Peter MacKay

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the minister in an instance like this probably was more or less putting her department on autopilot and probably did not have a direct hand in what occurred. However, we know through parliamentary responsibility she is the head of that department. She should have been fully informed about a decision that was obviously, as I have stated many times, quite deliberate and meant to keep members of parliament out of the loop on an important bill.

As the hon. member knows, this particular omnibus legislation contained much of the same content of a bill that we saw in the last parliament, but moved in a new direction on some very important factors, including the creation of new amendments to the criminal code pertaining to crimes on the Internet and other important amendments to the legislation.

Why this occurred and how this came about is something that only the minister can answer. That is why I would emphasize the importance that she be given the opportunity to fully answer before the committee when this matter is taken up by it.

Taking your direction, Mr. Speaker, on what just occurred with respect to moving an amendment to this motion, I would ask for unanimous consent that we add to the text of the motion in the last line “with a full reporting to the House by June 1, 2001 and that a witness list include the Minister of Justice”.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that perhaps it is an opportunity to look at some of the broader issues and how we should deal with ministries and departments when this type of action occurs.

There does not appear to be any specific disciplinary action available to the committee or the House for that matter. I am sure the Speaker is certainly very learned in that particular area.

I would very much suggest that the importance in this instance is to have the minister appear before this particular committee, armed and surrounded by her cadre of departmental officials, to explain what exactly they were thinking. This appears to be a very deliberate act. This is not something that leaked out or that was put out under some pretence of it going anywhere else. It was directly an invitation for the media to come and be briefed prior to members of parliament.

I would be very much in favour of having the minister come forward and speak to the specific behaviour of her department on this issue. I would be very much in favour, granted the privilege to do so, to amend the motion that is currently before the House by adding after last line where it states “referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs” that there be a full reporting to the House within three months, and that a witness list be agreed upon by all parties, and would include the Minister of Justice.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It sounds to me that implicit in the question the member opposite is maybe referring to the fact that the minister might be asked to resign. Or, perhaps we should have the minister come before the House and explain herself and her department in a more open and forthright fashion.

With respect to putting time limits on the matter, I certainly would not take any issue with that. It would be an excellent suggestion to amend the motion so that there was a certain timeframe which the committee could be given to look at the issue and bring it back to the House. Perhaps something could be included in the motion to have the minister come before the bar and explain what took place in this instance.

It seems to be a very deliberate act. As far as my reference to this being something that contributes to the lack of respect for the Chamber, I would only reiterate that is very much the case when there are these transgressions on the part of departments that should know better. Then we hear the government House leader adamantly defend the actions of his government when we know that if he were in opposition he would be doing backflips out of the gallery to condemn the government for the very thing he was trying to defend. This has become very much a practice of cynicism and hypocrisy that we should be trying to avoid if we are to try to raise the standard.

I welcome the suggestion from the hon. member opposite. If he has a specific amendment that he would like to put forward, I would certainly consider it and support it if it were within the spirit of his comments.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the wisdom and the fairness of the Chair in coming to this decision today.

I think it does bear repeating how it is that we arrived at this point. There has been a steady erosion of the respect, sadly, that Canadians feel for this institution. This type of decision, as the hon. member for Provencher has stated, does go a long way in restoring some of the lost respect that exists for members of parliament. It will perhaps buff away some of the tarnish that has come about under this government's administration.

Members of parliament have the right to be informed first and foremost. The Chamber should, in most, if not all cases, be the primary forum for disclosure on the part of the government when new legislation is being brought in. That has not been the case for a number of years.

The icon of the Liberal Party, the late Pierre Trudeau, used to speak of members of parliament as being nobodies 50 feet off the Hill. The Liberals are certainly reinforcing that sentiment with the behaviour that we have seen displayed over the past number of years.

Having members of the press gallery briefed and informed about important omnibus legislation, changes to the criminal code and new introductions of amendments to the criminal code, is an absolute insult to members of parliament.

As was said in a Hollywood movie, “if you build it, they will come”, if we introduce legislation here, members of the media will come. We do not need to hand feed members of the media. If it becomes the practice of the government to introduce legislation here, to make important statements and pronouncements on public policy, if it had one, it can fully expect that members of the media will come. The government should also expect that members of the opposition will respond and should be given that opportunity.

