Peter MacKay

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, as you have ably outlined, we have heard now that the report stage of Bill C-3 will be before the House. It will be a hotly contested bill. Officials of the House have been inundated with notices of proposed amendments. The government itself has been so inept at the handling of the bill that it also has over 100 amendments to a bill with only 199 clauses.

There are so many proposed amendments by other members that the parliamentary website has not been able to publish these notices with the regular notice paper. As of 8.30 last evening I was unable to find the questions that might be before the House this morning and yet the government expects all members to be here prepared to debate this substantial bill.

Moreover, I am equally concerned that Canadians have not been informed about what the possible amendments to the bill will be. This is a very important bill and arguably the most important bill that we will see before the House in this session.

We are in real danger. We are close to undertaking a secret proceeding around a very public bill. We are in this position for several reasons. We are in this quagmire because of arrogance and incompetence on the part of the government and its inability to have any form of compromise.

It is not the job of the Chair, I would suggest, to in any way make up for or explain the incompetence of the government and yet it is my submission that there is a basic duty on the Speaker to maintain an orderly process in the House. The Chair must do this in an orderly fashion when members are not able to access the basic information on the questions they will be ordered to debate and decide upon. This is not an orderly proceeding. This is a sabotage of parliament.

Standing Order 76.1(5) gives the Speaker an unfettered power to select amendments for the report stage. To date the Chair has been reluctant to use that power.

It is obvious that the House of Commons in this session has started down a path on which none of us should be willing to be accessories.

At the instigation of the Reform Party's amendments on the Nisga'a treaty, we now see copycat tactics that the Bloc used during the clarity bill and now C-3. The House is being turned into a disorderly House because the Chair has failed to maintain an orderly process.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 10 demands that the Speaker maintain order. Standing Order 76.1(5) reads as follows:

(5) The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage—

The Chair is empowered and, I would suggest, impliedly ordered to do so.

These two orders of the House are sufficient to allow the Chair to put a stop to this tactic that is leading the House of Commons into disrepute. A repeat of the voting circuses that we have seen here are unnecessary. It will not lead to an improvement of the bill and it is not an orderly proceeding.

The bill received no clausal examination at committee. Everyone here should be ashamed of what happened at the committee on this bill, particularly the Minister of Justice and the Queen's Attorney General of Canada. This is not the way we should be considering bills in parliament. We are seeing once again that the committee stage is being flouted. This is not the way to pass laws and dumping these amendments now before the House of Commons without any real examination at the committee, none whatsoever, nada, is a complete abuse of parliament.

Under these circumstances all of us must examine our conduct and our consciences if we are to proceed. The Speaker, I would suggest, and I say this with greatest respect, is not a mere decoration in this place. The Speaker has a duty to the entire House and the entire country to make parliament work and to make parliament relevant. The Speaker has the power to put a stop to this sabotage of democracy. It is time for the Speaker to do that job. This place will grind to a smoking, screeching halt if we continue down this road.

First, I suggest the Speaker should vigorously use the power and the office he has to select amendments.

Second, the House and the public should have adequate notice as to what selected questions of debate will be in this place.

Third, the government should get its act together and bring in a clean bill incorporating the changes that it earlier muddied with its own amendments.

Fourth, instead of trying to ram everything through the House of Commons and reacting to dilatory tactics with an iron fist, the government should admit that it made a serious mistake with this bill, change the order of business today and stop treating the House as if it were its own private play toy.

Some in this place will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the House got itself into this mess and that it will get itself out of this mess. I state to you quite seriously that for every hour that the House debates in needless, ritualistic voting as a dilatory tactic, the House diminishes itself in the eyes of Canadians and other democratic nations.

The Speaker has the power to prevent this from happening. It is the Speaker's duty to do so and the House of Commons and Canadians generally expect the Chair to act in a way that will bring the House credit instead of disrepute. By proceeding in this fashion the chair and the Speaker are being rendered to that of a bingo caller. This is not to be permitted. This should not be an attack on parliament, which it is. It is necessary and it is incumbent upon the Chair to act decisively in this fashion.

[Points Of Order, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The crisis at Burnt Church is requiring immediate focus from the House, I would suggest. It is imminent that we act quickly.

I am asking for unanimous consent to put a motion to the House that at 6.30 p.m. the House will proceed to a debate of which the following motion would be presented by the hon. member for South Shore. It would read: That this House urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to personally engage in immediate negotiations at Burnt Church, New Brunswick with both native and non-native fishermen; and that at 11.57 p.m., or earlier if there was no debate, that the question then be put without further debate or amendment.

