Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-209 which is before the House. It is unfortunate in many ways that we have to face very troubling and very shameful issues which come forward, but if we do not I am afraid the effect of not acting and not becoming proactive and involved is negligence on our part and will result in further harm.

I begin my remarks by congratulating the member for Calgary Northeast for bringing the matter before the House. Bill C-209 at second reading stage is a very positive attempt by the member to bring forward the matter. As I said at the outset it is shameful that we are discussing despicable behaviour which deals with children and their loss of innocence.

There are many outside the inner workings of our justice system, many outside this place, perhaps only those who have felt the sting of sexual intrusion, who can appreciate how serious an issue it truly is. There is a need for us to deal with it and not turn a blind eye, not be caught up in the rhetoric and the paternalistic and sometimes platitudinal approach often taken to serious issues of this nature.

Sadly sexual predators exist. They exist in every community. We know this from high profile cases such as the Mount Cashel incident in the seventies in Newfoundland and more recently in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens. Instances of child abuse are presented to us through the media in a barrage, which sometimes leads me to fear that a degree of insensitivity or desensitization occurs in today's society. It is laudable that we should be bringing these matters before the House of Commons, the people's place, for discussion.

Canadians hear daily accounts of the damage being done to other human beings, almost to the point where we are becoming thick-skinned. Abuse of positions of trust are particularly disturbing when the person in charge is the perpetrator and the person they should have been relying upon for protection.

The bill in many ways is an attempt to expand the envelope of protection, to broaden the range for which the sections of the criminal code as they currently apply would protect individuals in the age group of 14 to 16.

Recent legislation that we have seen before the House is also laudable in its attempts to notify individuals, particularly those in positions of trust who are entrusted to protect children. I am talking about parents and groups such as Scouts, police and child protection agencies. I am referring to Bill C-7 which will be back before the House of Commons in fairly short order. It would call upon the solicitor general's department to make public information about pardoned sex offenders who remain in the RCMP database and can be released upon request to these types of interested parties.

Since the government took office much of the problem with social services is that they have been cut and underfunded. As the parliamentary secretary said in his remarks, it is not enough to say that we can simply pass legislation which will fix these social problems, these social sores which exist in the area of sexual predators. It is the government's responsibility to put proper funding into these areas. We have seen this most recently with other legislation, like the new youth criminal justice act which will replace the Young Offenders Act. It is fine for the government to say it is going to front end efforts for rehabilitation or efforts to identify youth at risk, yet it is not putting proper funding into these areas.

Some may argue that the criminal code already protects children, that general provisions of the criminal code list the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing and that sections 718 and 718.1 are definitely there for the protection of children. I would suggest that this bill furthers the envelope. I do not think that anyone should be apologetic for making efforts in this regard.

On the issue of disclosure, making information known to those who need the information, we should have a national registry for sex offenders similar to that of the United States.

As members of parliament, we need to focus clearly on the need to protect society from sexual predators. Sexual assault is not an issue of sex, it is an issue of power and control, oppression and dominance over children. It is a very weak and gutless act which is hard for many individuals to even imagine. It is very true that when it comes to the disclosure of information to protect those in our society who are most vulnerable, we have to do everything we can. We must be vigilant in every way to ensure the safety of children and to protect them when they are in this most vulnerable state.

There is a very high rate of recidivism when it comes to sexual offenders. This is extremely troubling, knowing that there is the potential for parents to leave children in the trust of an individual who may have a past that is unknown to the parents.

The law was put in place to prohibit access to children and is very much there to say that children in a certain age group are at a certain maturity level.

Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has suggested, I do not think that is confusing at all. With maturity comes responsibility. We are more than aware that in some instances a 12 year old may be more streetwise than a 16 year old. There is discretion built into the criminal code that allows a judge, a prosecutor or a lawyer to make that judgment call on the facts before them. This particular change would simply expand the envelope and give the greater discretion that may be required as the circumstances might dictate. There are different circumstances that obviously need to be envisioned, and this legislative change would allow that.

