Kevin Sorenson

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member would sit and listen rather than referring to all the other people around him he would understand that the bill deals with the RCMP and the cloud that hangs over it. It deals with the two recommendations that have been brought forward by the Hughes report.

It is very condemning of the Liberal government when we talk about airbus and it brings up the rancour of many on that committee because it is still an issue that has not been dealt with. We are talking about the politicization of the RCMP and its involvement--

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again to speak to Bill C-35. As was mentioned the debate on this bill began last Thursday. When I approached the table today I was told that I had 14 minutes left unless I was speaking French and then I would have 15 minutes. I will attempt to do this in English and I should be done in 14 minutes.

The bill does a number of things. One of the main thrusts of the bill is the implementation of part of the Hughes report. This summer we went through the Hughes report that dealt with the APEC inquiry. It made many recommendations.

One of the recommendations dealt with the RCMP. It recommended the requested statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to two different areas: first, the existing common law practices regarding law enforcement and, second, the provision and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events. Bill C-35 intends to implement the last part of the Hughes report but not the former part.

RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli dismissed the key recommendations saying that there was no need in his opinion for statutory recognition of police independence.

Canadians must have confidence that the RCMP can do its job. That includes investigating the government in suspected cases of wrongdoing without fear of interference or reprisal. APEC is not an isolated incident. There are other examples, such as the airbus affair, that suggest the government may have improperly interfered with or instructed the RCMP.

A number of books chronicle the politicization of the RCMP, such as Paul Palango's Above the Law , and Stevie Cameron's On the Take .

In January 1997 the federal government reached a $2 million out of court settlement with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in what we call the airbus affair. It has been almost five years and Canadians have never learned the truth as to who was ultimately responsible for this libel suit. No one was ever held accountable for the Liberal government's suspect political intervention into a criminal investigation of national and international importance.

For those who may not remember, I will refresh their memory. In 1995 a letter of request was sent to Swiss authorities signed by justice department lawyer Kimberly Prost on behalf of the justice minister. Contained within this letter was a false accusation. It stated:

This investigation is of serious concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the part of the former Prime Minister.

On November 4, 1995, Roger Tasse, Mulroney's lawyer, contacted the justice minister via telephone to apprise him that they were in receipt of the letter written to the Swiss authorities. According to news reports Tasse pleaded with the minister to water down the language and send a new document to Switzerland. The minister refused. Furthermore in a letter dated November 8, 1995, to the justice minister Mulroney's lawyer stated:

In light of the most important, unjustified and highly damaging statements contained in the request made to the Swiss authorities, we urge you to personally review the matter and to direct your department to withdraw the request already made and to present, if that is the wish of the RCMP, a new request that is more respectful of basic rules of fairness and decency.

The justice minister again refused to withdraw the letter. That resulted in a $50 million lawsuit by Brian Mulroney. Even the former RCMP commissioner was concerned that the lawsuit would jeopardize the criminal investigation. He stated:

I have been very concerned about the potential impact on the criminal investigation of a long and very public civil process.

The minister again refused to withdraw the letter. A civil suit proceeded and at the very last moment the justice minister made an out of court settlement with an apology. This cost Canadian taxpayers $3.4 million. However the letter containing the false accusation was not withdrawn. The court decision indicated that the request letter was invalid as it had followed an improper process. Rather than withdraw the letter the former justice minister appealed the decision.

I know this case may be old news but to date Canadians have never been given answers. This matter has not been resolved. Nor has anyone been held responsible except for RCMP Staff Sergeant Fraser Fiegenwald. We have been left with the impression that Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald who allegedly leaked this information to author Stevie Cameron was responsible for the entire airbus scandal including the $3.4 million that this fiasco cost Canadians.

The facts as far as I understand them do not support this perception. However the government did nothing to dispel it, especially after Fiegenwald was conveniently allowed to retire from the force just before a code of conduct proceeding.

A cloud hangs over the RCMP as a result of airbus and all the many unanswered questions. It is negatively affecting its reputation. A cloud also hangs over the Prime Minister, the former justice minister and the former solicitor general as their involvement in this matter still remains suspect. Although it is not too late to lift this cloud by allowing the truth to be known, I am sure the government will never allow an investigation into this affair.

In 1997 a motion was brought before the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. The motion originated with my party and had the support of the Bloc, the NDP and the Tory members of that committee. It called for an examination of the facts pertaining to airbus. Not surprisingly the motion was shot down by Liberal members of that committee, particularly the member for Scarborough--Rouge River who believed that if the committee--

[National Security, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general cannot hide behind the cover of saying that investigations are ongoing. Canadians are learning more about the current security crisis from the American officials, our own media and British websites than they are from the Liberal government.

When will the minister put aside his scripted answers and begin offering real information to Canadians about the threats here in Canada?

