Peter MacKay

[Government Grants, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know what the commissioner said. My question was what did the solicitor general say?

Can the solicitor general tell the House whether he has pulled any other patterns out of the Shawinigate playbook? In other words, has the solicitor general and political minister for P.E.I. made similar direct interventions to lobby on behalf of any of the millions of dollars in contracts awarded to the APM Group whose CEO, Tim Banks, is the president of the P.E.I. Liberal Party?

[Government Grants, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest questions surrounding the solicitor general's conduct in helping his brother's college access over $8 million comes straight out of the Shawinigate playbook. They have run this pattern before. Like the Prime Minister, the solicitor general, upon hearing that a loan he wanted approved was rejected, intervened directly and personally with what is supposed to be an arm's length government agency, namely the RCMP.

What exactly did the solicitor general say to the commissioner of the RCMP in his meeting on May 14?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

I am honoured to have an opportunity again to speak to this important piece of legislation.

I listened carefully to the debate of other members and I think a theme of alarm at least on the opposition benches is being raised as to the far reaching and extraordinary powers the bill places in the hands of the government but perhaps of more concern, a single minister within the government.

The bill has far reaching and long term implications for the country. It touches on no less than 20 pieces of legislation, some of which I would suggest should have been dealt with separately. As is often the case, we see legislation introduced in an omnibus format that lumps numerous unrelated issues together. That is true to perhaps a lesser extent in this particular bill but I want to mention for the record some of the elements of the legislation that touch on previous and existing bills. These include the Quarantine Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Canada Shipping Acts, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the National Defence Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the criminal code and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Let us not beat around the bush. This is a comprehensive bill. It brings about new powers and a new level of concentration of power within the hands of the government. A further concern is the traditional checks and balances, the traditional role of parliament which is further bypassed and marginalized by the form and direction in which the legislation is brought in.

I would not go so far as to use the words of the federal privacy commissioner who termed this type of bill totalitarian when discussing aspects of the legislation. I would not go so far as to even use some of the language of the privacy commissioner in informing Canadians of his legitimate concerns. Yet this is coming from an impartial parliamentary watchdog, someone who is mandated to review bills, situations and actions of government. He specifically stated that there is overriding concerns that should give reason for pause and cause all Canadians to take a closer look.

My fear, as is the fear of other members, is that it has not been the case. This debate is hopefully giving Canadians a window on what the ramifications might be. There are a number of ways in which the bill will impact directly on individual civil rights, individuals' freedom of mobility and their right to privacy. The bill represents another seriously flawed piece of legislation.

Perhaps of note is the necessity of the legislation. Do we need it? Why do we need it? Is there not existing protections that have us covered and at the same time provide protection and checks and balances?

I mentioned the Emergencies Act. There has been no clearly articulated position from the government as to why there is an insufficiency, gap or necessity, given the current parameters of the Emergencies Act, to justify bringing in this new bill. I will dwell for a moment on that and give a brief comparison of what the Emergencies Act and Bill C-55 can actually do so that there is a context.

Bill C-55 has no other objective than to give ministers more arbitrary power that would come in the face of a real threat. That is to say the premise or starting point is that a real threat has to exist. This is the issue that was going to no doubt lead to a disruption, threat, perceived or real impact on Canadians' lives. However the legislation that currently exists, the Emergencies Act, allows for a swift and decisive response from government.

The Emergencies Act is a declaration of an emergency, the starting point. It becomes effective immediately upon proclamation, immediately upon the government declaring that such a state exists. The issue also goes to parliament within seven days. Within seven days, not 45, that issue must be before parliament.

Even if parliament is not sitting it should be recalled for a reasonable response. Parliament could then debate the declaration of the emergency immediately and have an opportunity to either vote or endorse the invoking of the emergency.

Every order or regulation that comes out of the Emergencies Act must go before parliament within two sitting days. There would be an exemption for an exempt or classified order. That is reasonable given the circumstances. If the military determines that it is of such grave and pressing concern that it be kept secret, so be it. However all of these issues would be sent to parliament and an all-party parliamentary review would occur and could be sworn to secrecy.