There is certainly a consensus that the intent of this bill is aimed strictly at not confusion, but putting in place a system that would allow a 16 year old who is not of a mature state to be under a greater protective umbrella under the criminal code. The change envisions that.

The sections that are affected could be changed by the justice committee. If this bill were allowed to proceed through the House in the manner which is dictated by procedure, it would be brought to committee. There could be corresponding changes made to other sections of the code of which the hon. member from the government side spoke.

My colleague from Shefford has been very vocal on issues involving the protection of children and our party has been consistent in its demands of the government to protect children in matters that involve sexual predators. There is no question that we need to do more to ensure that individual cases, like the one we saw recently in Toronto involving 11 year Allison Parrot, who was raped and killed by Francis Carl Roy, do not happen. These types of cases are a shock to the sensibilities of every Canadian.

I do not take any issue whatsoever with what the hon. member is trying to do with this legislation. We need to dwell on this, to think more and to face the cold hard truth about what is happening in some Canadian communities. Sadly, we have seen time and time again these types of cases come before us. Frankly, I am disappointed with the government's response. Studies are simply not enough. We can do studies time and time again and gather information. Unfortunately, there is a phrase used in this place too often, which comes from the Department of Justice and is mouthed by the justice minister, that it will come in a timely fashion. As time goes on more children are vulnerable and more children can be harmed.

Individuals who are released into the community and are permitted to return to the place where they perpetrated these acts are a threat.

I personally introduced Bill C-242, a bill to amend the code with respect to the dispositions that judges may give, and it speaks specifically of a dwelling house, which is where many of these prohibited sexual acts occur. The impetus for the bill was a young woman in the province of Nova Scotia by the name of Donna Goler who suffered unimaginable abuse at the hands of family members in a dwelling house.

I am pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member. I suggest that his efforts in this regard are very sincere and well intended. This particular piece of legislation, as indicated, would expand the umbrella. It would provide further protection to the agencies that need it and it would provide further protection to the children who are most vulnerable. I look forward to seeing this matter proceed through the House.

[Starred Questions, December 2nd, 1999]

What criteria and evidence does the Department of Environment rely upon to substantiate the argument that PCB compounds are hazardous to your health?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from his comments at noon that the Prime Minister just cannot take no for an answer. He has decided to practise the divisive politics of Reform and has made yet another tactical error on the Quebec strategy.

Premier Bouchard has said that there will not be a referendum in the near future. Now the Prime Minister is desperately backtracking. He is not tough. He is tilting windmills.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, as in 1995, he has once again bungled the unity file?

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Unstaffed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her politically correct question. No substance, but political correctness has become the order of the day.

The point is, that watchdog cannot bite or bark unless somebody warns it that there is a problem, and that was not happening here. In fact I would suggest there is ample evidence that there was a wilful effort to not let SIRC know that this blunder had occurred. That is extremely problematic and the government is not reacting to this issue in a very responsible fashion.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and I certainly agree that it is completely symptomatic of the breakdown in communication and the breakdown in terms of government recognition of the need for resource allocation in this area. CSIS is very much involved in the front line battle against organized crime.

The examples that the hon. member has referred to were bad enough. The bumbling type of activity that led to this lost information, which increased the vulnerability of some of the operations that CSIS was pursuing, was bad enough, but then to have that error exaggerated further by the CSIS watchdog, SIRC, not receiving the information, to use the phraseology of the Minister of Justice, “in a timely fashion”, but to read about it in the Globe and Mail , was absolutely abysmal. Then the government does nothing about it or it waits weeks and weeks to do anything about it.

This watchdog, SIRC, which was unmanned in many ways, or unpersoned in many ways—

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and take part in this debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I will begin by commending the Bloc for the impetus to bring this debate before the House. It is certainly very useful and instructional in terms of the commentary that we will be hearing throughout the day. I commend the Bloc's foresight on the use of this opposition day.

With the issues of options and priorities that we have when it comes to the decision that an opposition party must make with respect to the debate that will take place, I find it very interesting that the Bloc decided to choose this matter. It shows that it obviously recognizes the importance and the priority this issue has in Canada.

