Peter MacKay

[Points Of Order, June 12th, 2001]

That is false. The minister is dead wrong.

[Points Of Order, June 12th, 2001]

It does not help small parties.

[Points Of Order, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I trust the Chair will indulge me in a point of order I would like to lay before the House.

The point of order that I draw to your attention is a rather extraordinary and draconian occurrence that has occurred in the form of a motion that was moved by the government House leader this morning using the provisions of Standing Order 56(1).

Being very well versed in the standing orders, Mr. Speaker, you would know that this pertains to the use of an order which permits the government to, in effect, move a motion that has not received unanimous consent and therefore invoke what is commonly known now as the 25 member standing rule.

I do not use inflammatory language lightly in this regard, but I truly believe, and I urge the Chair to find, that there has been an abuse of process that occurred which is tantamount to a breach of the rules and the intention and interpretation thereof.

First, let me draw your attention to the final paragraph of the motion that was moved by the government House leader. It states:

That, during the consideration of the business of supply this day, if a division is requested on any motion to concur in any item or items in the Main Estimates, immediately after the taking of the said division, the questions on all subsequent motions to concur in any item or items in the Main Estimates shall be deemed to have been carried on division.

The germane part of that is “shall be deemed to have been carried on division”.

In French, these final words are “soient réputées adoptées majoritairement”. This translates into “shall be adopted by the majority”. This is the passage that is most offensive and most odious and, I would suggest, shakes the democratic process of the House.

The effect of this is to decide in the alternative all questions related to the estimates, some $166 billion, no small sum of taxpayer money. This is certainly not a routine matter that is contemplated in Standing Order 56(1). Rather, it is a substantive decision of the House to authorize the spending of public money in the amount of $166 billion.

The resulting offence is such that the House has been denied its right to vote on the expenditure of public money. There has been a coup d'état, a raid on the treasury by the government House leader. He is neutering every member of the House and the people we represent by moving this motion. This is a blatant assault on all members' privilege and, I suggest, as such is tantamount and a motion that has not been moved in a previous parliament since Confederation.

I want to stay focused on the narrow issue of the use of Standing Order 56(1). The minister is entitled to move his motion on matters related to “any routine motion” which is the definition in clause (b) which states:

For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the priorities of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

This final clause in the motion moved by the government House leader has the effect, not of applying a previous vote of the House to other questions but of carrying these motions. In other words, it is possible that the House could vote the first item of the estimates but the remainder are deemed to have been carried on division. That decision simply does not fall within the framework of Standing Order 56(1). It has the effect of authorizing the government to enact the supply bill, and this is the key point, without the vote of the House.

The fact that 25 members do not object cannot be used to take the keys to the treasury. Substantive questions in the House are decided by a majority of votes in the House.

The government House leader will be quick to point out that it was a previous government that enacted Standing Order 56(1). Let me pre-empt that feeble argument and that feeble attempt to distract from the real issue here. I will simply state that it was wrong then and it is certainly wrong now, and to use it in this expansive way further exaggerates the harm. It was never intended to be used in such a broad and repressive manner.

The role of the Speaker, as the Speaker well knows, is to protect the rights of the minority. This is central to the success of your office. It is a high office you hold and one in which we place great trust. If this process is allowed to stand then the government can do all its business in one day and dismiss parliament with the back of its hand. The government, in its haste to take the money and run, has crossed the line.

I ask the Speaker to rule that this motion is a nullity because it has been used to bypass the proper procedures of supply and because it decides questions that do not fall under the categories of matters that can be moved under routine proceedings.

In the alternative, I would respectfully request that the Speaker, given the gravity and the effect of such an expansive and abusive use of this form of closure, hold in abeyance his ruling until such time as he might have occasion to review all the details and precedents which support this point of order.

[Government Of Canada, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal government threw the Magna Carta and the Canadian constitution in the trash can. By using a procedural manoeuvre, the Liberals are denying the members of the House of Commons their right to vote on the contents of $165 billion in public expenditures.

The government has given itself a raise, refuses to do its job to protect children from exploitation on the Internet and shuts down parliament early. Is this the price for an early vacation for this Liberal government?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. He makes an extremely good point. Committee work is perhaps the most useful and productive because it is often done away from the glare of cameras and in a more non-partisan and productive fashion. However the member has hit upon a number of elements of the committee that are most important.