I would suggest that this not be put forward as a way to circumvent an earlier ruling, but there is further evidence to suggest that tensions are escalating in that part of the country and that the House, of all places, should be engaged in the active discussion and debate to look for a resolution and a way to de-escalate and take away the chance of violence or bloodshed in Burnt Church, New Brunswick.

[Olympic Games, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a young and talented Canadian diver named Arturo Miranda sits and waits anxiously in Sydney, Australia. He is waiting and watching his Olympic dreams slip away. The reason this is happening is that the government of Cuba is blocking his right to compete in the games based on a technicality. The heritage minister has been incapable of resolving this affair.

Given the Prime Minister's vaunted relationship with Fidel Castro and that of the foreign minister, not to mention his government's special relationship to Cuba, will he now use that influence to solve this problem so that a young Canadian citizen from Alberta can compete for his country in the Olympic Games?

[Points Of Order, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to today's announcement by the Minister of Finance. He made a highly publicized statement outside the House concerning the state of Canada's financial circumstances, in particular focusing on the level of the surplus.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you, as a great defender of the significance and the importance of the House, will know that we raised this issue on a number of occasions. We regret that unfortunately the House has not seen fit or the Chair has not seen fit to take a vigorous attitude toward the practices that diminish the House.

Yesterday we heard high praise from the government about the importance of public business of Canadians being conducted in the House of Commons, yet it has chosen to flout the House again. My colleagues in this party condemn the continued marginalization by the Liberal government in the House. We know that the House is being diminished by the practice of announcements being made in the press gallery as opposed to the floor of the House of Commons.

In the words of your sister speaker in the British house of commons in Westminster, I suggest that this would lend support to this point of order.

This statement was made on July 26 of this year from Betty Boothroyd of Westminster and she stated,

Let us make a start by remembering that the function of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. That is the role for which history has cast the Commons. It is the core task of members—not merely to act as representatives of their constituents, important though that certainly is. It is in Parliament in the first instance that Ministers must explain and justify their policies.

She goes on to say,

I have taken action to ensure that those who advise Ministers should never overlook the primacy of Parliament. This is the chief forum of the nation—today, tomorrow and, I hope for ever.

I would suggest that there is wisdom to be found in those words and that sentiment expressed by the British speaker. I urge the Chair to follow that lead of the parliamentary model in Great Britain and remind the government of the supremacy of Parliament and the importance of speaking to Canadians through its House, this House and parliament.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add some comments to this bill which is important and timely. There are few people in the country and in the Chamber who would not have a soft spot in their hearts for species at risk in this country.

This particular bill aims at its very root to prevent wild species in Canada from becoming extinct or lost from the wild and to in many ways move towards securing their recovery in their natural habitat.

A small background to this bill, in 1992 the former Progressive Conservative government signed what was then and went on to become the first industrial country to ratify the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. That convention included in its body the commitment for legislation and/or regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened and endangered species. It was certainly a worthwhile cause then and is equally so today.

In 1996 the Liberal government introduced legislation to fulfil the commitment made earlier by the Progressive Conservative government. That commitment came about through Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act. That bill was roundly criticized by environmentalists, scientists and landowners at the time. Sadly, because of parliament recessing, it died on the order paper at the House committee stage.

Bill C-33 is modified and renamed from Bill C-65. It represents the second legislative attempt by the government to fulfil Canada's commitment that was made earlier. According to the government, Bill C-33 is intended to complete and complement existing provincial and territorial legislation on endangered species. It would also fulfil the federal government's commitment under the federal-provincial accord for the protection of species at risk, signed in 1996.

The substance of the bill calls for protection of various species that are named and identified as being at risk of extinction. It prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of species officially listed on a document. That list is there to signify those species in Canada that are endangered or threatened with the destruction of their own being or of their residence.

The species at risk legislation provides for emergency authority to list types of species and to take action to prohibit the destruction of critical habitat for those listed species and those that are identified as in some imminent danger. It will also provide for the recovery, the strategy and the action to identify the critical habitat of threatened or endangered species.

Obviously there is a need for a holistic approach that will identify the species being threatened. It goes hand in hand to say that we have to identify where they live in a strategy to prevent further harm and to preserve and complement their recovery.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is given legal status under this act. It will continue to operate at arm's length from the government. It will assess and classify the status of wildlife species. There is a great deal of ability for outside participation beyond simple government control. These assessments will be published and will be brought about in the form of a basis for the minister's recommendations to cabinet on the list of wildlife species at risk.

From the Progressive Conservative Party's perspective this is where the bill falls down to a large degree. The final determination as to what species will appear on the list is still very much entirely in the hands of cabinet. It is entirely at its discretion. That is fine in some areas, but in this instance it is specialized and in need of particular input from non-governmental bodies outside government to make this determination. Yet the government has retained exclusive control over this list and the determination of this list.

