Peter MacKay

[Privilege, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave to your capable judgment whether it is. I do raise this as a question of privilege of which I have given you notice today.

On December 8, the Department of Revenue updated its website concerning payroll deductions and has published new tables reflecting those changes proposed in Bill C-2 as if those rates were now law.

These are found at website WWW.RC.GC.ca/menuemenuHSA.HTML. The House has passed and sent to the Senate Bill C-2, as members are well aware, which amends the law respecting the Canada pension plan.

To date, no message has been received from the Senate concerning the passage of this bill. The Senate is capable of protecting its own privilege in this case, however the House is also seized with the issue since the content of Bill C-2 is not settled until both Houses have agreed on the final content and royal assent has been granted.

It is still open to the Senate to remit this bill to the House for consideration of amendments, including the alteration of those matters that the government is publishing as though they are now law.

By publishing these tables before the enactment of Bill C-2, the government seeks to preclude this House from any consideration of amendments that the Senate might remit as a result of its deliberations. I submit that this constitutes a contempt of the Parliament of Canada.

I draw the Speaker's attention to page 226 of the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada which states:

Contempt cannot be codified: Contempt has no limits.

This is why it is said that the “privileges” of the House cannot be exhaustively codified; there are many acts or omissions that might occur where the House would feel compelled to find that a contempt has taken place, even though such acts or omissions do not amount to an attack on or disregard for any of the enumerated rights and immunities.

Further on the same page, it states as follows:

As a Speaker said, “—the dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privilege of Members, or of the House. This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.

When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

Mr. Speaker, you will also want to refer to the ruling of Speaker Fraser on October 10, 1989. At that time, the Speaker warned the government that he would not treat similar situations lightly.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself have made a similar ruling at least twice in this session.

Mr. Speaker, it is my submission to you that the time has come for the Chair to adopt the doctrine set out at page 227 of Maingot:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege—or, to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should leave it to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the time of this House. The precedents are before you and are known to you and indeed in this Parliament you have dealt with this issue, I would suggest. Your ruling cautioned the officials of the Department of Finance in that instance. Now I would suggest the disease has spread to the department of revenue. Obviously your admonition has carried little weight with the government and those public officials concerned with the electronic publication of this table at the web site which I have placed before you.

This matter should be put to the House through Mr. Speaker and considered as an abuse of Parliament by this government.

[Gun Control, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this week the standing committee on justice completed its report on the firearms regulations. Many witnesses testified that the regulations will not have the effect on crime prevention and safety that we were told, but would target law-abiding citizens and create a logistical nightmare.

The Conservative Party supports effective gun legislation like Bill C-17, but this cumbersome set of regulations is a sham.

Can the Minister of Justice confirm that the department estimates of $85 million are low and that the true cost of implementation is closer to $500 million? And unlike her predecessor, can she give us those numbers and stand by them today?

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On October 2, 1997, I placed Question No. 21 on the Notice Paper. This asked a fairly straightforward and simple question about visits by ministers to the Drummondville, Trois Rivieres vicinity during a 10 month period between August 1996 and June 1997.

Can the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate when we might expect an answer to this rather uncomplicated question?

[Westray, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour.

Recommendation 64 of the same report calls on the province of Nova Scotia to enter into an agreement with the federal Department of Labour and transfer responsibility for underground coal mining and inspection from Nova Scotia to the federal government. It also calls for the Nova Scotian government to update the federal government on drafting regulations.

Is the Minister of Labour prepared to enter into this slippery slope of downloading federal responsibilities to the provinces?

[Westray, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the early morning hours of May 9, 1992 a violent explosion ripped through the Westray mine in Plymouth, Pictou County, Nova Scotia, killing 26 men underground.

Yesterday Mr. Justice Peter Richard released his public inquiry report into the Westray disaster. The report recommended that “the Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held accountable”.

Will the Minister of Justice tell us if she is going to act—

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from the constituents of my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt an official pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag, the wording of which would be determined through consultation with Canadians.