Reasoned, logical amendments are often brought forward by opposition members but the committee structure is controlled very much by the government. This is not particular to this parliament. It has happened in previous administrations as well. Parliamentary secretaries sit on the committees. The chairs are hand picked by the government.

As a result the committee process becomes a microcosm or mini version of what takes place in the House. Amendments, even those which would improve a bill immensely, are turned down. They are voted down blindly because the whip comes down at committee in the same way as it does in the House of Commons.

Anyone in the Chamber who has been affiliated with a party that has been in government, as I have been, must take responsibility for that. It was the Progressive Conservative Party which, after having followed the instructions of the McGrath committee to take parliamentary secretaries off committee, put them back.

We must recognize the error of our ways and admit that we do not have clean hands. However if there is now a willingness to change and improve the committee structure, we should by all means do so.

I thank the hon. member for bringing the point forward. It is an important issue in the greater context of how to improve the functioning of the parliamentary system. The committee system is absolutely critical to any type of reform.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

The hon. member who is yapping now knows nothing about silence. He could not be further from it. It is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to debate these important pieces of legislation before the House recesses.

It would have been the preference of the Progressive Conservative Party to bring Bill C-15 forward, split it, pass it through the Chamber and put it into law before the House recesses. If we had an opportunity to discuss issues of health, taxation and all sorts of other issues that impact on the private sector we would be far—

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

I know the hon. member is not relevant, but the point is that again an opportunity has been stripped away from the opposition by the actions of the government House leader in saying that there will be but a single vote, that the government by way of a procedural manoeuvre will not allow members of the House of Commons to stand up and express on behalf of their constituents whether they support the government's spending. The way in which this occurs is that essentially we will be passing $160 billion plus of spending on behalf of the Canadian people without the opportunity to stand up and vote individually on those various departmental expenditures.

That is unprecedented. It is unacceptable. It is undemocratic. However it is very much in keeping with the government's arrogant attitude toward Canadians and toward the House of Commons. We have repeatedly seen the government stripping away the abilities that the hon. member seeks to point out in terms of private members' business, in terms of debate, in terms of votes. We see it time and time again.

I know there is another hon. member present here who is concerned about the transparency of government. We have heard very recently about the information commissioner and his concerns that the public's access to information in the country is in fact being severely curtailed. The ability to get at information through access to information has been limited. We are being told that there will be more information deemed off limits, there will be lengthy delays when those requests are made and there will be fees attached.

The current information commissioner and his predecessor as well expressed themselves in a very open way at a forum initiated by an hon. member opposite, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who has taken an extraordinary step as a backbench member of the government and initiated the opportunity to review the access to information procedures. He is being told by John Reid and others that the government is in fact doing a great deal. In fact the headline reads quite clearly: “Liberal leadership to blame for weakness of access” to information. We are being told quite clearly that the information law and the access will be weakened, that the “privacy watchdog predicts more limits, higher fees and longer waits” when it comes to this type of information.

All of this very much impacts on the rights and privileges of members on behalf of their constituents. It impacts very directly on the functioning of this place, these hallowed halls, on our ability to do our jobs on behalf of our constituents.

More important, it affects Canadians. It affects the ability of Canadians to have faith in this institution and to have faith in the importance and the relevance of what it is that parliament is supposed to do. In the bigger picture and in the grander scheme of things this is what I think we should all be concerned with.

The most direct indication that public faith is waning and failing in the country is the last election, when there were record low turnouts. Those low turnouts speak volumes as to what Canadians hold dear. Unfortunately it is not our parliamentary system right now.

That is why there is concern among members of our party and others that we engage in a debate on private members' business. It is an important part of the puzzle when it comes to improving the ability of members of parliament to do important work on behalf of their constituents, bring forward independent ideas, draft legislation and have it voted upon. In relative terms that is the way the stamp of approval is placed on initiatives from both the opposition and government benches.

We have seen continual resistance to these types of initiatives. We have seen continual attempts to strip away the powers and ability of the opposition to express itself through the Chamber and various other means.

We speak quite duplicitously about modernization and new ways in which members of parliament can be empowered and made more relevant. The real truth or the real upshot is that we are seeing efforts by the government to strip those powers away.

Hon. members opposite may cackle and laugh because they are sitting pretty. They know that if they vote in line with the government and follow instructions from the PMO they will be happy. They will rush home with their pay pocketed, and away they will go back to their constituents to be quiet. That is very much what the government wants. It wants silence from the backbench and a muzzling of the opposition. That is what this is all about.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I as well am pleased, as my predecessor the member for Brandon—Souris indicated, to take part in the debate. I commend the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing forward this matter.