Yet, at the same time, the Prime Minister has chosen to provoke the Bloc and prefers a self-edifying folly into the minefield of separation. Canadians are very fatigued with the neverending debate. Obviously he is looking for a pedestal or a way to rehabilitate his abysmal performance in 1995 when he disappeared from the debate and left it to the then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to try and carry his baggage.

We all recognize that organized crime is a threat to all that we hold dear: peace, order and good government. The Bloc Quebecois has chosen to make this a priority and it deserves praise for that. It is something that is very close to home within the province of Quebec because of the competing biker gangs that are playing out their dangerous warfare on the streets of Montreal. We also know that Lennoxville is home to the largest organized crime unit in the country. There is a chapter of the Hell's Angels that operates from Lennoxville. It is very timely that this motion comes before the House.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I also want to remind the House about the supply day motion itself and the process that brings us here today, which will culminate next week when the government will be asked for the authority to spend over $4 billion belonging to the people of Canada.

Supplementary estimates are referred to various committees for examination. To date, the government has not produced a single minister at committee to answer questions or offer attempts to speak to the reasoning for this request for supply. It is truly an offence to democracy. It offends people's sensibilities. I suggest that the smallest municipality in the country would not treat its taxpayers and citizens in such a cavalier fashion. This is $4 billion without a single word of explanation.

I will cite only one example of what is at stake when it comes to these types of estimates. The National Capital Commission is asking for $40 million for projects on Sparks Street, only one block away from the Chamber. The National Capital Commission meets in secret. The only public scrutiny of this agency would take place at a committee and it probably will not happen.

Another request is for $35 million for the firearms control program that is presently in chaos and making a black hole out of public money. The minister and officials have been unable to defend in any way their stewardship of this program.

The government has shut down the scrutiny process when it comes to estimates. The Liberals take the position that it is inconvenient for ministers to attend before committees. The ministers have a duty, I suggest, to attend and to give the public and members of the House an accounting.

It is not for the ministers to tell the committees of the House when they can appear. It is a duty they have to parliament to be here and answer questions about supply. Too many people in Canada, and in fact too many people in the House, have forgotten that cabinet ministers in particular are servants of the Canadian people.

I raise this point in the proceedings to give the government fair warning that it is completely dissatisfying the people of the country and the members of the House with its arrogant treatment of committees. To ask the House to approve public spending without an opportunity to question the government is highly unacceptable and inappropriate to everyone in this place. It is time for the committees to do their work. It is time for us as opposition members to hold the government to a greater level of account.

I want to turn now specifically to the motion before the House. It is appropriate to begin my remarks by congratulating the men and women who work on the frontlines of law enforcement. Whether it be police officers, peace officers, customs agents or crown prosecutors, those working at all levels of law enforcement need our support. They need our increased attention and they need resources very quickly. Increasing the law enforcement budget is the only true way to address the problems pointed out very clearly in the Bloc motion.

In essence, what is occurring at this time in this area is that law enforcement agents are simply being asked to do more with less. They have been ravished by government cutbacks and like a tired animal they are asking for assistance instead of having more heaped on to their backs. Unfortunately government cutbacks and slashes over the years have led Canadians to question the commitment and the priority level the government places on this sector of our country.

This ultimately leads to vulnerability to organized crime and increased levels of organized criminal activity. I am talking of Mafia type associations, criminal gangs and street gangs. Whether they be of any origin or national descent they are popping up at a shocking rate in communities around the country.

They are having a field day in the area of white collar high tech crime such as fraud, telemarketing scams, money laundering, drug importation and exportation, particularly on the west coast. They are dealing in pornography and contraband materials such as firearms, trafficking, loan sharking, and influence peddling, another area where organized crime is very active.

It is coming from international and multicultural groups within the country in the form of eastern European gangs specializing in counterfeiting, biker gangs that are mainly Caucasian, guns and explosives being smuggled in, Russian, Italian and Asian gangs, extortion, aboriginal gangs, pornography and firearms trafficking. All these groups are actively involved in criminal activity. However, the highest threat is drug importation and drug trafficking, the most lucrative area of organized criminal activity.

