Peter MacKay

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both the brevity and the clarity of the minister's stance on this. I agree with him that the committee is the proper place to examine this matter, perhaps in a less passionate and some might say less public way. That is very much the intent of this exercise.

I ask the minister to consider whether in fact it would be appropriate for his colleague to voluntarily remove himself from the position of minister of defence while this exercise is underway. Does he not feel that this would add to the credibility and integrity of that process? I would submit that thus far there has been at least an admission that an inappropriate action was undertaken by the minister in giving two very different versions of the facts as they pertained to Canada's taking of prisoners in Afghanistan.

Would it not be preferable and would it not assist us in this process, if the minister were to simply remove himself, albeit temporarily, so that we could examine this issue in perhaps a less passionate way?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the mover of the motion, as well as the Chair for in their wisdom taking this matter in a most serious and very professional way. I think Canadians will look to this with some encouragement.

Integrity, honesty and truthfulness in this Chamber should not ebb and flow like the tides. This should be something that is as solid as the ground we walk on and as solid as the foundation of this very building in these hallowed halls. Every time we come into this Chamber, we should be reminded of that.

At this very moment, as we embark on this debate, we have an opportunity to illustrate to Canadians this renewed commitment to that sentiment in keeping with the ruling that has been made and in keeping with the intention we have to perhaps revisit some of these principles that should be omnipresent here and should be with us every day. Coming from a legal background, it is very much akin to putting one's hand on the Bible and taking an oath when one walks into this Chamber.

I want to ask the hon. member this. To preserve the integrity of this process that we will be embarking on, examining the words, the actions and the statements that have been made by the minister, would it be advisable for minister to voluntarily remove himself from office and step aside for the interim during the examination of what has occurred in this case?

[Broadcasting Act, January 31st, 2002]

A Liberal few.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague understands very well the situation regarding this bill. I also know that it is a very interesting subject.

I am very encouraged to see the member, along with other members of his party, take up the fight for this issue. As he and his colleague, the representative on the justice committee, have stated quite eloquently and animatedly in the Chamber, the new bill poses a serious threat to the administration of justice not only in the province of Quebec but throughout the country.

The interesting point that has been made and was reiterated in his remarks was that the province of Quebec, through its innovative approach under the old Young Offenders Act, has arguably interpreted and administered justice to youth in that province in perhaps the most effective way we have seen throughout the country.

That demonstrates to me that there was sufficient flexibility within the old system, albeit I was one who was quite critical of the old Young Offenders Act. The new system would create numerous new levels, numerous procedures, and antiquated and complicated processes that will simply result in appeals, delay and, most important, would not bring young people to a sense of accountability and responsibility for their actions, which at its very base and fundamental level is what one would hope would be achieved in administering youth justice.

I have a question for the hon. member. Statements have been made and motions have been put forward. The suggestion has been put forward that the province of Quebec should be allowed to opt out of the administration of the new bill. It would remain under the sections of the old Young Offenders Act while the rest of the country would be going forward with the unfortunate provisions that will result if the new bill is adopted.

Would the member agree the preferred option would be that we simply remain as a country under the old system and learn from Quebec's leadership on this issue? Perhaps we could work in consultation with those in Quebec who have appropriately interpreted and used the provisions of the old Young Offenders Act in a much more effective method.

I certainly appreciate the reference to the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party now working in Quebec for the benefit of Quebec youth. He has also taken a very strong stand in opposition to the new bill being forced down the throats of Quebecers and justice administrators across the country. There has been almost unanimous opposition to the bill for reasons of accountability, as I mentioned, but equally for reasons of cost of administration which will be exorbitant and not accounted for in the bill.

There is not sufficient funding to create these new programs or this new level of bureaucracy. This incredibly complex process will simply be unenforceable and impossible to set up. The new infrastructure that will be required is not accounted for in dollars in what is currently attached to the bill. Would my colleague address some of those points?

[Privilege, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to add what I can to this point of order that has been raised by my friend. I am both a member of the committee of which he speaks and a House leader.

