Peter MacKay

[Solicitation Laws, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in this very important debate here in the House. I congratulate my colleague for having shared with us his point of view on this subject of concern to us all.

I wish to congratulate and pay tribute to my colleague from Vancouver East who has long championed this cause. This is an important motion. I would describe it as progressive, compassionate and in keeping with the effort that my colleague brings to this important subject matter. She has been genuine and emotional in bringing this important issue before the House. I wish to commend the perspective of those who have participated in the debate.

The motion calls for a comprehensive study of the issue. How could anyone reasonably be opposed to looking into this important issue, having a special committee of the House of Commons review the solicitation laws to improve qualities that affect us all, qualities that are aimed at improving communities? Human dignity is the basis of this motion.

I want to bring attention to compelling circumstances that are in existence right now. In the home province of the member for Vancouver East the circumstances surrounding accused serial killer Robert Pickton and the appointment of a committee to review the solicitation laws seem to be apropos to where we should be headed right now. Pickton has been charged with the murder of 15 women on a list of a potential 63 missing from Vancouver's east side. There is a chilling investigation into these serial murders. In keeping with issues arising from prostitution, this should lead us to action not just talk.

Prostitution, as was pointed out, is technically not illegal in Canada at this time. It is the solicitation and the act of profit from sexual acts that has to be studied and acted upon. In an essay investigating prostitution in Canada Martha Shaffer took a hard look at the circumstances surrounding the sex trade. Part of her thesis said that we must move prostitution out of the shadows and into the light before anything could be done to eliminate and improve working conditions for Canadians. Shaffer wrote that it was invisibility that exacerbated the negative aspects of prostitution, both for the community and for the prostitutes themselves. Invisibility means that we do not have to look closely at prostitution or our response to it because we have an allusion somehow that it is only a marginal part of society. This comes from Shaffer's book Prostitution in Canada: The Invisible Menace or the Menace of Invisibility? published in 1994.

From Halifax to Vancouver it is fair to say that prostitution is in fact a sad by-product of poverty, violence, education, power and addiction. This inability on the part of many Canadians to face up to this issue and the unwillingness to recognize that there has been a problem is detrimental to our ability to address it.

The Pickton case proves and provides a further example of how Canadians somehow are turned away and understandably do not want to address the issue head on. However we have women on the east side of Vancouver who went missing. It is known that most, if not all of these women were participating in the sex trade and over the course of time more and more had disappeared and yet they were living in the shadows. They were marginalized. They were not being addressed in terms of their many social problems.

Nothing of substance has been done to determine if the foul play that was involved had anything to do with an organized group that was profiting from prostitution, yet one might easily draw from this that there was a close association to the murders themselves and the trade.

I do not read into this motion an endorsement or even a call for the reduction in sentencing or legalization but rather a way to move this problem front and centre so that Canadians can look for and be engaged in the debate as to how to address the problem.

Striking a special committee with a mandate to investigate the issue is in line with the Progressive Conservative Party's position and it would lead to substantive changes in a way that we could deal with the problem. Getting together stakeholders, interested persons and those with specific insights, like the member from Vancouver, can only help us in dealing with this compelling and troubling issue. Nearly all the assaults and murders that occur while a prostitute is at work is a very troubling issue.

When considering how to deal with legislation regarding prostitution, particularly under section 213 of the Criminal Code, we must be cognizant that the potential for increased violence against prostitutes truly exists.

I was disappointed and taken aback at the position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. The self-congratulatory tone in talking about what has already been done has not resulted in the desired effects that we are looking for and wrestling with. The issue is one of action. The government could and should do more on this file.

Those involved particularly in the sex trade today are often victimized disproportionately when compared with others in society. It is time to examine that issue closely.

Many of those who are victimized are mere children, innocence, those whom we have a higher commitment and responsibility, and I would say obligation, to protect. Many of them are also engaged in the issue of pornography where they are further victimized. Those who are victimized are crying out for help in many cases.

This is especially true in terms of youth involved in the practice of prostitution. They are more at risk of being robbed, beaten, sexually assaulted at the hands of pimps or customers. Violence, as the member for Vancouver East has pointed out, is prevalent and closely associated with this issue.

Generally, prostitution will always invoke strong emotions. It is a controversial subject, one that goes back to the beginnings of time. It is involved, complex and contradictory in many of its interests and values that stem from the issue. It has become an acute problem in large urban centres around the country.

From Vancouver to Halifax pimps and prostitutes have in many cases transformed certain areas of cities into unpleasant and intimidating congested streets. It is inevitably associated with other problems, such as drug addiction and violence.