Intimidation of witnesses has been touched upon by a number of previous speakers. Intimidation of juries, officials and law enforcement agents very much undercuts and undermines the pinnings and the very cornerstones of our criminal justice system. If those working within the system are feeling hard done by and put upon by members of the organized community, they will not be able to do their jobs effectively. Insidious efforts to permeate and pervert our justice system are happening as we speak. Many of these threats to the justice system have come as a direct result of negligent underfunding on the part of the current government.

We know that many coming from outside the country are from very tumultuous and sometimes wartorn backgrounds. When they come to Canada they are overjoyed, if they are involved in criminal activity, at the lax approach that is sometimes taken and the blind eye that is sometimes turned to organized crime.

These criminals are professionals. They come to Canada oftentimes with quite a knowledgeable background of how to circumvent the law. There is no code of conduct or unwritten rules of conduct among the criminal element in this country. It is not like the old Hollywood movies and the gangsters who sometimes had a code of thieves. That does not happen.

Gangs are growing at an astonishing rate. I spoke recently with an undercover officer from the city of Montreal. He gave me some statistics and spoke of personal accounts of how gangs were cropping up in different parts of the city of Montreal and around the country at an astonishing rate.

In 1999 a CSIS annual report stated that Asian based criminal organizations would continue to pose challenges for police and agencies across the country because of their abilities to function as tightly knit units. The agencies we have in place to fight organized crime are aware of the syndicates that are cropping up. Yet they are increasingly frustrated because they do not have the resources to react.

The same report stated that the Hell's Angels had almost doubled in size in the province of Alberta in the last two years since coming to that province. In 1997 there were 26 members. In 1999 there are 46 members. As I have said, we have seen the numbers of chapters in and around the city of Montreal double in the last number of years.

To combat this new form of organized crime, police officers and CSIS agents need to be high tech. They need to be on at least a level playing field and working together with a common goal to try to stop the expansion of organized crime. In order to protect the public they need at least the equivalent tools and at least the equivalent resources.

Instead we hear that the RCMP is unable to investigate fraud cases in the province of British Columbia because of lack of resources. We know that in British Columbia close to 400 RCMP officers are needed to fill vacancies as we speak. The closing of government RCMP training academies in the last year even temporarily was a severe blow to the police. The elimination of ports police increased drug and human smuggling in our coastal communities. The Quebec Mounties have been ordered to stop recruiting. There are paid informants to help investigations. Real problems are happening out there.

In particular, organized crime involving drug importation is on the rise because the force is simply running out of money. It is not able to get people involved because it cannot pay them. Sadly one of the most effective tools the police have to infiltrate organized crime is to pay informants or the informants are not willing to inform. Similarly they are not getting the same level of protection under the Canadian witness protection program because of a lack of funding. Many investigators are unable to use wiretaps because the force cannot afford the computer time and the cost of transcribing tapes.

The solicitor general refuses to take responsibility for his department's actions when it falls down and documents go missing, but we know from the same internal reports put out by CSIS and the RCMP that it is not co-operating. It is not exercising the discretion to share information for a common goal because it is competing for resources. This should be very alarming. This rivalry is actually costing investigators and potentially putting lives at risk.

Groups like the Asian triads involved in the smuggling of individuals, of human bodies into the country, is on the rise due to the poor situation at our borders. There is a suggestion that many criminal gangs in Canada have links to the Chinese military. I was about to say Canadian military, and there is some suggestion of that too.

We know of the sidewinder investigation that took place and exposed a far-reaching, insidious plot to set up more organized crime in the country. Yet, because of a lack of resources among other problems, the sidewinder investigation was put aside. We will be hearing more about this issue. I suggest there will be shockwaves throughout our entire political and justice systems when it comes to the sidewinder investigation being brought to the forefront.

Gangs in Quebec have been growing marijuana in farmers' fields, intimidating farmers to remain silent, intimidating families and intimidating members of parliament. I congratulate the member who was threatened for his courage in continuing to fight for activity that will lead to the breaking of these types of crime syndicates.

