Peter MacKay

[Public Works And Government Services, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 in Ontario, Public Works and Government Services Canada gave 1,845 contracts worth $361 million to companies that donated to the province's 103 federal Liberal candidates. Some 64% of the contracts were untendered. If one did not give money to the governing party, chances are one did not get the contract. The auditor general has condemned this practice.

Will the minister call in the auditor general again to investigate why the minister's department is handing out so many untendered contracts that disproportionately reward government supporters?

[Foreign Affairs, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, given the earlier answer about the assassination of a Canadian citizen in Vietnam and the Prime Minister's non response, I want to ask him again, did he take the time during a four hour golf game with the President of the United States to even raise the issue? The President of the United States took the time to personally intervene to try to save this Canadian's life. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same thing, pick up the phone and extend a life line to a Canadian citizen?

[Vietnam, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, despite assurances from the Vietnamese authorities to put the execution on hold while reviewing fresh evidence from Canada, Vietnam proceeded with the shooting of a Canadian woman who may have unwittingly been duped into carrying drugs.

On the heels of a disastrous trip to the Middle East, where the Prime Minister's ineptitude with regard to foreign affairs was evident, the Prime Minister remained completely silent on this international tragedy.

While playing golf again this weekend with the President of the United States, did he enlist the support of the United States in condemning this injustice? This is a woman's life.

[Vietnam, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last week a Canadian citizen was tied up, gagged and shot by the Government of Vietnam. While the family of Ms. Nguyen Thi Hiep continues to grieve over her horrific death, the Liberal government continues normal trade relations and aid programs to Vietnam.

Canada has taken minimal action, simply boycotting this weekend's Vietnam memorial and withdrawing support for Vietnam's efforts to join the World Trade Organization. This is weak. Canadians expect more.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What concrete steps have been taken by the government to demonstrate Canada's outrage over this execution?

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is, of course, a very important bill that has international and national ramifications here at home. It highlights a very serious situation at a time when our Prime Minister is in the Middle East making numerous comments which have made Canada the focus of the world stage. He has made some very reckless comments, which have been referred to in the House. It is no joking matter. Sadly, some of the commentary that has been highlighted is quite pathetic in nature, and the ramifications are most serious for Canada as our international reputation is very much at stake.

Turning back to the bill at hand, it is very clear that the parlance in this legislation is basically aimed at the defence of disobedience to superiors' orders and peace officers who use a certain type of defence. The bill is aimed, in essence, at scrutinizing very closely the defence that individuals were simply taking orders when partaking in some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Instances in which this type of defence is raised and circumstances where the accused has no moral choice as to whether he or she could follow the order are addressed in the bill.

When we refer to moral choice we mean that other particular circumstances might exist where there was such an air of compulsion or threat to the accused that he or she had no alternative but to obey orders. Obviously this argument was maintained throughout the trial of R. v Finta and, for those reasons, on March 24, 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Finta could not be found guilty of the crimes against him. It is a very troubling situation, one that takes a great deal of moral intrusion and comprehension as to the human dynamics that exist when a person in authority is faced with this type of order.

I can assure hon. members, as a former crown prosecutor, that the provisions included in Bill C-19 are very necessary and welcome. It is a shame, however, that rather than amend Canadian law to do away with some of these grey areas when it comes to prosecuting individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity, or when these specific defences are invoked, the federal government opted instead for a course of action whereby war criminals could be deported to their native country as a temporary solution to the problem at hand.

However, with that said, this is a very complicated process because in most cases the events in question took place as far back as the second world war and sometimes before. Many of those events that date back 50 years are increasingly difficult to deal with, simply because the individuals who may be involved or who may be able to give evidence are no longer available or, in some cases, are no longer living or no longer compos mentis.

The individuals who perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Nazi regime fall very much into the latter category.

Furthermore, the same problems surface when justice department officials attempt to find witnesses to those events to justify the extradition or the prosecution. Evidence sometimes goes missing and key witnesses, as referred to, may no longer be available.

As I mentioned earlier, the offences of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed outside Canada are covered under clause 6 of Bill C-19. Contrary to the three offences defined in clause 4, those in clause 6 are based on the provisions of international law existing at the time they are committed.

Henceforth, perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes could be brought to justice regardless of where the crime was committed. Furthermore, pursuant to subclause 6(4), the crimes in question could be dealt with if they were committed prior to July 17, 1998, the date on which the Rome Statute was adopted by the United Nations. As such, the bill applies retroactively.