I did not bear witness to the entire chain of events but I believe what he has put before the House and the manner in which he has recited the facts do fairly represent what occurred in terms of the intent of this new procedure, of which the Chair himself would be very familiar having served on the modernization committee which produced the report that was tabled in that instance.

What is unfortunate is that this was the very first time in which this new procedure was invoked. The Chair and all members will be quick to realize that what is behind the exercise that is found in Standing Order 39(5)(b) is to bring about accountability and some form of process to call the government to account when it does not comply with the 45 day rule.

In this particular factual scenario, the question on the order paper that led to the referral to the committee dealing with firearms legislation was not complied with within the 45 days.

The witnesses from the Department of Justice, who would be tasked with answering the questions that were tabled by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville, were present in committee today. It would seem logical to me that we would separate these two processes. What they were going to say in response is a separate issue. What they were going to do today, in my understanding, was give an explanation to the committee as to why the 45 days had not been complied with. That was their sole purpose.

What becomes, I am afraid, somewhat muddy is that it would appear that the actions of the hon. member on the committee, by tabling a motion, seemed to have some triggering effect that by and large negated this separate process of inquiry as to the lateness of response. I would strongly urge the Chair to find those two issues as separate and distinct. In my view that is how they should have been treated by the Chair of the committee.

However there appeared to be, for lack of a better word, manoeuvring going on which negated the responsiveness and accountability of this process in determining why the 45 days had not been complied with.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, through the devices of your Chair and your office, to inquire further. I expect we will be hearing from the government House leader.

I am very concerned as both House leader for the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative caucus and a member of the committee that, to use the hon. member's words, the process of accountability has been subverted. As this is the first instance, there is a dangerous precedent that can attach to what occurred today in the justice committee.

What we want are explanations. The Chair is very familiar with the discussions around this issue. Our intent is to bring about accountability for lapses of time on these questions on the order paper.

What occurred today in the committee was unfortunate. I believe by revisiting the issue and by having an opportunity to hear from the justice officials, we can remedy this issue.

I thank the hon. member for bringing it forward because it does set what I consider to be a precedent that would negate the entire spirit and intent of this new standing order procedure.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question as well to the member opposite. I know that he has taken a long interest in disclosure and access to information. I also know that he has a deep-seated concern for the welfare of children and those who find themselves before the justice system. It is certainly something with which we all have to very much concern ourselves.

The problem that the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative caucus has with the legislation is the amount of delay that will result as part of our objection to passing the bill. Similar to that, is the introduction of numerous new procedures that will be used to the advantage of the accused by their lawyers to invoke delay and bring about appeals for these new procedures, new procedures that I would suggest do not add anything to our current justice system. What they will be simply used for is tools of delay.

One of the concerns I know the member opposite has is that justice be done and be done swiftly, just as the need for information and disclosure is necessary for accountability. In the justice system the need for access to justice occurring quickly is what should be very much at the primary root or goal of drafting new bills.

Does the hon. member opposite feel that bringing about a bill that is so cumbersome, so convoluted and so ripe with new procedures that it will very much rob the justice system of its ability to respond quickly, is the direction in which we should be headed? Should we not be, if nothing else, streamlining and making a system of justice, particularly as it pertains to youth, more accessible, effective and efficient?

[Privilege, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to precedent I also refer the Chair, again with respect to the trust that ministers should have in information placed before them, to The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government by Eugene Forsey and G. C. Eglington. I am sure the Chair is familiar with this publication. It was used extensively by the McGrath commission. At page 19 it reads:

The cornerstone of our constitution is the Sovereign whose government is carried on in Her several realms.

It goes on further to say:

--government is a trust which the Sovereign discharges; it is a trust that cannot be thrown up or ignored in some nihilistic whim.

In the same publication, speaking of responsibilities of ministers, the authors write:

It entails frankness and openness with the sovereign or her personal representative and a proper respect for the royal or vice regal right to warn and advise.

This pertains directly to the information that members of parliament should expect in all statements and information passed by ministers to the House of Commons.

