Peter MacKay

[Public Works And Government Services, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again a complete non-answer from the government side.

In 1997 the former public works minister and defeated Liberal candidate, David Dingwall, raised $20,300 in donations from companies that received public works contracts; one-third of his campaign budget. These same companies turned around and received a total of $1.5 million in untendered contracts. That is a pretty good return.

Will the minister call in the auditor general, which he can do under section 11, to investigate these untendered contracts? First there was HRDC and now we have the same shenanigans going on in public works.

[Public Works And Government Services, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Transelec, a Laval company, gave $5,000 to the Prime Minister's election campaign in 1993 and another $10,000 in 1997. It also gave $28,000 to the Liberal Party; a total of $43,000.

Shortly after the 1997 election, Transelec received untendered public contracts for $27,000 and a CIDA contract worth $6.3 million. Since the election the company has evaporated. It has no listed phone number for the company or its owner Claude Gauthier.

Will the government call in the auditor general to investigate this highly questionable use of taxpayer money?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting and timely debate that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Wanuskewin. Private member's motion No. 341 talks about defending the constitutionality of section 43 of our criminal code and, if necessary, taking the legislative action to reinstate section 43, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am very supportive of the upholding and the reinforcement, if necessary, of section 43 of our criminal code. I think the member opposite and previous speakers have spoken quite eloquently and have set out before the House the necessity and the background with respect to why we have section 43 in the criminal code. It is there essentially to set very much a standard for the reasonable force that can be used to take corrective measures or to take action when necessary to discipline a child in a situation, whether it be at home or at school.

That section of the criminal code has been in place for a number of years. It has been tested in the courts. It has been examined extensively by courts and by litigators across the country.

I want to thank the hon. member for Wanuskewin for bringing this motion forward.

Unfortunately, I have some difficulty with respect to invoking the notwithstanding clause with respect to this type of criminal code section. That is not to diminish the importance of what the hon. member is seeking to accomplish. I think it is a productive opportunity here in the House to examine the situation, to flesh out this issue further and to look at the issue of discipline, in particular with respect to parents, teachers and community workers, those who are in regular contact with children. It is a very trying time.

It goes without saying that adults are very much in a situation at times where they are forced to make the judgment call to decide whether to take the appropriate physical action, which they must measure, and somehow try to apply a standard of restraint when it comes to physical coercion or restraint of a child. It becomes a very dicey and grey issue. This type of debate is helpful in that regard.

Parents are in a unique position because they know their children best and they know when they have to take that type of extraordinary measure in terms of controlling a child in certain instances. Children, obviously, at times need discipline and parents need the power to invoke this type of reasonable corrective action. Parents know best. They know the unique characteristics of their children and they know the most effective way, for the most part, to raise their child, including discipline in that process.

There is obviously a need to protect the bodily integrity of everyone, and our criminal code does so. It goes without saying that children are more informed about their rights than they have ever been at any time in our history. That is a good thing. The education system teaches children and teaches our citizens generally more about the law than in previous generations. It is very important that Canadians know and understand their legal rights and the obligations which flow from those rights.

Section 43 would help to defend the right of a parent or an adult to intervene in certain circumstances and apply measured, reasonable, restrained physical force. Thus, the issue becomes, is there a necessity to protect that right? Yes, there is. That is what is at the very root of this motion. It is a genuine, sincere attempt to protect and uphold a section of the criminal code that has a very important and productive background and necessity in this country.

That is not to say that there should ever be any indication that this section should be misused or that this section should be construed in some way as to condone or encourage any sort of excessive physical force.

There have been some high profile cases before the courts. The one that comes to mind is a recent case in which an American citizen, in this country, was seen to be using what was perceived, in a parking lot area, to be excessive force in disciplining his daughter. That case resulted in the police intervening and has become somewhat of a cause célèbre in this country.

The courts have been quite measured in examining these situations. They have, in their discretion, looked at the factual circumstances of each and every case. Again, as referred to by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, it is very much an individualized situation. In every case before a court of law there is an ample opportunity to flesh out the circumstances, the factual evidence. The crown prosecutor, in conjunction with the police, is to present evidence that would support a charge of assault or a like charge that involved the use of force. Section 43 is very much there as a filter and a sword to protect the person who has been accused of exercising this type of physical intervention.

It is understandable that there is some trepidation. We have all received calls both in our constituency offices and here in Ottawa from concerned citizens every time there is a case before the courts. Every time this situation arises there is a concern that parents and adults, likewise, feel that they will not be permitted to use reasonable force.

The only trepidation I have in the wording of this particular motion is with the reference to the notwithstanding clause.

I have had discussions with the mover of this motion, who gives assurance, and I think it is implicit when we read it carefully, that it is very much not a pre-emptive strike, but it is there in its wording to suggest that if things proceed in the fashion that the hon. member anticipates, there may be the need for the government to intervene.

For that reason I find it difficult to justify the way in which it is presented. That is to say, at this time there is not an epidemic of abuse, where individuals are relying on this section to justify abuse. We are not faced with a situation where there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what type of force is appropriate.

Obviously, when physical injury results or when force is used in a very inappropriate way, sometimes it is not just the physical abuse that needs to be examined. We obviously know of occasions where a child can be berated, verbally abused, intimidated and scared, and that type of abuse also has to be examined when looking at like situations.

There is an important quote by Morris Manning that I want to put on the record. In his legal commentary, he said:

If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have.

He is obviously suggesting that we must tread very lightly when using the notwithstanding clause. Much akin to the idea behind this motion and behind section 43 of the criminal code, we must be very measured and careful before invoking such an extreme measure. It was referred to as the nuclear bomb of our legal system.

To use the notwithstanding clause essentially annihilates precedent. It annihilates the use of the courts to do their job and to exercise discretion and judgment over our laws. It suspends discussion on a legal principle and on a law. We have to be extremely cautious before going down that road. I know the hon. member who moved this motion is aware of that.

This is a very subjective and objective debate when it comes to the appropriateness of physical intervention. I suspect all members in the House feel very strongly about upholding the importance and integrity of section 43 of the criminal code.

For those reasons, I feel it is appropriate that we exhaust all avenues currently within our system and that judicial discretion be respected in each and every case. One would hope that this particular factual circumstance under section 43 will not be struck down by our courts. That is not to anticipate what any superior court or supreme court in the country will do, but at this time I do not feel it is necessary to invoke or at least threaten to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I again congratulate the hon. member on his initiative in bringing this forward. It is a useful debate and one that may have to be revisited at some time in the near future.

[Justice, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government's very liberal approach to crime has provided $450,000 in a grant to the Elizabeth Fry Society so that it could fully support and wish every success to Karla Homolka's bid for early release into a halfway house. Within the year the same society will provide favourable representations to the parole board for early release.

Rehabilitation support for prisoners is important, but where is the balance in our justice system which forces taxpayers to fund the early release of convicted sex killers while the rights of the French and Mahaffy families are ignored?

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

Once again he has contradicted the auditor general. We will see tomorrow who is right.

[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.