I will refer to who comprises the working group that is very much opposed to the government's preservation and exclusive jurisdiction over this decision. It includes the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Their position is that they are in much better position to determine which species should or should not appear on that list. They feel that by cabinet retaining control over this exclusive decision it very much remains a political issue when it should not be such. It should very much be based on science, on tangible evidence that can be documented and put forward to determine whether species fit into the specialized category of being on the verge of extinction.

The mining and pulp and paper industries and environmentalists are often at odds with one another. Some would go so far to say they are often at each other's throats. If they can come to an agreement and a consensus that they can work together to make the list viable, it is in the country's interest and very much something the government should defer to this group.

It is almost trite to say that the Progressive Conservative Party recognizes that extinction is forever. There is no turning back when a species has been eliminated from the planet. As such, we believe that all Canadians very much support strong legislation that will preserve a species and in some cases will take very drastic measures to ensure the preservation of a species.

The status that has been given or would be designated is something that is a matter of scientific fact and not political choice. This is the reason the Progressive Conservative Party believes that to be effective the legislation has to take action based upon science and based upon evidence. This is not something that is political or partisan. This is an issue of utmost importance. It has to be placed in the hands of those best able to make the determination of what species may be at risk.

We are also committed to protecting the rights of landowners and users who believe that no single individual or entity should bear the burden of recovery when the benefits of a species' protection for all society are to be appreciated. There are occasions when the natural habitat of a certain species may be very much in the hands of a private landowner. There has to be some accommodation and perhaps some compensation involved when the government steps in and makes a determination that everything in its power has to be done to preserve the species and to ensure that their habitats are safe.

This is why we as a party believe the bulk of the decision should be left to the stakeholders when designing this recovery plan and not to cabinet. The party also recognizes that if an endangered species is found in a given area, landowners must be doing something right and should in some instances be given the tools to continue doing so or in some instances to make that environment right.

We agree, support and recognize that many volunteers and voluntary measures have fully endorsed the stewardship as a means of providing protection for species in their critical habitat. We endorse a graduated approach to the stewardship and a full tool kit of materials designed to engage the stakeholders positively in the process. There must be an ongoing process of examination of factors such as examination of the habitat of the species and monitoring of the numbers of a certain species.

Once again it is obvious that this will be based upon scientific evidence that can be gathered in the field by those who have very specialized training in some instances. It is very obvious to me, and I suspect to all, that persons have spent virtually their entire lives studying certain species. I know that this is true in the maritime provinces of certain species of fish. I suspect it is true all over the world that individuals have made a very clear and very strong commitment to the preservation of some of our most natural and beautiful species on the planet.

The Conservative Party believes that simply making criminals out of landowners will not save endangered species. We have to include the stakeholders, scientists, landowners and governments in a role of enforcement. We cannot leave this decision simply in the hands of political masters.

This is one instance where it should be taken out of the political realm and based solely on science and individuals who have the know-how, the appreciation and the understanding of the status of species that may be literally on the verge of extinction from the planet.

These are four components of the bill, but there are certainly problems and areas in which there could be improvement. I hope and certainly expect that we may hear from the minister on the issue in the very near future.

One contentious element has been the minister's intransigence and unwillingness to yield on this point. He has said publicly that under his stewardship there would be no amendments to the legislation, that it would be an all or nothing approach. Early indications now are that he is recanting that position. We look forward to working with him at the committee stage and improving this important bill.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree entirely with either member but I certainly take delight in much of what they have said in their remarks, particularly my hon. friend from the Alliance Party who I believe has a real grasp of this problem. Coming from the part of the world that he does, I would like to draw him into the debate a little further on the issue of ports police. Although we are certainly a massive country, we have two large virtually undefended coastlines where we are most vulnerable to organized crime and contraband materials that seem to slip in under the radar on both coasts. Even in the Arctic we have a great number of coastlines that leave us vulnerable. That is one area that has to be addressed in a comprehensive way through legislation, through resources and through a co-ordinated effort.

Similarly, I would elicit some response with respect to the problem within our prisons where all members know and anyone familiar with the situation realizes that the officials within the penal institutions are particularly vulnerable as well to intimidation and to forms of blackmail and bribery. Again, I think this is something that has to be addressed, not necessarily just through the resource and legislative branch, but through internal changes that can be made to assess and buttress their efforts to deal with those in the organized crime community that they now have within their mix and who continue to operate from the inside of prisons across the country.

There is more that can be done. It is certainly discouraging to those members of the penal community who see individuals being ushered out the door after a very short period of time in custody by virtue of for example our statutory release in this country.