Parliament could revoke or amend any order or regulation. That is a check. That is an effective ability to involve parliament, the democratic process and the people of Canada. That is the state of the current legislation that we have today. Legislation is in place if an issue were to come before this country of the magnitude and gravity that would warrant an emergency being declared. I again ask the rhetorical question: Why do we need Bill C-55 if that is the case? Bill C-55 would allow the government to circumvent those checks and balances that are currently in place under the Emergencies Act.

By comparison Bill C-55 would also come into effect immediately. There would be no declaration of emergency being proclaimed by the government nor would the matter come before parliament. Parliament is cut out of the loop. Parliament has no vote on the existence of the determination of the emergency. There are no interim orders to be tabled in the House until the first 15 days in which the House is recalled. We do not know when that recall might occur. There is no debate on the state of emergency. Parliament cannot revoke or amend any emergency orders.

Under the Emergencies Act parliament is the place where the orders would be debated, amended, defeated, approved or reviewed. The government would be held accountable under the current legislation. Under Bill C-55 parliament is placed on the sidelines and the orders that are brought forward are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We become a clearing house, a publishing place for the government's decision. The government is not accountable directly under Bill C-55.

Putting this much power into the hands of the minister does nothing to benefit Canadians. On the other hand it does a great deal more to move toward this trend of arbitrary power. It cloaks the government in greater secrecy. In the current environment, is this something Canadians should feel comfortable with? They should be asking themselves if they feel that they can trust the government to make that kind of arbitrary, unchecked decision and are they prepared to live with it. That would be the effect of Bill C-55. It would bypass the scrutiny that would occur in this place in the most basic of circumstances.

Canadians will come to the conclusion that they do not feel comfortable with the bill. It then begs the question: Does the bill represent another seriously flawed piece of Liberal legislation, the type of legislation we have seen in the past that is stubbornly clung to by the government?

Bill C-68 was a perfect example of a registry system that quadrupled in expense from its original intent. It has not worked. It has not protected Canadians. It was presented to Canadians in a mendacious and incorrect way. Clearly, if the bill is in place it would be difficult to revoke and bring back those powers. The Liberal government has demonstrated that it will not change its mind and admit there was any wrong.

This power concentration and power grab continues. The bill is another example of that. The changes to the National Defence Act are the best example. They have been highlighted by many members. The very arbitrary ability to locate and designate a controlled military zone and all of the powers that flow from that decision are scary. There is a need to look at the bill in greater detail to bring about the changes that would ensure the protection of Canadians. Interim orders made by one minister can have a drastic and detrimental effect on the average Canadian's life.

It is for that reason I would like to bring forward an amendment to the bill. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians”.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I want to commend the previous speaker. She is a member of parliament who always adds a great deal to the debate. She does significant preparation for her remarks which is obvious in her presentation.

This bill, like many others, is one that comes before the House as a result of events that shook the world and carries with it a certain amount of trepidation. The public safety act is a rehash--

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is nothing compared to the extremes that this member and this government will go to avoid accountability.

In keeping with the usual practice, in November 1996 Jean Carle, then the Prime Minister's director of operations, and Chuck Guité attended a meeting with Molson Indy organizers where the government's sponsorship program was discussed. True to form, the government later awarded a sponsorship program of $850,000 to Molson, including a 12% commission to Lafleur.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the PMO's office was involved at all? Is that the regular practice. Since 1996 have there been other meetings with other sponsorships by Mr. Carle or--

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in a cynical effort to shift attention away from the unethical conduct of his ministers, the Prime Minister has simply shuffled the deck. The hasty changes in cabinet leave Canadians more suspicious about the Liberal government. It should dawn on the minister that the issue of public trust, real and perceived, has not been addressed.