[National Security, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we learned from immigration documents and the media that three men in Fort McMurray may have been connected with the September 11 attack on the United States. Canadians had to learn from the Sun newspapers that Nabil Al-Marabh, who was freed by the government's Immigration and Refugee Board, may be the chief al-Qaeda operative in North America and living in Canada. We also learned from the media that Mohammed Atta may have been working in Toronto.

When will the solicitor general put aside his canned answers and offer Canadians the information they need to know about the threats that exist here?

[Broadcasting Act, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again to debate Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

The bill was introduced in the Senate and passed in June. Essentially the intent of the bill is to permit the CRTC to establish criteria that would allow the awarding of costs to interveners in broadcasting proceedings. Currently it has the power to award costs in telecommunications cases. The wording of the bill states:

The Commission may award interim or final costs of and incidental to proceedings before it and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.

The Commission may order by whom and to whom any costs are to be paid and by whom they are to be taxed...establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs--

The intent of the bill seems reasonable and it is something that can be studied further in committee. However, the concern on this side of the House is that the timing of the legislation is perhaps a little inappropriate.

The Canadian heritage committee is currently reviewing the Broadcasting Act and will, without a doubt, focus on the CRTC's mandate.

Bill S-7 proposes that the awarding of costs would allow individuals or groups to come together with the opportunity to develop well researched evidence to present to the CRTC hearings. The opportunity to provide the awarding of costs to interveners would, according to the sponsors of the legislation, allow expert advice and testimony at hearings.

For those who sit on a committee and who are involved in parliament, as it is for witnesses who go before a committee, such as witnesses who go before the CRTC, it is imperative to come to conclusions on legislation and on their ideals. We applaud the essence of what the legislation is trying to do.

In May 2001, the government announced the long awaited review of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage requested submissions by Internet during the summer. We were hopeful for an early fall commencement of hearings. The Canadian Alliance agrees with the necessity of a review and it is anxious to participate in hearings that will host a wide range of differing opinions. However, at its present rate of speed, the review will not be completed by May 2002.

It must be recognized that technological changes are rushing opportunities of choices for consumers at the speed of light. The committee must be mindful that by the time the recommendations are put to paper, everything may have changed.

This brings me back to the reasons that it is it is not possible to support Bill S-7 at this time.

Legislation respecting the Broadcasting Act, whether it is the CRTC or otherwise, must not be dealt with prior to the completion of the Canadian heritage committee's study of the Broadcasting Act. To put forward legislation on a matter that is still in the process of being reviewed by the committee would be pre-emptive of the process.

I have a copy of a letter from the CRTC deputy commissioner of competition. It was written to the clerk of the committee on September 14, 2001. The letter states:

In general, the Commissioner is interested in examining and reporting upon the extent to which competition and market mechanisms have historically and may, going forward, be relied upon to realize the core objectives of the Broadcasting Act. For this purpose, the Commissioner will examine and make recommendations regarding the broadcasting policy objectives, the current regulatory model and its environment, and proposals for legislative and regulatory change.

The Canadian Alliance believes there cannot be any legislation put forward at this time which would pre-empt the recommendations of the study due to be released next year.

Furthermore, the committee has requested that the chair of the CRTC, David Colville, attend the committee to discuss his understanding of the proper constitutional relationship between parliament, its committees, federal commissions and their respective roles.

There is concern at this time that decisions made by the CRTC during the course of the heritage committee study may require the CRTC to impose regulatory changes on broadcasters and consumers long before the study is completed. Stated clearly, current CRTC decisions must not allow any unfair advantage while the committee is conducting the study.

Throughout the course of the hearings we must ask ourselves if the CRTC continues to be relevant or whether its purpose would be better served in an alternative regulatory body rather than under the arm of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry.

No one is questioning the relevancy of these regulatory bodies. We know there needs to be a regulatory body but as we discuss and study the CRTC and its mandate there are many things that will be brought out regarding its responsibilities.

We know the CRTC has a mandate to license and regulate broadcasters. We also know the CRTC is in charge of telecommunications. Part of telecommunications, especially phone companies and the use of telecommunications in rural Canada, will possibly be discussed at the hearings.

One of the concerns of Canadians is what is happening to rural Canada and agriculture. What the government, the CRTC and different bodies can do is look at what may be viewed as insensitivity toward some of our rural areas in regard to telecommunications.

When we look at some of our large metropolitan cities, all the business of the residents of those communities is carried out in the metropolitan area. One of my frustrations in rural Alberta is that every time we call the neighbouring town down the road where we do much of our business we are calling long distance. Towns in other parts have come together and the local call is broadening out a bit.

One of the things we need to look at is where people are doing business, where children are going to school and where people are carrying out their normal activities. In rural Canada local telephone calls are made not just to the closest small rural town but to many places. They are made to many small locales and little communities.