Very seldom have we seen in routine business members of the government get up under statements by ministers and inform the House as to what they intend to do or what legislation they might be bringing forward. It is all done through press releases, through media spin doctoring and through attempts to put an opposition member very often in the uncomfortable position, as we saw in this case, of trying to respond to something on which he or she is not fully informed, and that is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend you for having taken some steps to safeguard the rights and privileges of members with your ruling today.

The table scraps that we sometimes receive as information are also insults. Sometimes a full briefing is provided to members of the media while we receive a fairly complex bill, by everyone's assessment, an hour before question period, where members are required to be here to try and concentrate—although we have seen examples of late where there was little concentration going on in the Chamber—and then be able to go out and face the onslaught of very precise, penetrating questions from the media. It is simply unthinkable and unrealistic to expect that members of parliament will be able to do that.

I commend not only yourself but the member for Provencher for bringing this matter forward. I fully hope and trust that the committee, in its good work, will have an opportunity to bring forward proposals that would prevent this type of thing from happening in the future.

I would hope, first and foremost, that the Minister of Justice and her cadre of lawyers will get the message and heed the words of the Chair and eventually the admonition and words of the committee when it has an opportunity to delve into this matter further. I would also hope that at the very least there will be a shot across the bow, a message sent and received, that the department cannot behave in this way. That, first and foremost, may set an example and raise the bar slightly for other departments.

It is a disgrace that the Department of Justice, above all ministries in the government, would partake in this type of underhanded tactic. With the resources available to it and with the importance and emphasis on fairness, the very symbol of the Department of Justice, two scales, obviously was tipped in a very partisan and partial way toward the government in this instance.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that situations like this can be avoided in the future, although you will have to excuse my skepticism. We know that the government has undertaken at least some steps to look at parliamentary reform. This again may pave the way for some good intent and, we would hope, goodwill on the part of the government to follow through on those commitments, but time will tell.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Progressive Conservative Party, as all opposition members, will be there at the gate to watch this process unfold. It is a very important process indeed as all members of the House and, equally important, the Canadian public, are watching to see if we can in some fashion bring about greater relevance and credibility to this Chamber that we call the House of Commons.

[Petitions, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing hundreds of names of citizens of Guysborough county, a region that continues to live in hard times.

Canso, Port Felix, Whitehead, Little Dover, Fox Island, Durells Island and Tickle all call upon the government to enact legislation that would widen the definition of intermediate zones as defined in the Canada Income Tax Act to include communities, such as those I have mentioned, which are geographically remote and which, we would suggest, are deserving of special status.

The petition is brought forward with a common sense plea for assistance in very difficult times, and I am honoured to table it on behalf of these citizens.

[Immigration, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Gaetano Amodeo and his wife applied for permanent resident status on June 10, 1999. His name may have later been removed, as the minister has told us, but it was known to her department. Although separated, Mr. Amodeo's name would still appear on the original documents.

Why was there no CPIC or Interpol cross-reference which would have revealed the name of Mr. Amodeo, who was wanted for three murders and Mafia involvement, and why was he allowed to enter and leave the country 17 times after that?

[Basketball, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they have done it again, and I am proud to rise to congratulate the St. Francis Xavier X-Men on being crowned yesterday as back to back CIAU national basketball champions.

For the second year in a row, the X-Men defeated the University of Brandon Bobcats, this time in a thrilling 83 to 76 overtime victory. The Bobcats put forward a spirited effort, but in the end could not contain game MVP Dennie Oliver, tournament MVP Randy Nohr and the extraordinary X-Men.

The victory capped off a magical season where the X-Men went undefeated in conference play and were 31 and 1 overall. Their efforts were rewarded with all Canadian selections for Nohr and Fred Perry, while exceptional coach Steve Konchalski was recognized as CIAU coach of the year and former X-star Augy Jones sipped champagne as assistant coach.

St. Francis Xavier continues to be a centre for excellence in academics, athletics and spiritual growth, and the X-Men continue to be excellent ambassadors for this world class university.