Would the renewed government House leader clear the air once and for all and simply table the sequentially numbered cheques. This will allow Canadians to judge for themselves whether the minister's weekend at Boulay's was paid for prior to the scandal breaking?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I dare say that this is a bill which more than any other in recent years, perhaps, has caused members of parliament to look deep within themselves, to consult broadly with constituents, and to hear from many groups that I think have a very visceral and emotional attachment to the content and implications of this legislation. Many members have given very thoughtful, personal and almost philosophic views as to how the bill would impact them, their constituents and the country as a whole.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is a bill upon which we should reflect with a great deal of care and caution as we proceed. Although the bill is one that has been a long time in coming, I certainly hope that the government does not push it through with any degree of urgency or carelessness. It is one that will require significant input from numerous sectors in society, including the religious, the scientific, the groups concerned about privacy elements, and there are the medical concerns of the numerous groups working toward medical research which will enhance and improve basic human life.

The bill has been a long time in the process, but I will preface my remarks by saying that we should not by any means rush headlong into the final draft of this legislation. In May, when the bill was first introduced, it came to public knowledge with a great deal of attention and consternation. The bill, I am quick to point out, prohibits human cloning and the creation of an in vitro embryo for purposes other than creating life. It also prohibits the creation of an embryo from an embryo or from a fetus for the purpose of creating a human being.

It creates the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada, the AHRAC, which would exercise the powers found in clause 24 in relation to the licences under the bill. Subclause 25(1) states:

The Minister may issue policy directions to the Agency concerning the exercise of any of its powers, and the Agency shall give effect to directions so issued.

There has been concern expressed about the accountability of this agency. What will comprise the agency? How far reaching will its powers be? What checks and balances will be in place? These are very legitimate questions. The bill states that the governor in council may make regulations concerning the use of human reproductive material or an in vitro embryo for research purposes, that is, use of embryonic stem cells. A licence from the referred to agency for such research will also be required.

Although the bill would prohibit the paying of surrogate mothers under clause 6, certain expenditures may be reimbursed according to the regulations set out in paragraph 65(1)(e).

Suffice it to say that the bill is one in which it is important to examine and highlight what it prohibits as well as what it allows or permits. It raises questions that, as I have referred to, may be incomplete at this point and may even be dangerous. It is a bill that will test the intellect of individuals and members of parliament, their moral fibre, the conflicts that may exist between their religious beliefs and their rational view of the scientific elements of the bill, and their emotional personal beliefs. I would suggest that it raises as many questions as it answers. Caution should be exercised.

The bill gives the government a wide range of powers to regulate the type of research that will occur and parliament may therefore be marginalized or pushed aside after the legislation comes into effect. It is a stark reminder for us that parliament has to do its work in the first instance. In essence, we must get it right the first time, because if changes are not brought about to keep parliament in the loop there may be no future ability for parliament to reconsider and bring these issues back to the floor, at least not as is envisioned in the current bill.

It also goes against the spirit of the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health that human embryonic stem cell research be allowed as an exception and only after it has been demonstrated that the research can be done with no other biological material. That came about under recommendation number 14. Nor does it reflect the recommendation with respect to the research and the ability with which the government then intervenes in or commences this research.

The agency I referred to earlier, AHRAC, will issue licences for research, advise the government and oversee the application of the law. This agency is not at arm's length but is under the powers of the minister, as is clearly stated in clause 25. Limits on the acceptable number of embryos created and stored for reproductive purposes are not addressed by the bill in its current form. The government will determine these limits as it sees fit, outside the purview of, the review of and the rigorous testing that is supposed to occur in the parliamentary process.

The bill also follows closely the CIHR regulations and guidelines that were issued on March 4, well before the bill. At the committee level, Dr. Bernstein, the president of the CIHR, confirmed that the minister was well aware beforehand that such guidelines were being issued. In all likelihood the guidelines serve as a barometer to check public relations and public opinion on the proposition. This method of proceeding is highly undemocratic, I would suggest, and again it pushes parliament aside and prevents us from doing the rigorous review that is demanded and required in democracies.

The committee also recommended that at least half of the members of the agency be comprised of women. The bill does not address that issue.