[Privilege, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege just put forward by the hon. member for Markham.

Keeping in mind the comments made by the hon. House leader for the government, I am not going to burden the House with a recitation of precedents on the issue of advanced disclosure of committee reports. The hon. member has put forward the principle that he certainly agrees that all members of this House should be given the opportunity to view this prior to it being made public. Unfortunately, that is no the case here.

Unfortunately, the Globe and Mail , the Star and another publication—I believe the Financial Post —had this information in advance of opposition members. This is a very serious breach of privilege, I would submit.

It is not only an insult to the House, but it is an insult to all members and an insult in particular, I would suggest, to staff members on this committee because as a result of this occurrence, it casts a shadow over their involvement in the process. Those persons are now under suspicion, I would suggest, as a result of this leak occurring.

The point brought forward by the member for Markham is very serious. This is a situation that the government is going to have to look into in more detail, not only to ensure that it does not happen again, but to ensure accountability and to ensure that the good name and reputation of those staff persons involved in this particular committee are not going to be besmirched by this incident.

It is problematic in and of the fact that some members of the committee had it and others did not, but I would suggest equal importance and equal emphasis have to be placed on the fact that these staff persons are now castigated by this particular occurrence.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of a distinct report on the matter from the standing committee, there is an overriding duty on you to permit this House to probe the situation which compromises the staff of this House. They should not have to tolerate this situation in silence, and I say emphatically that I do not believe for one moment that any staff person involved here is the source of the leak—that is not the allegation—but because of the leak, they have been placed in a non-acceptable position and it is up to this House, I would suggest, to remove that cloud.

If the House does not address this premature disclosure issue and the standards it expects regarding disclosure and non-disclosure, the bad situation will be made worse. Some members of this House favour more transparency at the committee deliberations. That, I would suggest, is a good thing. Certainly the Finance committee is not of a mind that leaking a report is going to do anything to help improve the reputation of this House.

They voted down a motion by the hon. member for Markham to bring this matter to the House and now I would suggest a double standard exists. The rules require confidentiality, the committee has voted not to bring the matter of the leak to the attention of the House and others may see merit in keeping it confidential.

However, I would suggest that having a report introduced through the media rather than the proper channels that we know exist in this House is completely inappropriate.

Whatever the views of this House, I would suggest that there should be some debate and an agreement on the standards that we expect with respect to the introduction of these reports.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider the position of the employees involved in this particular matter when this game is played and leaks are put out to the media and I would ask that should you find that a prima facie case exists meriting priority consideration by this House, I would be pleased to move the motion in this regard.

[The Late John Sopinka, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay tribute to one of Canada's greatest legal minds, the late Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka.

Much has been said this week to describe the life and accomplishments of Justice Sopinka. From modest beginnings he attained stature as a professional football player, respected criminal litigator and a member of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Whether catching a football or writing a thoughtful dissenting judgment, he did so with a class and unique style all his own. In his 64 years John Sopinka demonstrated numerous personal qualities that one could not help but admire and wish to emulate.

He was passionate about his vision for the law, often able to forge consensus over difficult issues at the Supreme Court of Canada level. Justice Sopinka had the ability to build coalition without watering down principles. He was unafraid to stand up to the changing winds of public opinion in making a decision if he felt that it was consistent with legal and social principles.

As an athlete, attorney, judge and family man, Justice Sopinka set new standards for greatness. If the magnitude of one's loss is the measure of life's gifts, this loss seems immeasurable.

His family and Canada mourn his departure for a higher court. Our sincere condolences to Mrs. Sopinka and the Sopinka family.

[Organized Crime, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as well in response to the Solicitor General's first annual statement on organized crime in Canada.

I would like to take this occasion to congratulate all the men and women of this country who are on the front lines of law enforcement in Canada. We know them as police officers, peace officers, customs agents, crown prosecutors.