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill, and I commend the hon. member for bringing it forward. I think we all agree that the subject matter bears consideration in the Chamber. It is an issue of critical importance to the way we do business as a nation, to the way we engage in debate, and to the role the Supreme Court of Canada would play.

Looking at the substance of the bill for a moment, it refers to the ability of legislators to demand or to mandate that the supreme court should take into consideration debates of the Chamber and debates that may transpire in committees. That is not a bad idea in and of itself. The difficulty I have is perhaps in the way it is worded, in that it would require or demand that the courts do just that.

A previous speaker, who is a former attorney general of Manitoba and a constitutional lawyer, succinctly summed up best what is currently at work: the courts, the supreme court included, have the ability to look at legislative debates. They have the ability to ponder the background of how decisions were arrived at when legislation was drafted. They have the ability to go quite far afield. It is critical to say that in that context it is up to the lawyers who may be arguing the case, or the parties to the matter before the courts, to bring the matter forward.

It is not unheard of for the supreme court or superior courts throughout the land to have researchers delve into this field. I have difficulty with the mandate to tie the hands of the courts. I understand the background reasoning, but it is basically saying that we are important and have to be considered by them in their deliberations. There are many members, myself included, who have some difficulty with imposing that upon the courts.

On issues of constitutional considerations or charter cases the bill would require, in essence, a unanimous decision. That would be required in all cases where the charter came into play. We know that charter issues seem to be predominant in the number of cases before the courts. We would very much be curtailing the way the courts function, the way the courts have independently acted since the mists of antiquity, since the times the courts were assembled to preside over and to protect citizens from an unruly or dictatorial legislator. I will refrain from making any references to the current administration.

To say that in every case there has to be a unanimous decision troubles me. There have been many instances of important dictum or comment by the court in the context of a judge who did not agree with the majority. Looking at the circumstances and the way in which decisions are arrived at by the courts, I would say that this would perhaps unduly constrain the way judges react and interact with one another.

I am reluctant to delve into the tying of the hands of judges in what some would argue is sacred ground. The impartiality of the courts would be impugned to a degree, to say they had to be unanimous in each and every case where constitutional issues were before them.

I also recognize, and as part of the debate I think it is important to recognize it, that there has been a number of decisions. The hon. member opposite referred specifically to the Marshall case. I say to him with the greatest respect that a great deal of responsibility for the way this case was decided rests in the hands of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and in the hands of the department of aboriginal affairs.

The Marshall decision, which incidentally came from Antigonish county in Nova Scotia, dealt with native fishing rights as they pertain quite narrowly to eels. What we saw resulting from the Marshall decision has opened a huge debate in the country. An enormous chasm has occurred when it comes to natural resources, because we know this case will have application or that at least there will be an attempt to apply it to all natural resources and to land rights. We have already seen references to the case throughout the land where native rights are currently before the courts. That is not to say that because of what transpired in the Marshall case we should react quickly in somehow rejigging and reconfiguring the way the courts operate. I agree that it is an important issue that must be debated. Perhaps what we need to do as a matter of course is look at the entire Supreme Court Act.

Very much behind the sentiment of the hon. member is the idea that we should be looking at the way the courts have currently construed their powers. To a large extent we have seen instances where legislators were sidelined or completely put to one side and instances where, the Chair will recall, the supreme court has told legislators that they must come back and fix something, even within a specific time period. We have known instances where legislators did not comply, much to the chagrin I am sure of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The implications for any changes to the Supreme Court Act are long term. For that reason alone I do not think we can trundle into this exercise with any degree of levity. We must look very carefully at what we are mandating the courts to do, because again there are very distinct roles. The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois set out quite succinctly the different roles that are to be played by legislators, the executive branch and our courts, our judiciary.

The Marshall decision is probably not the best starting point when we enter into this exercise because, for any number of reasons, emotions are certainly running high at this point. I have one correction for the record: Burnt Church is in New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia. I say that with the greatest respect.

The bands are currently facing a situation, not to get off into a separate debate, where the interim agreements will expire this month. That certainly brings a real sense of urgency to resolution of the issue of natural resources and access to them.