In looking at the bill, I want to highlight, as other members have, that there are a number of practices that are out and out banned. It is important to highlight them again. Banned are: human cloning; creation of in vitro embryo for anything other than creating a human or improving reproductive purposes; creating an embryo from an embryo; sex determination of embryo for non-medical purposes; human and non-human hybrids for reproductive purposes. Other members have talked about the horrors of this sort of tampering with God's creation. To in some fashion bring in stem cells or life forms that were not envisioned in the beginning is very unsettling and is frightening to the very core for many Canadians.

Also banned are: inheritable DNA manipulation of sperm, ovum or embryos; maintaining an embryo outside a woman's body past its 14th day of development; removal of reproductive materials from a donor's body after death without prior written consent of the donor; commercial surrogacy, that is, paying sperm or ovum donors and buying or selling a human embryo. All of these practices are completely banned under this legislation. I would suggest that when examining the legislation we can see that many of the great, grave and legitimate concerns that have been expressed are to some degree addressed in the out and out banning of those activities.

It is also important to note the deterrence elements. Those convicted of contravening these bans face criminal code offences with fines of up to $500,000 or prison terms of up to 10 years. The consequences are severe, are real and are codified in the legislation.

Regulated activities include the storage, handling and use of sperm, ovum and embryos and also the provision of compensation to surrogates for reasonable expenses such as maternity clothes, medical treatment and for other receipts that are provided.

This is without a doubt a very comprehensive bill, one that inevitably will cause members to consult broadly, as they should, as I said in my opening remarks. It is important for us to take the bill very systematically and very carefully through our process. It will proceed next to the committee, where some of those same members who sat on the earlier committee will have an opportunity to use their prior knowledge, their gained knowledge, to rigorously examine witnesses who will be called, witnesses with the expertise that many members of parliament, including myself, might lack. They are individuals who have a very important perspective to be heard.

I suggest again that this is not a bill that we should sidestep in any fashion but it is one that we have to proceed with and respect because of the elements of a human life which are encompassed in this type of legislation.

[Child Predator Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed to orders of the day we understand that changes have taken place in the cabinet. The House should know why those cabinet changes took place before it proceeds to consider the business the government wishes to place before the House.

I would ask that the government table the letter of resignation from the Minister of National Defence and further, that the House itself be informed by the government of the reasons for these changes. The Prime Minister, whether he likes it or not, is accountable to the House and owes the House some explanation.

Could the Speaker confirm that it would be in order for the Prime Minister to make a full ministerial statement in the House and that the government would be within its reason to table that letter of resignation?

[Child Predator Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate quite clearly, as did the previous speaker, that we in our party support the idea behind the bill. We support the sentiment that we must do everything in our power to protect our most valued and valuable asset: our children. Yet I have real reservations about the method by which Bill C-437 might invoke that.

I very much commend the hon. member who has moved the bill. This is a cause he has long been engaged in and strongly believes in. Bill C-437 is intended to bring about a greater system of protection for children. It is intended to enforce many of the things one would assume should already be happening in the system of release, the parole system and the prison system. Were it to be enacted, the bill would further define the expression “child predator” in the criminal code to cover all sexual offences involving children that include sexual activity by the offender.

We in our party support the sentiment behind the bill. It is laudable that we encourage every effort to protect children and ensure that fairness for the victim prevails in the system. This is often lost. Victims are often thrust into a life of fear not only of what has happened but of the legal system which can be extremely cold and difficult to navigate. The system is at times unforgiving and lacking in compassion and information. I have often heard this from victims.

Bill C-437 would create a separate type of sentence in the criminal code. This is quite clear from the wording of the amendment, the effect of which would be to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to prevent unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole or statutory release from being granted to individuals who have committed child predatory offences or been found to be child predators under the new provisions of the criminal code.

There will be a need to clarify the definition. This is not to be misinterpreted, but there is a scale of sexual offences in the criminal code. We can never forget that. It may sound clinical but I am saying this to clearly indicate that there is a scale for looking at types of offences. It ranges from inappropriate touching, which is not to be condoned but is one type of offence, to the horrific cases of rape, murder and serial rape and murder we have seen in the country.