In a 1999 study by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics it was reported that there was a sharp increase in the number of prostitution related incidents recorded by police. Since 1995 those numbers continue to rise. However the increase could reflect changes in enforcement rather than in the volume of criminal activity.

The street is a dangerous place for those working in the sex trade. There is a relationship between violence against prostitutes including assaults and homicides, and the venue of its occurrence.

The position of the Progressive Conservative Party is that we would support an effort to study this issue, an effort to bring people together to delve into it in greater detail. One area that should be concentrated on is the tougher sentencing of those who tend to live off the avails of prostitution or engage in the recruitment for prostitution.

Another issue that has been before the House recently deals with the age of consent. This should be brought into the study.

Currently under section 212 of the Criminal Code anyone who procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another individual is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Bringing that sentence higher so that the benchmark itself might be higher would lead to greater deterrence. This section deals specifically with those who wish to live off the avails of prostitution.

These are truly the bottom feeders in this whole equation. Rather than increasing the sentence from summary to indictable for those charged under section 213, we could potentially address the greater issue, that of persons who are profiting from prostitution more directly. An increase along those lines would allow for a greater message of deterrence to be sent. It might also include raising the age in this section to 18. This could serve as a potential model for other sections and it would have a beneficial effect when we need to address the heart of the issue.

We need to engage in these preventative measures: early intervention, educational awareness, strategies, development of educational tools and resources, and identifying those at risk early on.

I commend the member for Vancouver East and like-minded individuals of this House and around the country who are looking for solutions and actions on this long standing and troubling issue. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will support and participate in that effort.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for his spirited and passionate debate.

Clearly there is a serious problem with respect to the lack of resources and staffing cutbacks that have been made to the Coast Guard. The member is right to point out that it is not a lack of effort and commitment on its part. In fact, the Coast Guard is performing admirably in spite of the situation that it has been placed in.

I want to key in on one area that should not be ignored in this debate and that is the situation with navigational aids. My colleagues from Nova Scotia and St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador are painfully aware of this from having had discussions with Coast Guard officials and others.

Since 1996 and even before, the presence of marine navigational aids have dropped significantly and dramatically. The government will have to reinvest in that critical area. Putting lights and buoys on the coast goes back to the very beginnings of this country. We must ensure that those beacons of light are available for basic safety reasons for those who find themselves in peril at sea.

There are lighthouses that have been completely taken down and are no longer manned. That situation has exacerbated the shortages that already exist in terms of personnel who are available on the water, but this is now an increased danger. With the exception perhaps of Prince Edward Island, manned lighthouses in the maritime region have dramatically fallen.

There are private groups such as Keepers of the Beacon in Guysborough County who are desperately trying to attract the attention of DFO and the minister to this situation. In some instances they are looking to privatize the navigational aids for both heritage and practical purposes.

I would like to hear what the member thinks could be done in terms of improving the presence of these buoys and lighthouses. I have been made aware of instances where lights and buoys are currently in place but are insufficient. They do not work, they are not certified, and they are not up to par. We also have the situation where many lighthouses are being taken down and efforts are being made to re-establish, and in some cases at a private sector level, this important infrastructure.

[Supreme Court of Canada Appointees, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate in the House. I am also pleased to hear the comments and the speech made by my friend, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who always presents an important, intelligent and sometimes somewhat provocative perspective.

This is a very important motion. The member for St. Albert has presented us with a very important issue for debate. The motion touches on a subject matter that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have discussed, most recently at a convention in Edmonton where we very much touched on the subject matter presented by Motion No. 79.

The motion clearly recommends that we change the way in which members of the Supreme Court of Canada receive positions on the bench. This is certainly a subject matter that deserves greater scrutiny and greater contemplation of change. In recent years Canadians have become increasingly concerned about the appearance that courts have encroached upon the supremacy of Canadian Parliament by reading into our laws interpretations that appear in many cases to be inconsistent or outside the intent of the laws as passed by Parliament.

This is of course a direct result of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without a doubt, the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the most empowering document for the Supreme Court, or its ability at least, to strike down laws passed by the Parliament of Canada.

In the past year we have borne witness to a number of cases at the Supreme Court level which have very much taken away or at the very least eroded the concept of the supremacy of Parliament and which in many cases seem to contradict societal views and values that Canadians hold dear. I need only cite the case of John Robin Sharpe. In that recent decision, individuals were permitted or in effect allowed to embark upon or invoke a defence of artistic merit when discussing the possession of child pornography. Without getting into the esoteric argument of what is in many instances a landmark case, we have to time and time again go back to the values, the principles and the wishes of ordinary Canadians when we are discussing matters of societal values.