I also agree with the commentary in the debate about the language that is often used and the need for clarification. We saw that occur in Marshall. We know that rulings which contain specific references to things such as moderate living are open to a great deal of interpretation and misinterpretation.

Another case comes to mind where the supreme court talked about exigent circumstances in police pursuits. It resulted in a great deal of consternation in the law enforcement community. We have seen ample evidence of supreme court decisions where legislators are either implicitly or very directly called upon to come in and fix what their decisions will result in because of the confusion that can reign from what the supreme courts have handed down.

We cannot, I would suggest, take out certain sections of the Supreme Court Act and attempt to try, in what is often an old legal maxim, to do through the back door what one is prevented from doing through the front. We cannot try to somehow, in a roundabout way, get the courts to behave differently.

In a broader context, either at committee level or perhaps in some sort of broader study, we must try to examine the role of the courts vis-à-vis elected officials who, I would suggest and certainly many in this place would agree, have a much broader mandate. They have the same constituency, but a much more specific mandate as to what their role is to be.

I commend the hon. member for bringing the matter to the floor of the House. This is the proper forum for the discussion. I am reluctant to support the legislation in its current form, although I realize that it is brought forward for debate and to flesh out a problem that currently exists in the courts of Canada. We must preserve the independence and the separate roles and look at the issue again perhaps in a broader circumstance in the near future.

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, a happy St. Patrick's Day to you and other members.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-240. This is a bill that brings forward the discretionary powers of a judge to expand upon conditions that can be put in place to protect the public generally. It is a bill that would prohibit certain offenders from changing their names.

The discretionary powers that currently exist in terms of the sentence a judge may mete out, include such things as putting in place prohibitions on the possession of firearms, weapons or explosives, or the use of drugs or alcohol, or prohibiting an offender from associating with known criminals or associating with children. These are obviously protective measures that a judge in his or her wisdom has deemed necessary to continue with the rehabilitative process and, more important, to protect the public.

The purpose with this bill quite clearly is the prevention of an individual who has been convicted of a serious violent offence, whether it be of a sexual nature or violence, from changing his or her name either during or after incarceration so that the public might be informed and there might be an ability to recognize this individual by name. Banning the ability to change name I would suggest does enhance the ability to protect the public, so there is a very rational purpose behind the bill brought forward by the hon. member.

The revelation, or the heightened public awareness, came about quite recently that Karla Homolka might be planning to change her name. This certainly alarmed a lot of people around the country. There was a sense of fear and frustration on the part of many that a person convicted of such a heinous crime could somehow be released and live under an alias. It is very similar to the reason in which persons will often cloak themselves or wear masks to hide their identities.

Although in this notorious case it did not occur, there was an excellent point behind the rationale of the bill. Violent offenders often attempt to change their names and successfully change them while in prison. Although media publicity would make it virtually impossible in the case that I referred to for that individual to go unnoticed, the reality is that there are many violent offenders who are successful in hiding their identities. Then, subsequent to their release, blend into communities.

I realize the importance of rehabilitation and the ability of offenders, having paid their debt to society, to come back and to try to contribute in a productive way. However, there is also this ongoing threat in the case of certain types of offences.

I believe the hon. member would not take any umbrage with possible amendments to the legislation he has proposed. The bill calls for discretion. It is not the be all and end all answer to the problem. It calls for discretion on the part of judges to exercise whether they would impose this ban. It is, as well, enunciated that it is for a scheduled list of offences. A judge would obviously take into consideration certain circumstances as to whether it would be appropriate. This is not to be used in every case.

I understand the argument that once people have served their time that they want to get on with their lives. The greater purpose of public protection sometimes warrants that the knowledge exists that these individuals involved themselves previously with violence or in the worst of cases involving sexual violence with children. I would suspect that those vulnerable persons in our society must take a priority when it comes to protection.

The priority of the Conservative Party has always been with the rights and safety of the public. We sadly acknowledge that there are individuals who continue to pose in some instances a life long threat to children in particular. I am referring to pedophilia where it has been diagnosed in many cases as an affliction that remains with an individual. Sex offenders in particular continue to pose that threat even after release, if there is no follow up or treatment.