It is not the fault of our law enforcement agents. The hardworking men and women involved in this battle continue to put their lives on the line. They continue to risk their own safety even in the face of this lack of government support. They need greater funding. They need greater support. They need greater surveillance. They need equipment, helicopters, patrol boats to monitor and actively take part in the effort to stem the tide of criminal activity.

Some may argue that it is too costly. The Liberals and the solicitor general himself can say that it is too costly. However, we know that they do not have enough money on occasion to fix patrol cars. They do not have enough money in some instances to provide adequate firearms for our officers. A shocking situation is developing.

Internationally we are increasingly vulnerable because of the erosion of policing agencies. Other countries have recognized this point. CIA and FBI reports have said that the United States of America is increasingly vulnerable because of the breakdown of law enforcement agencies in Canada. This is something that we should all be ashamed of, quite frankly.

I need not go into detail about the morale that exists within law enforcement agencies. That is at the point where it is bottoming out as well to match the funding. In April 1999 the chairman of the U.S. judicial subcommittee, Republican Lamar Smith, said that Canada was being used as a launch pad for middle eastern terrorists, biker gangs and crime families that use Canada's borders to sneak persons into that country.

Earlier this year the government put a little money back into fighting organized crime. In government terms it was $15 million per year for the RCMP to target organized crime at three international airports: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. As was previously mentioned Halifax was left out of the equation. It also put $19.5 million per year into Canada's anti-smuggling initiative.

I commend the government for recognizing the need to put in the money, but oftentimes we see that it puts in money over a long period of time. It makes a great deal out of the announcement, just like we saw in the throne speech and the red book before it. There were all kinds of promises about commitment but in the short term we need to stop the bleeding. We need to put in the money now.

This recognition by government is only the first step. We know that law enforcement officers need that money now. The DNA databank and the reopening of the RCMP training facility are great moves. We commend the government for them.

The solicitor general spoke in his remarks about changes in legislation to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and changes to the court system which would enable police officers to get witnesses before the court and provide them with greater protection to encourage them to testify.

There is one glaring omission. I can sum it up in a very simple phrase. We cannot keep people in prison longer and we cannot get them to court with greater ability unless police officers are able to catch them in the crime, bring them forward and get them into the system. That simply is not happening.

The Canadian police information system was recently upgraded by the solicitor general. With great pomp and ceremony he said that $150 million were being put into the upgrade. We know, and RCMP officers themselves have stated it, that $280 million were needed for the upgrade to be effective. Less than half the money required was put in by the solicitor general.

In the face of making these announcements about government spending, it is very apparent it has been spread far too thin over far too long a period. The solicitor general always says that fighting crimes is their number one priority. We on this side of the House are questioning that statement because it appears a lot of number one priorities are fighting for attention.

We hear a plethora of platitudes from the solicitor general denouncing criminal activity and talking about changes in organized crime strategy, but all we are seeing are increased levels of bureaucracy and ossification from the solicitor general. I truly question his grasp of his own department.

We see that there is not a co-ordinated effort. Our agencies are not working together at the level that they should be because they are not getting leadership from the top. They are not receiving leadership from this department. They are not receiving leadership from various agents at the top like the director of CSIS who completely abdicated his responsibility with respect to lost documents. Recently a CSIS agent was actually brought to task, but the CSIS director was completely untouched and, it appears, was complicit in the act itself and in the cover-up.

Although the solicitor general has made promises to modernize the department and do everything he can to increase the funding, it is not happening quickly enough.

The member spoke of the anti-gang bill and the CCRA review. Again these are pale in comparison to the priority when it comes to the need to inject real resources, real quick. Opposition parties, and I would suggest, provincial governments recognize this, and it is high time the government recognized it.

I want to commend the Bloc Quebecois as well. I want to commend the member for Charlesbourg who sponsored a private member's bill to get rid of thousand dollar bills, which are very popular among the drug trade. As well, I again reference the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who stood up to real threats from drug producers in his part of the country. I commend the member for his courage.