A friend of mine who is currently practising law expressed the opinion that there can be no doubt that those who sit on the highest court in the land have outstanding academic laurels, but to the everyday, ordinary Canadian they too often seem to be lacking in pragmatic and, sometimes, practical experience to ensure that the will of the people and the will of individuals is properly represented in these decisions. That is not said with any disrespect. It is simply stating what is perhaps the obvious: that their course in life and their ascent to the Supreme Court of Canada has in essence sanitized them or distanced them from the everyday experience that Canadians are living, for example, Canadians who do not understand how the court could allow the potential endangerment of children by accepting this definition of artistic merit as a defence, which highlights that disconnect.

All of this is to say that scrutiny by members of Parliament of appointees to the highest court in the land would go a long way in determining the suitability and the appropriateness of those individuals who aspire and wish to serve, and it could possibly allow for, I believe, a greater recognition or reflection of present day values.

To many it seems that the “reading in” of the intent of laws by courts and by judges seems to be in some ways a violation of very basic constitutional principles, that is to say, Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and the courts in many cases naturally interpret them, but reading in to laws very often steps over that sometimes very blurry line. The root of this perception of judicial activism is that the 1982 Constitution Act included for the first time in Canada a constitutionally entrenched guarantee of civil rights through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which required courts to determine the constitutionality of laws in light of the charter.

Again, without getting into an academic debate about the merits of the charter, we had a system that evolved much differently. It is more in line with that of the United Kingdom where it was not so much Cartesian thinking, where everything was written down, but was more in keeping with the tradition of what was not written down, where what was not documented was acceptable.

I would say that Canada in essence has taken part of what is more like an American model, one of rights that are clearly enunciated and written down, and has tried to superimpose that onto our current system, which evolved in a different way through the British traditions of constitutional law. That is not to say that there is not a clear recognition that Canada evolved as two founding nations coming together as one. There is very much the civil code, which is also reflected in our constitutional law. Some have argued that this evolution has allowed for an erosion of the supremacy of Parliament, in which place democratic accountability has been replaced by the supremacy of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The motion before us would allow for greater public scrutiny and therefore I reinforce the sentiment of believing that public confidence in the process without jeopardizing judicial independence is extremely important. My colleague from Charlevoix also talked about how the perception that justice is being done is as equally important as justice actually being done, and about the confidence that therefore flows from that.

In our party's democratic reform package that was accepted and passed in Edmonton in August, we made a number of suggestions, which included a recommendation similar to that which is brought forward by my friend from St. Albert today. One was the recommendation that the name and qualifications of any person proposed for appointment by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court of Canada shall be presented to Parliament, which shall, after debate, make a recommendation on the suitability of that nominee's candidacy. It is the way in which it is presented, I suppose, and the practical application of this that very much makes up where we go from here in adapting this motion. Further, a vote in the House of Commons should be conducted and the outcome communicated to the governor in council prior to any such appointment being made.

I do not believe for a moment that the intent of my hon. friend's motion is to follow in essence the American example, which allows for, in some cases, the spectacle of delving into every dark corner of an individual candidate's life. That, I truly believe, would diminish further the respect for and legitimacy of an appointee.

In essence what I am saying is that we have to be clear in putting certain parameters around the process that is envisioned. We do not want to, for example, draw attention to the finances or the personal life choices of an individual. There is a cost to doing so, just as there is a cost to the denigration that sometimes occurs of all professions, including our own. There is a cost to deterring individuals from taking that step, from offering to become a judge. Many in the practice of law make more money in that practice than they would if they were to accept an appointment to the bench. That is simply a reality one has to be cognizant of. Clearly we want to have the best people, the best minds, the best individuals, assume these positions. That is truly the spirit and the intent behind my friend's motion.

There is no need for a committee to examine financial records of a candidate or the financial records of a spouse. I do not believe that this type of information would be relevant. Similarly, I am sure the motion is aimed at empowering the role of judges in the country. I see a committee process as an opportunity to allow parliamentarians, acting as representatives in the stead of their constituents and Canadians, to have the chance to delve into some of the beliefs of appointees, for example, through previous decisions that they may have rendered. As I said, no one wants to see an American style of confirmation hearing.

I very much support the principle behind the motion. It is an interesting, timely and important one. I hope that we allow Canadians to further discuss and engage in this process. I am hopeful that with the new and enlightened attitude in this place we in fact will see a day when Supreme Court judges are appointed with greater input by Parliament.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we accept a truthful answer in either official language.