I have the greatest respect for the work he does both in the House and in the committee, but I must echo some of the remarks of my colleague from the Conservative Party. There is an issue that would have been very timely and that is the issue of Bill C-15. I fully acknowledge what the hon. member has said, that this matter has been brought forward, not only by his party but by the Conservatives and perhaps by other parties as well. We would very much have liked to see that piece of legislation enacted, legislation that is so important to Canadians and that would have such a profound effect on the law enforcement community in terms of bolstering its ability to combat pornography on the Internet, to combat stalking of children on the Internet, to bring in legislation to protect police officers from those who act violently towards them to try to disarm them.

All of this legislation and more is packed together in the form of an omnibus bill. For those who are not familiar with that term, it means broad legislation that brings together a number of different elements, albeit under the criminal code. Some parties in the House, including the party of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, take great umbrage at and have great difficulty with the fact that cruelty to animals provisions and firearms provisions are included in some of the changes proposed by Bill C-15.

That is not to say that this type of legislation in and of itself does not have to be examined. The cruelty provisions in particular are such that we in the Conservative Party and others would like to see them examined. That is why those provisions should be given greater scrutiny at the committee. They should be severed out along with the firearms legislation, which has no connection whatsoever to stalking on the Internet or the perpetration of child pornography.

That bill in its current form is difficult to accept from the opposition's perspective, because we may be vehemently opposed to certain elements of it and yet it is presented in such a way that if we do not take all of the legislation part and parcel, if we were to vote against it, we would be in the terrible position of voting against 90% of what we believe in because of the 10% we have difficulty with. It is akin to going to a yard sale, seeing a box of items and wanting to buy 90% of those items. There are a number of items that we do not want to have anything to do with and yet we are told to take it all or take nothing.

What we are suggesting, and have suggested adamantly, is to simply sever part of that bill, to sever out part of that legislation, and we can completely pass the bill. We could pass the bill without delay. It would go on to the Senate and could come into being before we recess. Why are we in such a hurry to leave? Some legislation we can pass very quickly. MPs' pay is an example. We can put that through post haste without any delays, yet this important legislation that would impact on peoples' lives is going to languish on the order paper over the summer.

This supply day motion is on an important issue that is receiving attention in a number of committees, not only in the procedure and House affairs committee. We had an opportunity to review this exact issue at a recent special committee that was chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House. This committee has been meeting over the past number of months and has now tabled a report which will be the subject of a debate in the House at some point in the near future.

Unfortunately the clock is running again and the government is champing at the bit to shut down the House of Commons. In fact there was a motion moved today by the House leader for the government. What that motion does, Madam Speaker, as you know, is essentially limit any real examination or any real opportunity on the part of the opposition to stand up and vote.

[Points Of Order, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just been advised that the information commissioner's report has been released. The government has an obligation to table that report in the House of Commons but for some reason that has not happened. There has not been an opportunity to bring forward this very important report.

We have heard in the past from the information commissioner and his predecessor that there is what appears to be a very nefarious attempt by the government to become less than transparent. To not bring forward this report furthers that perception amongst the public.

I would respectfully suggest that there is an obligation on the government to table this report so that the House of Commons and members of parliament will have an opportunity to examine that important report before the recess.

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I know my learned friend has contributed significantly to this debate. He brought forward a number of good ideas both at the committee and here in the House, some of which were embraced and are now encompassed in the legislation.

The Conservative Party generally supports Bill C-24. We see this as a positive initiative. We see it as an attempt finally by the Liberal government to recognize and put into law shortcomings that exist for police officers and law enforcement generally across Canada as it relates to this ongoing issue of organized crime.

Previous speakers have alluded to the numerous attempts made to amend the legislation, one of which dealt specifically with the special designation or authorization that would be granted by virtue of the bill. That designation, as the Chair knows, would allow police officers, in some instances, such as in very critical and dangerous circumstances, to engage in activities that would otherwise be offences under the criminal code.

The legislation would grant a form of immunity to the police in cases where they need to prove their affinity and prove themselves to members of organized gangs in order to gain their trust so that they might infiltrate that organization and embark on an important investigation.