The Chair would surely be familiar with the phrase that trust is the coin of the realm. In all frankness I would submit that based on the behaviour of the minister of defence the House cannot trust the minister. The chief of defence staff cannot trust the minister.

In Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the section of misconduct of members of the House or officers it states at page 111:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

I encourage the Chair to take into the context of this matter not only the statements that were made in the House but statements that were made in the foyer just outside the House in referencing this entire matter.

Finally, I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms , sixth edition. At page 25 under section 92, interfering with members, it states:

A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties--

I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that members of the House of Commons must be able to rely on the information they receive in response to questions placed to ministers. This goes to the very cut and thrust of the responsibilities of members of the House of Commons. A high standard has to be met and that standard has not been met by the minister of defence.

In support of my colleague from Portage--Lisgar, I am sure the Chair will want to examine the matter with the gravest seriousness. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there has been a breach of privilege and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Privilege, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my friend on this question of privilege. I believe you will find that there is ample evidence before the House that in the vernacular there has been a clear departure from accuracy and precision in matters of grave importance that have come before the House.

In a time of war members on behalf of their constituent Canadians have a right to expect clear and concise information from ministers of the government. I would argue that in all matters the truth should be laid bare before the House. Surely there are times when the country might accept that for the protection of life and limb certain information must be kept secret, but this is not the case in this instance.

We have before us an after the fact reporting of events in a way that is inconsistent and contradictory. This leaves doubts in the minds of many including perhaps and more important, I would argue, members of our military at a time when they require and rightly fully demand unfettered laser precision instructions and interpretation from their government and from the minister.

This involves neither ignorance nor maladministration. It involves a deliberate passing of misinformation to members of the House of Commons. My friend has recited the facts as they appear in Hansard .

I will review them. On Tuesday we had the minister of defence clearly indicating in response to a question from the Bloc Quebecois when he first knew of the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops. As reported in Hansard :

Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday.

That was January 25.

It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.

Yesterday, Wednesday--

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier to the hon. member who represented the Bloc, I believe that the Quebec model is one that the rest of the country can certainly embrace and use to a larger degree.

It does demonstrate that there is flexibility under the current Young Offenders Act. Quebec has interpreted in a very open and intellectual way just how unique one can work within that system.

Under the old act, I would suggest that we could benefit by looking at Quebec, but certainly by putting in more resources, living up to our commitment as a federal government to the provinces to fund this important approach. We must give the system the money, the resources and the backup it needs to serve the interests of youth and the public at large.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to teachers is a very good one. There must be a specific recognition in legislation that teachers need to be informed and included. The bill falls short in that respect.

There was an opportunity to ensure that teachers would be provided with, in particular, conditions of probation orders that were attached to a young person. There are often instances where young people find themselves in court for a criminal offence that occurred in a schoolyard and they are sentenced to go back to school. Sometimes the parameters of their probation orders are not made known to the principals and the teachers who are operating in the schools.

The second issue with respect to funding is critical. There is bridge funding in the amount of $207 million attached to the legislation which is supposed to help with the start up costs but as stated previously each province is estimating that up to $100 million per province would be necessary. So, $207 million spread among all the provinces and territories would come up far short. The critical issue would be the inability of the provinces to bear the costs of enforcement and implementation.

Finally, the 160 amendments to Bill C-7 proposed by the Liberal government did not convince Quebecers of the merits of the reform of our youth justice system. On the contrary.

When the committee of the other place studied the bill, most of the witnesses from Quebec said that the amendments were nothing but cosmetic amendments that did not change the principles and the contradictory provisions of Bill C-7.

Moreover, these amendments did not weaken the large consensus in Quebec that Quebec's approach to youth crime would be threatened should this bill be passed.

That approach, which is unique in Canada, is cited as an example all over the world. It has allowed Quebec to have the lowest youth crime rate and the lowest youth detention rate in the country. Unfortunately, these achievements are being threatened by the intransigence of the new Minister of Justice.