will propose these amendments to provide full recognition of same sex relationships as possessing equivalent rights and privileges.

More important, we will propose an amendment to provide clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We will do so knowing that we have the support of Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians are asking the government to do the right thing, to keep its word and protect the traditional definition of marriage.