The Conservative Party supports that. We believe it is a necessary evil, in some instances, to allow police to do just that. However, it is the unfettered ability to do that with which we are somewhat concerned, and that is the origin of that jurisdiction, the origin of that granting of authority.

We believed very strongly and moved an amendment to the effect that it should come from a judicial authority, as opposed to an internal police decision. That is not to cast aspersions in any way on the police or to suggest outright that there would be abuse. It is just to recognize that there are normal practices currently in place which pertain to warrants and wiretaps, for example, that allow those in a position of judicial authority to review the circumstances and make a more impartial, a more informed and a more impassioned decision as to who should receive that designated authority.

The government in its wisdom does not believe this to be the case. Yet I sense a great deal of unease and discomfort on the part of many government members who were part of the committee process.

Canada has increasingly become the focus of these very notorious gangs within our own borders. We know that organized crime does not recognize or respect borders. Yet this plague or this cancer that exists in our country and around the world is spreading. Many organizations have branched out and recently, for lack of a better word, set up shop in Canada.

In my home province of Nova Scotia the Hell's Angels are becoming very prominent. They have opened a clubhouse that in terms of its outward appearance has store frontage that would rival that of Wal-Mart. It is that blatant. They have their name up in neon lights. That is very much the attitude and the cockiness that exist within many of the criminal gangs in the country.

Many concerns have been ongoing for many years about the resources and the state of our laws that create the imbalance which allows organized crime to thrive.

Bill C-24 goes some distance to bringing back some form of equilibrium, at least in the ability of police forces to combat organized crime, to penetrate the very being of organized crime, to gather evidence, to go into the field and to hurt organized crime in the same way that it is wreaking havoc in our communities. To do so they have to use extraordinary methods at times. That is surely what the legislation is intended to do.

It is also clearly a response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Campbell and Shirose. The decision was interpreted as having struck down many of the previous authorizations in police for police to occasionally break the law. The decision opened up a chasm, a gaping hole in terms of the police understanding of what was or was not permissible in pursuit of organized crime. Bill C-24 is an attempt to restore some of the power and discretion that existed for many years in Canada.

It is following the trace of authorization to permit this type of activity which causes members of the Conservative Party and I some concern, as well as members of the bar associations in many provinces and others concerned that this type of potential invasion of civil liberties is a bit stretched by virtue of the bill.

As the government would be quick to point out, the level of accountability in legislation, at least in terms of the tracing the line, goes right to the solicitor general. Quite interestingly, in probably his last speech in the House before he trundles off to the other place as a reward for his diligence and duty on the part of the Prime Minister, he would be the figurehead, the top cop, if the bill were to come into being. That causes many to shake in their boots but that is currently the case.

The solicitor general is supposed to be directly accountable. Yet the supposedly personal responsibility which rests with the solicitor general's office will not be personal at all when there is a cabinet shuffle or when he leaves for an appointment.

It cannot be personal. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. That is the type of fallacy the bill creates. If there is to be real authorization and real accountability in the legislation, there must be judicial oversight, a judicial review of who receives this type of designation.

This concern is shared by many, as I have alluded to, but it is one that is particularly prevalent in the province of Quebec. The Chair would certainly be aware that on Tuesday, September 12, 2000, Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government in some instances to use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw membership in gangs such as the Hell's Angels and Rock Machine that were a plague to the streets of Montreal and other cities in Canada. In so doing it might anticipate the fact that the courts may very well strike down as unconstitutional some of the provisions of anti-gang legislation and legislation such as Bill C-24.

At the same time we know that in the city of Toronto, under the very able and capable leadership of Chief Julian Fantino, the police have assigned a full time team to monitor Hell's Angels bikers who have brashly set up clubhouses throughout the city as they have in Halifax. Police are most concerned that Hell's Angels might be involved in drugs or arms dealing or taking over legitimate businesses for money laundering purposes. We spoke to that previously in debate on legislation before the House today.

Yet organized crime does not exist just in the large cities. Hon. members would be quick to recognize that their reach goes far beyond our major metropolitan areas. It is found in small towns and villages. Particularly in rural Canada now more and more we are seeing the activities of organized crime. Ports and coastal communities are particularly vulnerable to the importation of contraband materials.

We in the House have an obligation to recognize that Canada is becoming a target of organized crime. In so doing we are very much committed to bringing forward legislation such as this one which arms the police with the tools, the support and the resources necessary.