We must address and recognize the need and responsibility that we as parliamentarians have to those individuals in charging them with this important task of fighting crime in Canada. They are the thin blue line, these men and women who walk the beat and patrol the neighbourhoods of Canada, and they are tasked with enforcing the laws that we make in this House.

Without the active support of these hard working Canadians, many of whom put their lives at risk time and time again, any government's anti-crime measures will fail and fall flat on their face.

The self-congratulatory tone of this report is fine but it is early in the game. I remind the government that as far as this initiative goes, the true test will be time.

I feel it is important to put on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada also had a key role in kick-starting the government's action against organized crime. Contrary to the implications of the Solicitor General, this government's fight against organized crime did not simply begin under the Liberal government. In fact between 1989 and 1993 the former Progressive Conservative government passed four major pieces of legislation to assist our law enforcement community.

In 1989 the Conservative government passed proceeds of crime legislation for the first time in Canadian criminal law history, making money laundering a distinct crime. This was done to help police officers trace the flow of money derived from criminal activities. The former Progressive Conservative government then passed new proceeds of crime legislation in 1991 which required financial institutions to maintain detailed records of transactions relating to crime.

The former government also passed legislation in 1993 with the passage of the Seizure of Property Management Act. This act created the office of an administrator to seize and retain forfeited property. More important, this legislation provided an incentive to organizations participating in criminal investigations by developing new provisions for the disposal of property obtained by crime.

The final initiative I would mention by the Progressive Conservative government was an act to modify the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. It was a far reaching omnibus bill and made many positive changes to the Criminal Code, in particular in the area of contraband products such as tobacco and alcohol.

I do not want to inject partisanship into the debate, but it is important that everyone realize that this government is picking up where previous governments left off. I mention these legislative initiatives not to dwell on the past but to put in perspective what is going on in this process today.

I am nevertheless willing to extend credit where credit is due. The Liberal government and the Solicitor General in particular have taken positive steps in this area. I commend the Solicitor General for recognizing that more can be done. The Solicitor today used his statement to renew a commitment first made in response to last year's national forum on organized crime. That commitment, although somewhat more vague today, was used to create a new financial reporting requirement regarding suspicious financial transactions and cross-border movement of currency.

To be successful, these requirements must include a very clear principle. Canada must adopt the current U.S. policy that requires financial institutions to report all transactions which exceed $10,000.

With the largest undefended border in the world, Canada and the United States share one of the largest bilateral legal trading relationships in the world. Unfortunately, because of this border, we also share the largest bilateral illegal trading practice in the world.

Because Canada lacks the same tough reporting requirements of the United States, we are allowing our country to serve as a safe haven for these large criminal organizations for ill-gotten gains.

A $10,000 reporting rule is not only my position but that of the party and it is the position of the solicitor general himself who just less than two months ago made a speech to the U.S.-Canada cross-border crime forum. I would therefore urge the solicitor general to live up to his earlier commitments. Instead of being timid and vague on the question of mandatory requirements, the solicitor general should be bold and straightforward and set clear financial transaction requirements in this legislation.

I would recommend that the solicitor general review the definition of participation in organized crime. The new criminal offence and anti-gang legislation approved by the previous Parliament in April of this year leaves that definition very vague in my opinion.

According to this definition, participation in criminal organizations occurs when “a person participates in or substantially contributes to the activity of a criminal organization and knows that all the members engaged or have engaged in an indictable offence within the preceding five years and when the person is a party to the commission of an offence indictable for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with criminal organizations”.

What a mouthful. The problem with this particular wording, I would suggest, is that it lacks specific intent. There is a huge vague definition that leaves open the issue of intent which makes it very difficult to prosecute. I would suggest that this particular definition could be reworked and the solicitor general has an opportunity to do so in his upcoming round of legislation.

The solicitor general also commented that arrests and seizures under the new anti-gang legislation are regularly making headlines. Headlines are nice, but law-abiding Canadians are seeking concrete results and, as has been referred to earlier by some of my colleagues in the opposition, this is what Canadians are looking for the most from government and from Parliament, concrete results not empty rhetoric.