I congratulate again all members of the committee and the minister for bringing this bill to fruition. In that precaution, if this had not taken place, this bill would have been, some would argue, irrelevant.

Another particularity of the bill is that in the case of war crimes or crimes against humanity or genocide committed outside Canada or within Canada, clauses 5 and 7 of the bill make it an offence for a military commander or other superior to fail to take reasonable steps or exercise proper control over one or more military or civilian person under their command. As a result, very serious offences may sometimes be committed.

In the case of offences committed outside Canada, subclause 7(5) provides for criminal prosecution before the coming into force of Bill C-19, to the extent that at the time and place of the act of omission the latter constitutes a contravention of customary or conventional international law.

This means that the offender may be prosecuted if the criminal act according to the general principles of law is recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constituted a contravention of law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

Bill C-19 is fairly complete, as it gives jurisdiction to Canadian courts in the case of offences committed outside Canada through clause 8. This clause also recognizes that Canadian courts have the authority to prosecute any person charged with having committed specific acts, providing one of the conditions is listed exists.

For instance, if a person was a Canadian citizen or was employed by Canada at the time, perhaps in a civilian or military capacity, or if the victim was a Canadian citizen, there may be some attachment to Canadian law.

The Conservative Party supports this idea. Canadian courts also have jurisdiction to prosecute if, at the time the offence was committed, Canada could, in conformity with international law, exercise jurisdiction over the person with respect to the offence on the basis of that person's presence in Canada before or after said criminal offence.

As I mentioned, the defence of superior orders, which is perhaps one of the most compelling and interesting aspects of this bill, and the defences which stem from it, can be used, barring a few exceptions. The defence of superior orders should be in compliance with the provisions set out in the Rome Statute.

Therefore, an accused cannot base his defence solely on the belief that it was an order if it was unlawful and if the belief was based on information about a civilian population or an identified group of people who encouraged the commission of inhumane acts or omissions against the population or group. There is potential for prosecution.

Bill C-19 puts aside the Finta decision, to all intents and purposes, and is a good step toward the pursuit of justice. Bill C-19, because of its complexity and because of the objective it pursues, also makes it an offence to possess or launder property obtained as a result of the commission of the proposed new offences. This is a good provision.

Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party fully support the principle that no one should profit from war crimes. Obviously there is potential for further legislation. If the government wanted to make sure that all war criminals would and could be convicted, other laws might have to be modified. I am referring to the Citizenship Act and the Extradition Act which, through their new provisions, would make it easier to prosecute.

Clause 33 of Bill C-19 would amend the Citizenship Act so that while a person is under investigation by the Minister of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for one of the offences in Bill C-9, that person shall not be granted citizenship or take the oath of citizenship.

With respect to Bill C-19, Canada now has an obligation to surrender people caught by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Pursuant to section 48 of the Extradition Act, a person who is the subject on a request for surrender cannot claim immunity from arrest or extradition under common law or by statute under the Extradition Act.

In conclusion, by stating that victims of war crimes have suffered terrible ordeals is to understate the obvious. Through Bill C-19 Canada takes the position that no war criminal is safe or welcome within our borders.

This is a positive undertaking on behalf of the government which is supported, I believe, by all opposition parties. The Progressive Conservative Party also affirms this principle. Canada cannot tolerate our wonderful country being used as a safe haven to escape responsibility for acts so heinous and so atrocious against humanity.

There will be ample opportunity to review further provisions within this bill. As it moves to committee, there will be opportunity to modify and perhaps improve upon this legislation at that time.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this very important debate.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, April 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak to Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports and applauds this excellent initiative by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of Bill C-19 is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute, which was adopted on July 17, 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.

As has been previously mentioned, this piece of legislation forces us to examine some very disturbing matters throughout the world and oftentimes within our own borders.

Once the ICC has been set up it will be the first permanent international court empowered to investigate the most serious of crimes under international law. These include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We can all be assured that although Canada is showing great leadership by making sure that war criminals will be prosecuted and punished for their awful crimes against humanity during a war, there is more that we can and must do. The legislation lays the groundwork to empower those officials within our borders to do just that.

Too many lives have been taken. It is time for the international community to work together to ensure that something is done to provoke positive change in this area to bring about greater accountability and to bring to justice those individuals who have performed and partaken in these atrocities.