I would like to get the hon. member's comments in that regard.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite on his remarks. He outlined very clearly, in my estimation, that he has a grasp of the scope of the problem, as I think have most members who have risen in the House and participated in the debate. What is prevalent throughout his remarks unfortunately when he talks of co-operative approach is a very partisan approach. He never hesitates to point the finger and to point the blame elsewhere.

The evidence is clearly before us. Although there have been initiatives taken by this government and previous governments to attack this problem, the problem persists. The problem expands. It is a testament to the scope and the magnitude of the problem that we are here. In spite of all of these initiatives and in light of scarce resources the problem is getting worse.

Dialling up the rhetoric, pointing the finger or engaging in polluting the air during this debate with this poisoned partisan attitude does not further the debate at all. In fact it exaggerates the problem. If the hon. member is sincere about this co-operative approach perhaps he could address his remarks in a less partisan way.

I must admit it was very refreshing to hear the Minister of Justice acknowledge that there are times, certainly pivotal points in the country's history, when the legislative branch has to exercise its superiority with respect to its obligation to the citizenry in using the notwithstanding clause. The one that immediately springs to mind would be an issue pertaining to child pornography. That certainly would be something that would warrant that type of legislative response and the invoking of the notwithstanding clause.

Organized crime, I would suggest, is certainly in the same category of seriousness and of a problem that has such magnitude. Does the hon. member attach himself to the remarks of the Minister of Justice in saying that there are occasions when perhaps they will find the inner fortitude and the strength of conviction to actually use the notwithstanding clause in light of the situation before us? Does the hon. member agree that there are such occasions? I know as a former police officer that he sincerely believes in the rule of law and the need for a strong justice system, but does he believe that there are occasions when the notwithstanding clause is the last possible option? I am not suggesting that it ever be used lightly or with unfettered and unchecked regard, but are there times when his government would be justified in using the notwithstanding clause in our constitution?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. I want to commend my hon. friend for his learned, insightful and thoughtful remarks. He always contributes to the debate in that fashion. I was particularly pleased to hear him pay tribute to the need for more prosecutors and resources. I know that he was sincere in those remarks.

I want to turn my question to him specifically with respect to what we can do in a concrete fashion to deal with this issue in terms of a legislative initiative. I am referencing comments made by the Ontario attorney general with respect to this need for legislation that calls for a broadening of the definition of criminal organizations, the criminalization of participation and recruitment of those who engage in this type of activity, the prohibiting of the wearing of identifications and clearly designed insignia that signify membership in a gang, and the establishment of mandatory sentences for certain types of activities that are associated with criminal organizations. Those seem to be the concrete steps that have to be taken and embodied in the legislation, which we are all here discussing today, and expanding police powers to search and attend to crime scenes where there is suspected criminal organization. These seem to be the concrete steps that are being suggested by the Ontario attorney general and which are being discussed here in the Chamber.

I know the hon. member has significant criminal law experience, but I was wondering if those and others he may be aware of are the areas that we have to go into as a committee. As the justice committee, of which he is a member, and the House deliberate over this issue, are these the areas that we have to touch on if we are going to bring forward legislation that will also stand the test of time? It will not be done in haste but it will be done, to use the minister's words, in a timely fashion that will send a strong deterrent message. I know this is something which the hon. member knows.

The need now with organized crime is to send a deterrent message not just to those currently engaged but to those who might willfully engage in criminal activity. I believe that has to be encompassed in the legislation. I look forward to his response.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the Bloc Quebecois for his speech.

My question is specifically on the legislation that would address the problem. It is good to see the Minister of Justice present. She gave a very good speech as to what the government would like to do in an ideal world.

Is legislation aimed specifically at outlawing participation and membership in a criminal organization that was brought in quickly, in a comprehensive way, emphasizing deterrents and showing a strong governmental response to mere participation and the wearing of colours and the act of participation in a criminal organization indeed what the hon. member is suggesting is needed quickly and decisively to address this problem before it expands further outside the province of Quebec and throughout the country the way we have been seeing it in recent days and months?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful response from the solicitor general, but I cannot reconcile from those remarks and from his previous remarks that if the government has done so much and brought in so much legislation and given the police so much by assisting them why organized crime is still escalating. Why is it still getting worse, which he has acknowledged in his own remarks? That does not jibe.

I want to focus my question on a very specific aspect of his responsibilities as solicitor general. We know that there have been a number of serious instances within the present confines. In 1997 prison guards Diane Lavigne and Pierre Rondeau were gunned down in separate attacks and ambushes attributed to the Hell's Angels. Last week, after the August shooting, a Quebec prison guard was shot while driving to work.

I would like to hear from the solicitor general. What is he doing specifically to protect his guards? I hearken back to the issue of the 50:50 release program. What is he doing to help his own prison guards?