There was also a very telling comment made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party about the government's apparent contradiction in fighting crime. On the one hand, it has taken the initiative to introduce anti-gang legislation but, at the same time, it has taken away one of the frontline abilities that law enforcement officers have in this country and that is by disbanding the ports police. This, by all intents and purposes, opens up many of Canada's ports for business in terms of illegal drug and gun trade. The port of Halifax was mentioned by the hon. member from the New Democratic Party.

I must say that people in the province of Nova Scotia are extremely concerned, particularly in and around metro Halifax, that these new organized crime organizations are going to be setting up shop. With these ports now falling under the jurisdiction of the RCMP or metro police in the coming months, it is going to be very difficult for them to combat crime in a substantive way when we already have a specialized force in the ports police who are charged solely with that task.

Again I would reiterate my earlier remarks. Laws are not the only answer. In fact, creating laws without accounting for adequate resources to properly implement and enforce these laws can be very dangerous. I would cross reference again the fact that there has been legislation introduced that is going to charge customs officers with more onerous tasks and a more proactive attempt to have them fight crime at the border. However, we do not yet know if adequate resources and training are going to be put in place as well to help them implement and enforce these new pieces of legislation.

Throughout the solicitor general's statement, we heard that the government has been creating partnerships between local, provincial, national and international law enforcement agencies. We have also heard about existing resources to fight crime. I am very much aware of the situation that is going on in New Brunswick presently between the Moncton municipal police and the RCMP who are imposing their particular services in place of the municipal police. This is a situation that I suggest the government has been very lax in addressing.

I support the government's efforts in bringing about various elements of our criminal justice system to fight organized crime. I do so wholeheartedly, but the government must not, however, use the co-operative partnerships as an excuse to withhold the necessary resources. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of many local police officers across the country.

The police chief in London, Ontario summed this up perfectly when he stated last month “Just because we now have a law, that does not realize anything unless we have the programs which mean resources for police and enhanced training. Laws for the sake of laws mean nothing. They are just more paper”.

Unfortunately, this is the impression that many law enforcement officers and I would suggest many Canadians have when we have legislation put through Parliament and the resources to see that it is enforced are not there to support it.

In conclusion, I thank the solicitor general for his statement. I would reinforce my comments with four main points. One, let us not forget the foundation upon which this present government is acting by developing policies and legislation with respect to organized crime. Let us work to build upon it.

Second, the solicitor general needs to commit to a straightforward, mandatory reporting requirement for financial transactions which will correspond with our biggest trading partner, the United States.

Third, the solicitor general needs to clarify the definition of a criminal organization to better establish the principle of intent so that prosecutions can be successful.

Fourth, the government should provide necessary programs and training through additional funds if necessary to help police and all law enforcement officers to properly implement and enforce this legislation.

I am hoping that we are not going to hear more self-congratulatory statements from the solicitor general. We must work toward concrete examples of crime reduction so that Canadians will be satisfied that this Parliament and our enforcement officers are doing their job.

I am very supportive of the government in its efforts, but let us not just give lip service to this serious matter. Let us see that the right thing happens and that we can actually report back in a year's time that these initiatives have been successful.

[Criminal Code, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-206, which requests that amendments be made to the Criminal Code of Canada.

I agree with much of the commentary I have heard from all hon. members of the House about the seriousness of this offence.

It saddens me to look around this Chamber and see the youth of some of the pages here, knowing that there are prostitutes out on the street younger than they who are engaging in this trade out of necessity. I agree with the comment of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party that it is poverty and unemployment which are, no doubt, at the very root of this problem in Canada.

However, I must disagree with her premise that this motion is a simple approach to the problem. Perhaps simple is a good word, but in a positive sense, in the amendment which has been put forward. The reason I say that is this. There is no question that an amendment to the Criminal Code can be cumbersome. However, I suggest that the reason it has been put forward is very positive. That is why I support it. The reasons I will put forward for supporting it are equally simple.