Canada's leadership throughout the century has been one for which we can all be proud. With Bill C-19 we have an opportunity to do more. Canada is one of many countries taking steps to implement statutes within a framework of national and international systems of law.

Although six states have already ratified the statute, Fiji, Italy, San Marino, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, in light of the legislative initiatives brought forward by the federal government last December 10, the Conservative Party is glad to say that Canada is one of the first countries to take overall comprehensive legislative steps to implement the Statute of Rome.

I again congratulate the minister for his efforts and his leadership in pursuit of justice for war criminals, and certainly on behalf of victims.

According to justice department statistics, there are presently 400 people living within the boundaries of Canada who have allegedly been involved in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. It is simply unacceptable that many war criminals are able to live out their quiet lives here as if nothing had happened, as if nothing they had done was wrong and escape prosecution for terrible atrocities.

Most of these individuals in question hail from the Balkans, Africa and Central or South America. Canada must not ever become or be seen to be a safe haven for war criminals. In response to this problem, Bill C-19 is a great achievement.

Sadly Canadians and the world will have to wait until the international community gets together to implement a permanent institution that can have genuine and necessary judicial capacity to fulfill the mission to address the problem.

In the meantime we have witnessed the carnage in Kosovo, in Rwanda and in other countries around the world, which makes this legislation all the more important and all the more timely.

Basically Bill C-19 would implement the Rome Statute and replace the current provisions in the criminal code with respect to war crimes. It creates two kinds of offences: offences within Canada and offences outside our borders. Offences within Canada are encompassed in clause 4 of the bill. Pursuant to clause 4, every person is guilty of an indictable offence who commits, in Canada, genocide, a crime against humanity or war crimes.

These definitions provided for the three offences are based on those found in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute. This is in addition to the criminal code where a person, if convicted of one of these offences, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if the crime was committed intentionally. Obviously there is the burden of proof on the crown. In any other case, a person is liable to life imprisonment, a very serious and appropriate response.

These provisions would apply to conduct committed in Canada and permit Canada to either prosecute these offences or extradite individuals to the country where the atrocities occurred and face prosecution in those lands.

This is a great addition since it was extremely difficult for the justice department in the past to prosecute war criminals who had taken refuge here as a result of the supreme court ruling, the now very infamous and famous ruling of R v Finta. In that decision, many will recall that Imre Finta, who was legally trained as a captain in the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie was in command of an investigative unit at Szeged during the second world war.

It is documented that during that time over 8,000 Jewish people were detained in a brickyard, forcibly stripped of their valuables and deported to horrendous, dreadful conditions in a concentration camp as part of the Nazi final solution. This order for execution, the final solution, was on the gendarmerie and certain police forces to carry out.

After the war Mr. Finta fled to Canada. In the early 1990s the Canadian courts challenged the respondent under the Canadian Criminal Code war crime provisions with unlawful confinement, robbery, kidnapping and manslaughter of the victims at that horrible death camp.

In his client's defence, Mr. Finta's lawyer argued correctly that the defence of obedience to superior orders and the peace officer's defence were available under the criminal code, which was the case for members of the military or police forces in prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

These defences are weighed by the courts, subject to the manifest illegality test. This test basically refers to defences that are not available when the orders in question are manifestly unlawful. The burden of proof here relies very much on the qualification of the unlawful act.

[Witness Protection Program Act, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow the lead of previous members who have spoken to this very practical and useful piece of legislation that is before the House.

Bill C-223 in essence broadens the mandate of the witness protection program to include abused spouses. This is a very worthy and worthwhile endeavour. The sad thing is that it would not be necessary if the government were approaching this in a proper way with respect to some of the existing programs and legislation. Increased spending on policing, for example, to better protect spouses from domestic abuse coupled with tougher sanctions that might be handed down by judges would also accomplish much of what the hon. member is attempting to achieve.

There is certainly a need for greater funding and greater resources with respect to counselling programs for the abusive spouse as well as the victim. There are programs such as New Leaf in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where individuals like Bob Whitman and Ron Kelly work extremely closely to address the actual problems of individuals who have involved themselves in this violent behaviour. That type of proactive intervention is what is needed and what the government and all governments should be encouraged to do.

