Peter MacKay

[Points of Order, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that ruling and direction. I certainly commend you and your staff for the usual competence and wizardry in the procedure of this place.

I wish to continue with this issue regarding the availability of the transcripts of the justice committee. As of just moments ago, when checking the record which the hon. government House leader referred to as available on the Internet and available at blues, it shows quite clearly in a print off that there are no transcripts available as of November 1. That is three weeks and that is very important evidence.

The point is not that it is available to me as a member of the justice committee. It is that it is not available to other members who are not members of the committee who may wish to file amendments.

As well, it is now 3.30 p.m. and we still do not have a copy of Bill C-36 as amended. This is something of great concern, I would suggest, to all members who wish to ensure that Bill C-36 is properly dealt with and properly amended before it passes into law.

[Points of Order, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. government House leader has just confirmed that the government will be calling Bill C-36 at report stage. It has come to my attention that the transcripts from the justice committee are not available.

This is of serious concern in that other members of the House, including members of the government who are not members of that committee, have no ability to review and potentially prepare amendments to the bill. In fact the Chair will know that the deadline for the submission of amendments to the bill is 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Further adding to the difficulty is that the bill, as reported with amendment, is not currently available. In fact we are in the perverse situation where government officials have called opposition members' offices looking for the amendments so that they might have an opportunity to review these amendments.

This is an important issue for parliament. It is an important ability that all members of the House have in terms of their ability to prepare and amend government legislation. This bill, as the Chair and everyone here knows, is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is a bill to which the government itself presented over 100 amendments.

The evidence that was taken by the justice committee is currently not available to Canadians. Nor is it available to some members of the House. Until the evidence is published by the House, Canadians cannot find out the basis for which important decisions are being made. The people were represented but unable to make informed decisions or recommendations through their members of parliament when votes are to be taken on the bill.

I am asking the government House leader to agree to delay consideration of Bill C-36 until all the committee evidence is published or until it is made available to some. Certainly the bill, which is now placed on the table, should be available to all members of the House. Until it is, one can only be left with the conclusion that this bill, this process and this House of Commons is secret on an important piece of legislation involving anti-terrorism.

[Justice, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that member used to actually care about civil rights. He said that individuals can go to the federal court if they are wrongfully accused or wrongfully listed. On the other hand, we know that the government has unlimited resources and lawyers to defend its position. It can hide information under the new act.

Will the member tell us, if mistakes occur, and they will, how individuals will get their names off the list? How do they remove their names from the list?

[Justice, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, being wrongfully listed or wrongfully accused can cause irreparable harm to a person. Just ask Mohamed Attiah who, without a charge or even accusation, was fired from his job at the Chalk River atomic energy facility after being wrongfully accused of being involved in terrorist activities. This happened two months ago and there has been no explanation from the police or the nuclear agency that fired him. He has now launched a $5.5 million lawsuit.

The minister has advised us that under the new bill, individuals can go to the federal court if they are denied access to information.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what other recourse exists for those who are wrongfully listed--

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester for the work he has done on this bill and for his remarks which were put in a very measured context of legitimate concerns. Sadly we have seen time and time again in this place that the government does not like any form of criticism, even constructive criticism.

When he referred to the bill, he encapsulated in his remarks the fact that individuals might be given this immunity in coming to a country and that much of the decision making as to who attended and who was the beneficiary of this immunity would be done by those attending these conferences. That is very much the focus of this particular bill.

I would suggest there is an implicit pressure on officials to ensure that the conference is a success and that individuals will be encouraged to attend. That puts equally in place an implicit pressure to ensure that this immunity is extended to encourage attendance and participation.

If the decision is being made by those who are very often involved and in charge of the organizing and will be left to bear the pressures and take responsibility for the success or failure of that conference, does this not again potentially politicize the decision making? Does this not leave those who are now vested with the power with a conflict of interest, in a sense, in making that decision and does it not remove the political accountability that would exist under the old system, where the minister would to make the decision and bear the fallout when that decision has been taken?

[Points of Order, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the Journals of the House of Commons published this morning. Yesterday's Journals record that “A message was received from the Senate as follows”, which ordered:

--That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

The Senate has drawn our attention to a serious defect in our records and the probity of the message that goes from this House to the other house of parliament. I draw your attention and the attention of other members to an excerpt from the Senate Hansard dated Wednesday, November 21, wherein the Hon. Fernand Robichaud, deputy leader of the government, states:

Honourable senators, with respect to the first item on the Order Paper under Government Business, the copy of the bill currently before us does not faithfully represent the bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact, the amendments passed in the House were omitted. As this is not a true copy, we cannot continue debate on this item as it appears before us.

This is a fairly serious matter, I would respectfully submit. Twice the bill was corrected and twice it was found to be deficient. If this was a rarity one could look the other way, but it is clear from the Senate message that there is now considerable concern about our records, and records, as the Chair would agree, must be pristine, concise and always accurate.

This must be seen in the context of the work facing the House with respect to 100 amendments presented in the justice committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill that was just tabled in the House. When people are legislating in marathon sessions at three o'clock in the morning, we have a duty to know that the records will be accurate. If the government takes a decision to pursue such an action, we must ensure and be equally diligent in determining and ensuring that the resulting work is accurate and a reflection of the effort.

The Senate message is a serious warning. First, may I ask for assurances from the Speaker that no corrective action was taken or will be taken by officials to send a corrective message to the Senate until the House has clearly authorized such a message? Second, I want to reserve my ability to raise any question of privilege that may flow from this matter.

Finally, I would ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion, which would be seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester:

That the Message from the Senate concerning Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that another parliamentary watchdog has been brought to heel just like the ethics counsellor.

Canadians should be alarmed as ministerial certificates will allow the cabinet to clamp down on all forms of government disclosure. Institutional and individual accountability will suffer and this further concentration of executive powers signals even more flouting of transparency and openness.

What evidence does the minister have that the disclosure under access and privacy acts have compromised the security of Canadians or our allies? Is this not more about political protection than protection of Canadians?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the controversial Bill C-36 received some minor watered down changes including a five year re-enactment clause on police powers, yet the sun will not set on the ability of the minister to hide information from Canadians.

An injection of judicial review for ministerial certificates is eclipsed by the controversial costly process. The Government of Canada still can deny the information for broad and potentially political reasons.

Why is the minister prepared to sunset increased police powers yet stubbornly refuses to subject her own information hiding to the same standards?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice.

Based on today's testimony, the minister has clearly ignored most of the unanimous recommendations from the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Those include ignoring the recommendations which would sunset the ability of the minister to control information and sidestep parliamentary watchdogs.

Why has the minister chosen to exempt these hide and seek certificate processes from those which would be sunsetted in Bill C-36?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 9th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-412, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code (sentencing judge to determine level of security of incarceration of inmate for first third of sentence).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague in the coalition, the member for Edmonton North, for seconding this motion.

This amendment would result in a change to the criminal code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act making it possible for judges to pass an order requiring a minimal level of security of incarceration before a third of the sentence has expired.

This bill is intended to prevent the practice of cascading in the courts, wherein a prisoner is placed in a minimal security prison in advance of that proper assessment being made. It would give greater input for judges at the early stage of the sentencing process.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)