Bill S-7 does not and is not intended to answer all the questions of the CRTC. I fully understand that. However it sets the criteria for awarding costs in broadcasting proceedings. It is therefore not possible for the Canadian Alliance to support any legislative changes that would affect either the CRTC or the Broadcasting Act until the committee hearings are complete and recommendations are put forward.

As we have said, the content of the bill is good. The timing of the bill is bad.

[Justice, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that she has the discretion to extradite criminals facing the death penalty but the Burns and Rafay decision said clearly that a court would have to determine whether an extradition request would pass the Oakes test.

Who has the discretion, the minister or the courts?

[Justice, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the Burns and Rafay case the Minister of Justice argued, and I quote:

It is necessary to refuse to ask for assurances in order to prevent an influx to Canada of persons who commit crimes sanctioned by the death penalty in other states. [Failure to do so] would make Canada an attractive haven for persons committing murders in retentionist states.

Is this still the minister's view even though the Supreme Court of Canada rejects this argument in this case?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and participate in the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Our day is running down and we have about five minutes for debate and a 20 minute speech.

As a new member of parliament I am faced with a dilemma. Do I continue with the speech and take up the rest of the time another day? There are some points I want to cover in my speech and from which concerns arise.

The provisions in the bill come forward and are recommended by the Hughes report that we saw come forward this summer. In particular, Bill C-35 adds a clause codifying the RCMP's primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference, in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under the act.

In fulfilling that responsibility the RCMP may take appropriate measures, and we have talked about them already today, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

I would suggest, although in this isolated case the government has taken Judge Hughes' recommendation to heart as many of my colleagues have already stated, this is not the appropriate place to legislate these new statutory powers and responsibilities The more preferable place to have put these powers would have been in the RCMP act.

Following public hearings regarding complaints against the RCMP, Hughes concluded that the federal government's role at APEC was improper. If we went through the thick report given by Mr. Hughes, within the first 10 to 15 pages we would realize that the government acted improperly and that some of the measures used by the RCMP, succumbing to government influence, were not appropriate.

Therefore, Hughes recommended that the federal government bring in legislation to spell out the RCMP's independence from government interference. In section 10 of the report. Hughes said that the current nature and extent of police independence was not clearly defined in Canadian law. Furthermore, there was no consensus, either in academic writing or in judicial decisions, as to what was the proper relationship between the federal government and the RCMP, although it was generally agreed that the RCMP enjoyed a measure of independence.

In fact, Hughes believed that the RCMP act suggested that the force was not entirely independent of the government by stipulating that the commissioner of the RCMP was appointed by cabinet and controlled the force under the direction of the solicitor general.

This has been a great concern to members on this side of the House. I know on many occasions the members for Medicine Hat and Cypress Hills--Grasslands have vented their frustration that the commissioner of the RCMP would sit in cabinet as a deputy minister in the solicitor general's department. To have independence and not to politicize the position or the organization, the commissioner is appointed by cabinet as a deputy minister.

After reviewing the English approach in the supreme court decision in R v Campbell, Hughes concluded that it was clearly unacceptable for the federal government to have the authority to direct the RCMP law enforcement activities, telling it who to investigate, who to arrest and prosecute or other purposes. At the same time, it was equally unacceptable for the RCMP to be completely independent and unaccountable to become a law unto itself.

So we have that balancing act. We want on the one hand independence and on the other hand we need accountability in the RCMP.

Based on this conclusion, Hughes recommended under subsection 31 of his report, that the RCMP request statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to: first, existing common law practices regarding law enforcement; and second, the provision of and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events.

That part two is what part of this bill enacts. It enacts the part of the Hughes commission report that would suggest that it was imperative to put in place the position and the responsibilities of security services at public order events where people from other countries would be attending.

Bill C-35 embraces only the second part of this recommendation. The government has yet to fulfill the first part of that recommendation. Unfortunately, I do not believe the Liberal government has the courage to ever come forward with that first part that would bring more accountability, more independence and reduce the politicization of the RCMP. We wait for that. I look forward to the rest of my time at a later date.

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we brought information to the House repeatedly to show Canadians that the country is being used as a safe haven for terrorists. In the United States John Ashcroft gives regular briefings about the investigation going on in the United States. Prime Minister Tony Blair takes his evidence and puts it on the website.

Why will this minister not give simple, factual answers about the state of investigations here in Canada. Is he aware?

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Nabil Al-Marabh was released on bail in Canada in July. He has since been arrested in the United States in connection with the September 11 attacks. A few weeks ago the RCMP raided a print shop and found evidence linked to Marabh.

Will the minister confirm whether false documents created in Canada were used by the September 11 hijackers?