Resources do not just entail the concrete types of resources one might expect such as computers, firearms on occasion, weaponry, cars, surveillance equipment, helicopters and planes. It also includes legislative backup, legislative tools that allow police forces to optimize their efforts. They allow police forces to see the fruition of their efforts through the courts and prosecutorial system and the eventual incarceration of those who engage in illegal activity.

There was a reference made in previous remarks to the horrible shooting that took place in Montreal of Journal de Montreal reporter Michel Auger who was shot five times in the back. It was a truly cowardice act. I think evidence emerged recently to suggest that it was very much linked to organized crime, particularly motorcycle gangs which Mr. Auger had made the subject of many of his articles.

Therefore the bill now encompasses protection of journalists who write about, disclose and pull back the veil of secrecy surrounding organized crime. As I said, criminal gangs are branching out. Any effort that curtails their activity is such that we should be supportive.

Having said it is rampant and spreading within Canada, it is certainly recognized that it is a world problem. We have seen references to Russian mafia. Certainly Chinese triads have now set up in Canada. We have references to all sorts of organizations from the Middle East that have been active within our borders.

This is a clear indication that Canada has to be competitive and to look in some instances for information from other sources outside our boundaries. That again has to be a direction in which we are prepared to move, because just as in legitimate practices within the economy Canada stands to be left behind if we do not keep up the pace and recognize that this is something now far beyond our control and far beyond the scope of our boundaries.

There was a debate in the House on September 18 initiated by the Bloc that I would suggest very much pushed the government toward bringing forward useful and positive legislation.

The Minister of Justice repeatedly gave assurances throughout the debate and on other occasions that efforts were being made to break the back of organized crime. Yet she refused to discuss using the notwithstanding clause during the course of the debate and conceded that the Liberal government could strengthen the anti-gang laws first initiated back in 1997.

Bill C-24 would do a great deal to achieve some sense of hobbling organized crime. It certainly would not break its back but it would strengthen the definition that pertains to what comprises an organized gang. It would target various degrees of involvement within the organization, make it easier for police and crown prosecutors to arrest and jail gangsters and keep them in prison for longer periods of time by extending the range of sentencing available.

It would allow law enforcement agents to forfeit the proceeds of crime, use the property to do good work and put those resources toward necessary areas. It would also strengthen the rules protecting against intimidation of witnesses, jurors and their families in an organized crime trial, a big problem when it comes to the successful prosecution of these types of offences.

Further, it would strengthen protection for federal members of parliament and improve protection for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illegal acts while engaged in undercover operations to infiltrate criminal organizations. This is the immunity clause of which we spoke earlier.

In recognition of the non-partisan efforts put forth on the committee some very useful amendments were passed. The record will reveal that all who have spoken to the bill have done so in a fairly positive and straightforward fashion as to what would be accomplished when the bill comes into being.

There was also mention of the amendments moved by other parties in attempts to improve and expand upon the status of the legislation. Under the bill the Solicitor General of Canada and provincial ministers responsible for policing would release an annual report accounting for how often law enforcement agents engage in acts which are considered illegal under the current criminal code. That would provide some record and some ability to trace at least what actions have occurred, when the immunity has been used and for what purposes.

There is some degree of comfort in knowing there will be an after the fact examination of the efforts and acts of police in attempts to infiltrate organized crime and invoke on occasion the immunity which allows them to commit illegal acts like stealing a car and using stolen property. However there are still limitations that speak in particular to offences that might involve bodily harm, sexual assault, and certainly murder and the use of violence. The limitations are there. They are real and they exist for a reason.

The amendment the Conservative Party brought forward, which in fairness emulated much of the intent and mirrored the substance of the Bloc amendment tabled at the committee, would go back to this designation. Suggesting that somehow it would slow the process down by having a judge rather than a police officer or superior law enforcement officer make the designation simply does not wash.

There is no further delay in having judicial authority in the first instance than there would be in having police authority to grant the immunity. There would be a much greater sense of ease among many if they knew the designation was coming from a judicial authority as opposed to an internal, in shop process which allows in the extreme one police officer to designate another who would in turn designate him again.

We support this type of legislation and recognize it as something that can be improved upon. Yet the authorization itself is something we would like to revisit at some opportunity. I expect we will because we know that the instant the bill comes into being there will be challenges before the courts. Who knows what the supreme court would do in its wisdom with this type of intervention and designation of authority?