The parliamentary secretary gave the House a particularly odious self-congratulatory speech. He droned on about the ongoing dubious accomplishments of the Liberal government. The reality is when it comes to the CPIC system, we were on the verge of collapse just a few short years ago. We heard the re-announcement time and time again of the $115 million that went into the CPIC system.

The Canadian Police Association told Canadians it needed double that amount to make the system really work. It was only a few short years ago that it was described by a member of the police association as being held together with bubble gum and barbed wire. That was a bit of a different slant on things than we heard from the parliamentary secretary. This was coming from an individual more in the know.

The parliamentary secretary also spoke about the communication and the exchange of information between departments. I want to speak very briefly on that. It appears that there is increasing evidence that there is a breakdown sometimes in the communication between departments, whether it be CSIS, the solicitor general's department, Corrections Canada, the RCMP and the parole board. Our RCMP on occasion do not share information with the department of immigration.

There is a very recent example of that. In the Amodeo case, this debacle where an individual wanted by Italian authorities was in Canada, there were communications from the Italian authorities to the RCMP and to the Department of Justice. There were applications under way for extradition. We know that on June 10 the immigration department received an application from the wife of this notorious individual that contained the name of Mr. Amodeo.

For some reason, and the minister has referred to legal documents and one can only assume this means the individuals were separated, it had the name in its possession. Surely someone in the department of immigration must have run a check either on the wife or Mr. Amodeo himself. It would have found the name red flagged on the CPIC system if it was operating properly. The system is also linked to Interpol. There is a question as to whether the CPIC system was working or whether this was a human error.

This communication break down can be very fatal when we are dealing with individuals like Mr. Amodeo who is suspected of involvement in three murders and Mafia connections in Italy.

That demonstrates the fact that this system is not foolproof. It is certainly subject to human frailties if the information is not entered. It also demonstrates that there is a need for protection. The use of that information is extremely important in law enforcement in this country. The bill would enhance the ability of law enforcement communities to use information successfully to protect the public.

There are other examples where the current system has failed us. The refusal of the government to eliminate the statutory release from corrections and conditional release. This allows even the most unco-operative offenders who continue to pose a threat and who have refused rehabilitative efforts, to be placed back in the community.

This often comes after serving less than two-thirds of their time. It is a sad reality that Canada has consistently seen violent criminals being released without proper rehabilitation. It is good proof that systems anywhere are not always perfect, but we have to do everything that we can to try to enhance the law. It is incumbent upon us to examine approaches such as the one put forward by the hon. member.

I have an example that would demonstrate how this would work. A not so notorious killer, or a rapist, or an unrepentant, unrehabilitated offender from Nova Scotia was released upon warrant expiry. He changed his name, moved to British Columbia, received a new driver's licence, new identification and set up a new life for himself, which he was entitled to do. What if that individual then applied to become a Boy Scout troop leader, a Big Brother or a coach?

That type of situation could put a child in serious jeopardy given that individual's past. It could be prevented possibly by the type of system that is envisaged in Bill C-240. There is no guarantee but it would be a step very much in the right direction.

The consequences of lack of knowledge can be tragic and at the very least it is entirely possible that this type of offender, if he committed a crime in British Columbia under a new name, would be given the benefit of extra judicial measures. It is a subterfuge to change the name or mask a person's identity. There needs to be responsibility. The purpose of the bill enunciates the type of crimes for which it would be appropriate.

The bill does not oblige judges to act. It simply allows the courts to make these types of prohibition orders. It may be a prohibition for life or for a short duration. The courts can consider the desirability and applicability of the circumstances. A court now makes prohibition orders on similar circumstances. As well, the penalties are tied into indictable offences. I cautiously support the bill, or a variation thereof, and I congratulate the hon. member for bringing it forward.

[Coast Guard, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Canadian coast guard maritime region has left up to $250,000 worth of seasonal buoys in the water this winter, potentially losing or ruining them for future use.

The coast guard cuts have resulted in a reduction of fixed and floating aids in the water, thus jeopardizing safety. The news of the negligence of seasonal buoys only exacerbates public frustration over the government's mismanagement of the fishery.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that this irresponsible act occurred, and will he investigate to ensure that it is remedied and discontinued?