There are various elements of the criminal justice system that have to continue to work together, such as information sharing. Earlier in questions and comments I spoke about the privatization scheme which may be coming forward. I hope that is not the case. The Liberals continue to pat themselves on the back for creating initiatives, but this self-aggrandizing and plagiarising of policy is the trademark of the Liberal government. We have witnessed the GST, free trade and others. It was the Conservative Party which actually kick-started many of the initiatives dealing with organized crime.

In 1989 and again in 1993 a former Progressive Conservative government passed four major pieces of legislation to assist our law enforcement community. In 1989 the Conservatives passed proceeds of crime legislation, which was a first in Canadian criminal law history. They passed legislation to help officers trace the flow of money diverted from criminal activities. The former government passed the Proceeds of Crime Act in 1991.

The Progressive Conservative Party also brought in legislation which dealt with the seizing of property. A final initiative that I would reference is that of the organized crime bill, which had far-reaching implications and modified our Customs Act.

There is no doubt that this government has a high standard to live up to. The solicitor general needs to recognize that more can be done by his department. I hope he will do so.

I again cry out for the solicitor general to bring more tools, better and adequate legislation to address many of the problems. I thank the Bloc Quebecois and commend it for recognizing the need to discuss this matter now, ahead of an onerous, divisive debate which the Prime Minister would have had had he been able to provoke the Bloc in the way he tried.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the member for his commentary. I know that his heart is very much in the right place when it comes to the province of Nova Scotia. In fact there is a great deal of pressure on him to spend more time in his home province.

My question for him is with respect to airports because he raised a very interesting point. There has been a lot of discussion in the policing community about privatization of policing, that is security guards. The thought is that we might remove RCMP presence in airports. This is very much a great concern because of the vulnerability of airports and because of being the flash point in terms of importation of contraband materials. Halifax is certainly an international airport with that designation.

Could the member expand on his party's position and his own personal approach to privatization of policing? Standards are lowered and I believe police officers themselves do not receive the same level of training they would get as members of the RCMP or municipal police forces.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very buoyed and entertained to a degree by the commentary from my learned friend from Sydney—Victoria in the province of Nova Scotia.

He always gives a very insightful view. I want to ask him a question specifically with respect to the problem of organized crime in the maritimes. We face a very unique situation, not unlike that of the coast of British Columbia, where we have large bodies of water that make our coastline vulnerable, in particular for the importation of drugs, contraband material, pornography and weapons coming from large urban centres like Boston and New York.

I am wondering, particularly in reference to his area in Cape Breton or Nova Scotia generally, if the hon. member could talk to that and the increased vulnerability of our coastline because of the disbandment of the ports police. I know that Halifax, which was very much vying for superport designation, dealt with that in a very timely way. It may have factored into the decision ultimately as to whether Halifax would receive that designation.

Could the member expand on that thought and tell us what he feels we could do to address the situation in Nova Scotia? Specifically, what advice might he have for the solicitor general in this regard?

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who is also a member of the justice committee.

She has made several remarks about information sharing, or perhaps in some instances the lack of information that sometimes is shared between law enforcement agencies. Would she agree that what is needed most at this time is some leadership within the solicitor general's department to get these two agencies working closer together, that is, CSIS and the RCMP?

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Bloc Quebecois member on this motion. It is very important for Quebec, for the country, and for each and every Canadian.

The hon. member has identified many of the problems we are facing. He has laid out quite accurately the level at which organized crime has crept into many Canadian communities and many different levels of society.

The threat is so real for our law enforcement agents. They are particularly vulnerable because of the cutbacks they have undergone. Their salaries are not on par with some other sectors of society and they themselves in essence can be bought. The member talked about how law enforcement agents themselves may be infiltrated. Could the member expand on that element of his remarks?

He quite rightly says this is a non-partisan issue. I certainly assure him he will get the support from the Conservative Party of Canada.

What particular elements of funding does he see as being the way to address the issue? What elements will help bolster our law enforcement agents and help address the problem of infiltration by organized crime which is buying off our officers, or at least posing that threat to officers in Canada today?