The Liberal government however has not made a concrete commitment to allocate money to deal with and protect society from violent predators. Although it has proudly stated its record with respect to the $810 million for policing and protection which sounds like a great deal of money, the reality is that money will be spread over three years. Sixty-two per cent of those dollars allocated will not be available until 2001-02. Therefore the bulk of the money is committed outside the government's current mandate. This is a very arrogant and I would suggest deceptive tactic that breeds further cynicism.

Under a responsible government, Bill C-223 would not be needed. Yet the government's sketchy record of protecting the public especially those most vulnerable in society has made legislation like this necessary. The slow reaction time of the Department of Justice unfortunately is legendary. The minister herself once described her department as the world's worst law firm. That is a damning condemnation of her own department which she administers.

Currently abused spouses, most often women, endure a living hell as they try to protect themselves and their children from the wrath of an abusive spouse. There are many safe houses set up across the country. Bryony House in Halifax and Tearmann House in New Glasgow perform an incredible service on shoestring budgets.

Victims who move to these shelters do so to escape a very dangerous and volatile situation and relationship. The problem is they cannot remain anonymous and eventually they may be found by their abusive spouse and face violence or even death. The government has not addressed this and I would suggest that Bill C-223 is very much a necessary and laudable piece of legislation.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the family and the protection afforded by this type of bill. It is consistent with our support of law and order and the protection of society and of victim's rights.

I was speaking with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester about another very worthwhile program that is alive and well in the country, Crime Stoppers. Once again it is something that fosters greater participation between members of the community and police in an effort to address a very volatile society at this time.

We feel that the amendments brought forth by this type of legislation to the witness protection program are very worthy. We agree that the hon. member has brought forward the legislation in a timely fashion. It would broaden the mandate.

We also agree that Canada's anti-stalking laws can further be expanded as well. I know that Senator Oliver in the other place continues to do extraordinary work to strengthen the laws related to stalking, section 264 of the criminal code, which is a very serious situation as well. Other members have alluded to it.

Still stronger laws to protect people and bring about a way to protect their individuality and identity when they are fleeing an abusive situation can be further buttressed by a commitment of resources from the government. We must be wary of those who might attempt to use this program in an unlawful manner, for example to change identity to escape creditors.

Bill C-223 protects us against this as well because it has a very detailed list of criteria and factors that the witness protection program would have to consider before admitting a person into its umbrella of protection. They have to display the need, that life is in danger, that there is danger of a psychological or physical injury, and that the situation is such that it would warrant the protection afforded.

A current example is the new identities for humanitarian reasons type of legislation, an unofficial program that began in 1992 and works under the HRDC department. Revenue Canada will not reveal the names of persons who conduct the program, but it ensures that their income tax history, child tax benefits of the victim, et cetera, follow them into their new lives without linking them to their past names.

There are programs that promote this type of protection. The problem is that the criminal code cannot force an individual to testify against a spouse and eliminates potentially very incriminating and damning information that police and prosecutors need to obtain a conviction of a spousal abuser. There is often a great deal of intimidation and threatening behaviour that follows. A new and improved witness protection program could be mandated to protect crown witnesses and help with the furtherance of justice in this regard.

I commend the member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing forward the bill. It very much furthers the interests of justice. Forwarding the bill to the committee is a very worthwhile venture. I applaud the efforts that he has made and those of members who have spoken in favour of it. It is a very sound, common sense initiative. It furthers the protection of victims in most severe cases of spousal abuse.

It is necessary. At the very least this debate has brought government attention to the lack of funding that has been afforded this problem and at best will bring about further debate that will address the problem. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada wholeheartedly supports this initiative.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 12th, 2000]

From the year of 1993 up to and including the present day, could the government provide a detailed breakdown of the cost of the chase vehicles, including the modifications and the gas mileage, used in the transportation of the Prime Minister?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will say it very slowly so the hon. member can understand.

I personally endorse the idea that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. In the Progressive Conservative Party, that great national entity the member and his cohorts are trying to kill, we have chosen to have a free vote which acknowledges that different members of the party may have different views. That is freedom, a concept which the Reform Party is not familiar with. There are big lashes on its members when they step off side. They are relegated to the backbench, tossed out of the party or asked to leave politics if they have a different view.

We may not be conformists of that type but what we have decided to do is respect individual members and respect the various views that Canadians have on this very at times emotional and divisive issue.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

That is not what I said at all. That is a mistruth.