With respect to sentencing, Bill C-437 seeks to ensure the entire sentence is served in custody in every case in which a child predator offence is perpetrated. Yes, there would still be the full protection of due process. Individuals would still be able to avail themselves of due process from the time of disclosure to a conviction or not guilty finding. We must ensure all the protections currently afforded remain in place and that due process is not interfered with.

However Bill C-437 is about what happens after the fact, after the finding of guilt. That is an important point. Because of the special nature of the offence and the special type of harm to society and the individual that results from it, we very much need a change in response and attitude by the justice department. That is implicit in the legislation.

Bill C-437 would amend the criminal code to provide for applications to the court to find people to be child predators on the basis of having committed offences against children or their inability to control their sexual behaviour. A finding of guilt and a finding of that designation would have certain consequences. We are talking about a type of dangerous offender application, something which is already permissible under the criminal code. We are talking about the worst of the worst.

I shudder to mention the names Olson and Bernardo but these are the types of predatory, sexual and violent offences envisioned by the criminal code change. We can talk about rehabilitation in the context of some offenders, but at the upper end of the scale rehabilitation is no longer a consideration. Rehabilitation of these offenders is virtually non-existent.

When looking at the intent of our justice system the protection of the public must be given precedence. This is brought about by deterrence and denunciation. It is why I recognize what the hon. member is trying to do. He is trying to draw a clearer line to distinguish the types of offences that are so horrific and damaging in their psychological and physical impact on victims. Such offences require special treatment. The offenders should be denied early release or any leniency that could be misinterpreted as condoning or embracing that type of behaviour.

Bill C-437 would give courts the ability to hold offenders for an indeterminate period of time. This is akin to the dangerous offender applications that currently exist. The bill calls for mandatory treatment. This should happen in every instance. It is a resource question. It is a priority question within the penal system and the parole board.

Under the bill counselling would be ordered in all cases to ensure avoidance of contact with children after release. Electronic surveillance might be employed as well as monthly reporting to the police. Certain parameters in the system which are now discretionary would be made mandatory in instances where sexual predators have been identified.

I have a similar bill in this regard which talks about banning contact between convicted sex offenders and children in dwelling houses. This is because of the frequency of contact between offenders and children in dwelling houses. It is where most offences are perpetrated.

Bill C-437 would require the minister of justice to establish procedures to ensure that any breach of an order including failure to report to police resulted in the immediate issuance of a warrant for arrest. That is common sense. It is what should be occurring now. Bill C-437 would codify some existing tenets which have flexibility and require discretion in the field and within Correctional Service of Canada. Under the bill offenders identified as sexual predators would be treated with special caution and in some instances given no leniency.

This is a sentiment we should embrace. The Progressive Conservative Party commends the mover of the motion in this regard. It is trite to say how important children have become in our society. Everyone recognizes that. It is a sentiment everyone should be quick to embrace.

Cautious estimates note that one in three young women are sexually abused before the age of 18 and one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16. These are startling figures. Even more frightening is that most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of the authorities. The cases we hear of are but a fraction of what is occurring.

Sexual predators in some instances are never caught. It goes without saying that this is sad. There is a serial element to their behaviour when there are no deterrents or consequences. They can be found in every province. It is not a rural-urban issue. There is not a higher instance in some provinces than in others. It is prevalent throughout. There is a high rate of recidivism. This is another important factor in the mover's motion. The life altering and lasting implications for the victims and the damage that results is shocking and abhorrent to Canadians. We have heard time and again of these events and the impact they can have on a child.

We should bring the bill to the justice committee where amendments can be put into place. I respect what the hon. member is trying to do. However we should change the bill's details to make it possible, charter proof and applicable under the law.

[Government Contracts, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration was formerly employed by Groupe Polygone. That same group received millions of dollars from the federal sponsorship program.

That same minister admits in a media report that during his time as sports minister he “pushed all the time” for federal sponsorship. Sponsorship contracts more than doubled during his tenure. A large majority of these sponsorships were handled by Groupe Everest, a company that the minister bunked with for a few weeks.

With this growing epidemic of cabinet conflicts and cozy contracts, does the Deputy Prime Minister not, in keeping with the Prime Minister's initiative yesterday--