A spokesman for the immigration department issued 606 ministerial passports to convicted felons on compassionate grounds. The minister stated that whenever a permit is issued, it is done with safety in mind. I doubt that the victims of those crimes or the persons without criminal records denied entry to Canada would be impressed with the minister's compassion.

Can the minister tell us why he has allowed the number of permits issued to convicted felons to rise 62% since 1999, and how many of the 606 were convicted of offences for murder, sexual assault or crimes against children?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told landed immigrants that he did not care about their fate at the Canada—U.S. border.

He said “If they do not have a Canadian passport, it is not my problem. Let them become Canadian citizens and then we will protect them”.

Does the Minister of Immigration agree with his leader? Is this the new policy of the Canadian government?

[Immigration, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration is comparing the changes made in the United States to the definition of ethnic profiles.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that immigrants who hold Canadian citizenship should be subject to the new American rules. This is a huge contradiction.

Who is speaking for Canadians on this issue, which affects thousands of citizens travelling to the United States?

[Immigration, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, conflicts and contradictions are rampant within the Liberal government. Proposed changes to the American immigration policy have placed two cabinet ministers at odds and the Prime Minister completely out of the loop.

In this confusing environment, Canadians should be alarmed by reports today that over 600 ministerial permits have been issued to individuals with serious criminal records, 11 with terrorist links, to immigrate to Canada.

How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain the fact that the Liberal government is not holding up its end of the bargain on the security threat to North America?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member opposite would agree that there is potential for abuse when scrutiny is lacking and there is a potential for corruption when scrutiny is lacking. One only has to look at the last eight months of government for evidence of such.

Part 12 of the bill deals with the Marine Transportation Security Act and is an example of how this type of legislation could result in some very disturbing situations if left unchecked. This part gives the minister unfettered power to make contributions or grants in respect of actions that enhance the security of vessels at marine facilities. The wording of this part of the bill is quite vague and it allows the government the ability to fund almost anything it wants under the guise of improving security at ports.

For instance, could improvements to wharfs or docking facilities that had a minor security element to it allow the government to provide grants and contributions that would not receive the scrutiny of this place? There is a concern from a practical level that this type of legislation cloaks and hides information about the government's actions around something as fundamental and as important as a port.

Does the hon. member share that concern with respect to putting unfettered power to hide information under the guise of it being done for security purposes? Is that not something for which there should be greater scrutiny at all levels, including the committee level?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as I have not yet heard anyone explain what was so lacking and so insufficient in the Emergency Measures Act, I wonder if my colleague, who is a long serving member of the justice committee, could enunciate that in some effective way.

What we are doing, in my view, is creating two types of emergencies: an emergency act that would warrant a national type of response; and an emergency, under provisions of this legislation, that would put in place a sort of second tier type of emergency that would be subject to less scrutiny and less judicial intervention. It certainly would delay the time in which Parliament becomes engaged in the process.

Could my colleague tell us why it is that the government has chosen this time to do so, and is it as imminent as it was 14 months ago or is there time now to go through the legislation to make sure we get it right when we are potentially jeopardizing very important civil liberties, which I know my friend would not want to do?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Clearly, the opinion submitted to the House by the privacy commissioner is thought-provoking.

I think the privacy commissioner's concerns in his commentary on previous legislation of this sort, and we have yet to hear from him on this bill, are reason enough for us to go through this process again in great detail.

As we know, the privacy commissioner is an independent body. His office has powers of investigation, powers to delve into detail and talk to persons, unlike the ethics counsellor. The privacy commissioner has raised the alarm. I suspect that in and of itself should be pointed out repeatedly. It is something of which members of Parliament could make greater use in speaking with the privacy commissioner. I have to be honest that I have not taken the opportunity to meet with them on the bill, but I hope to do so.

All sorts of elements to the legislation talk about priorities and levels of scrutiny. One of the issues that hits me in the face is this. Yesterday we were discussing defence issues, and this legislation is almost busy work for the government. It is almost an attempt to appear to approach this from a bureaucratic sense as opposed to giving more resources and attention to enforcing the existing laws of the land, empowering our existing security forces, whether they be military, police, CSIS or immigration, and giving them resources that they need to enforce the current laws and the enormous task of securing our borders and areas throughout the country to protection from threats both abroad and domestic. It become a question of priority and where we should put our resources and our focus.

Legislation is but a tiny piece of the puzzle. In my view the government has spent too much time talking about and legislating on this issue and insufficient time bolstering our current capacity to face this threat head on in a very realistic way.

Again I thank the member for this very important question.