The hon. Reform member has suggested that this would broaden the ability of the police, and I would suggest the judges as well, in their approach to this most serious matter. It does so for a number of reasons.

By making this a hybrid offence which would include an indictable offence it does a number of things, to which my friend has referred.

First, it gives the police the ability, under the Identification of Criminals Act, to fingerprint and take photographs, which could be used for a broader purpose in terms of children who have been abducted or children who are runaways. It could also be used for the purpose of deterrence.

Deterrence is a whole philosophy and we could speak at length on the issue of deterrence, but let me say this. A person who is charged with an indictable offence must appear in court. I have seen it at the provincial court level. With prostitution being a summary offence, it becomes essentially the price of doing business. Young prostitutes, or prostitutes of any age, will come into court or have a lawyer appear on their behalf, pay the fine and waltz out the door. They can amass a lengthy criminal record which, in essence, will result in perhaps a higher fine the next time.

Making this an indictable offence would allow judges, in their discretion, to impose a more lengthy term of incarceration, if necessary, or at least to apply conditions in a probation order that would include treatment type programs. It would treat this matter in the serious fashion in which it should be treated.

That is the main reason for which I, on behalf of the Conservative Party, am in support of this motion.

Luckily I can say that prostitution is not a major problem in my constituency in Nova Scotia. However, there is always the difficulty and the problem that arises when youth, for whatever reason, take to the streets in the bigger metropolitan areas or, in more serious cases, when young people are abducted and forced into this particular trade.

Saying that it is the oldest profession in the world is not to trivialize the problem at all. I do not want to draw too fine a point on it but slavery was around for a long time too and it was the laws that essentially brought about the necessary change, along with the efforts and work of people against that particular problem.

Prostitution is not going to be solved by simple amendments to the Criminal Code. I think we can all say that quite simply. However there is no question that this is a step in the right direction. It saddens me to think that this can become a partisan issue. Like a lot of justice issues, this is something the House should be unanimous in its efforts to work toward solutions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary for the justice minister has stated that there is a report pending. I would hope and encourage her to keep this particular motion in mind and not to simply dismiss it. What if the report comes back and there are suggestions which move the Criminal Code in the very direction the hon. member from the Reform is suggesting? I reiterate it is very unfortunate that we see this forum being used again as a means to get up and simply dismiss the idea outright because it happens to come from one party or another.

I think it is a good suggestion. It is something that at least moves us in the direction of addressing the issue in a positive way. It improves discretion on the part of the police and judges to act in a definitive way by imposing more innovative sentences that might include treatment. It also allows the police to treat the matter in a more serious way.

Also, I would reiterate the comments made by the hon. member from the Reform. I would suggest that the perception of justice in Canada is extremely important as to how the community views how those actors who are imposing our criminal laws are viewing the problem. It gives the perception that we in this Chamber and in the justice departments around the country are looking at this problem and looking for solutions. Not simple solutions, but solutions that are aimed at moving in the right direction.

I am not suggesting that raising fines and putting people in jail in itself is going to solve this problem. But it certainly is a move in the right direction in increasing the ability of those people charged with the enforcement of the law and giving them a greater ability to do something about this crime. It is not going to, as my friends from the New Democratic Party and the Bloc suggested, get needles off the streets. It is not going to eradicate this problem in its entirety, not by a long shot, but it will increase the ability to act in a proactive way.

That is how I view this particular piece of legislation. It is proactive. It is preventive. It is doing something early in the process. This again is something which is tied in with the changes that need to come about under the Young Offenders Act.

It is doing something early at the front end. It is loading the resources at the beginning where the problem starts and doing something before we get further and further down the road where someone has been engaged in prostitution for whatever reason, poverty, drug addiction, all sorts of reasons, a forced situation where pimps are forcing young people into this area.

This is something that we should embrace within this House. It is something I am supporting and I would encourage all members to do so.