Peter MacKay

[Points Of Order, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in light of reports this morning that confirm, or seem to confirm the government's intention to send a significantly larger force of ground troops to the Balkan region, will there be any indication from the government House leader, or from the government to the House, when parliament will be debating this decision and when there will be a vote on the commitment of further troops prior to the House recessing for the summer?

[Justice, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this debacle continues and the Department of Justice continues its attempts to cover its tracks in what could go down in history as the biggest political witch hunt of all time. It is an international embarrassment.

While the astronomical costs of this ridiculous, ill-founded investigation and litigation continue to mount, the Minister of Justice sits idly by, as did her predecessor.

When will the government cease and desist in its malicious and vindictive obsession to besmirch a former prime minister, from whom it plagiarized most of his policy initiatives?

[Justice, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the atrocious Airbus investigation makes the Canadian justice system the laughing stock of the international community.

The government continues to waste millions of taxpayers dollars on an investigation where the supposed prime suspect has not even been interviewed. The Liberals continue to find money for this investigation by cutting the RCMP, limiting the fight against organized crime and importation of drugs.

How can the Liberal government call itself accountable as it sits back and allows a foreign country to embark on an unlawful exercise of search and seizure when it knows full well that the exercise is not permitted under Canadian law?

[Industry Canada, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, HRDC is not the only department running afoul of the information commissioner. For over three years Industry Canada has refused to explain why it ignored its own published rules in the awarding of digital PCS licences.

One of the unsuccessful bidders, TeleZone Inc. of Toronto, tried to find answers through the Access to Information Act. Industry Canada's stonewalling led the information commissioner to conclude that the department had wrongfully denied TeleZone's request for information.

Consequently, the Federal Court of Canada is now reviewing the industry minister's refusal to act upon the recommendations of the information commissioner.

Meanwhile TeleZone has launched a $250 million civil lawsuit against the Government of Canada which will no doubt result in lengthy litigation.

If PCS licensing decisions in 1995 can bear public scrutiny, why is the Minister of Industry refusing to listen to the information commissioner? Is there a political angle? Will taxpayers be left holding the bag for Liberal incompetence again and again?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in the debate. I noted the comments of the member opposite and I echo much of that sentiment having worked in the court system as well. I know there has been an ongoing need and a need that continues with respect to the recognition of victims and the need to give them the dignity they require after having been victimized.

Sadly, time and time again in the country there have been occasions where victims have felt the wrath of the criminal in the community in the first instance, and then once again felt victimized by a system that was sometimes not sensitive to their needs and their overwhelming feelings of loss after having been victimized or preyed upon.

There is a great deal of positive impact that will be felt from the implementation of Bill C-79. I had the pleasure of participating in the round table that was referred to by the member opposite. We had an incredible representation of stakeholders from across the country from victims' groups. I am very proud to say that from the province of Nova Scotia we had tremendous participation, some might argue disproportionate participation, but it speaks well to our justice system and the sensitivity of my home province of Nova Scotia toward this need and this problem.

The victim impact statement is a matter of law that has been around for some time. It is, for those who might be unfamiliar with the concept, an opportunity for a victim to speak directly not only to the court but to those assembled and, perhaps most importantly, to the offender. It is an opportunity for victims to voice the feeling they might have encompassed as a result of what the offender had done to them personally, to their property or to a loved one. The expansion of the victim impact statement in its use and in its utilization within the courtroom is a very important step forward.

The knowledge that victims have of these processes that are available to them is something that is equally important because those tools, if not made familiar to victims, will not serve the purpose for which they are set out.

Victim impact statements are a very important aspect of the healing that has to take place subsequent to the commission of a crime and subsequent to the often arduous process that victims experience in the court. That includes the delay, the appeal, and often the very rigorous cross-examination and rigorous examination of circumstance that occurs in a courtroom. This is part of our legal system. It is part of the need and necessity to observe principles such as the presumption of innocence. Due process has to run its course, but the victims are often left feeling that this sterile process does not show enough compassion to the pain, not only the external pain but the internal pain that comes about as a result of criminal activity.

Through heightened awareness of the use of victim impact statements and the necessity now of the codification of the requirement that a judge inquire of the crown prosecutor, the victim or their representative as to whether they have availed themselves of a victim impact statement is an important step forward. I do have some reservations as to the broad application of this.

That matter was also raised by provinces, particularly New Brunswick. It brought forward a concern about the current wording of the sections in Bill C-79 which requires that a judge must make these inquiries of the prosecutor. It would be left open to interpretation by the judge in all instances or cases including victimless crime. I am speaking of a situation where damage is done to public property or an impaired driving case, which sadly still remain very prevalent in terms of the caseload in the courts.

When we have the requirement or the necessity for a judge in every instance, including victimless crimes, to make such an inquiry, my submission to the justice department would be that this will cause further delay because of the volume that exists in the courts. Although it may seem momentary in a single case that a judge makes this request or inquiry, when it is done time and time again it will result in a massive amount of wasted court time. Sadly we simply do not have the luxury to waste court time in this day and age.

My amendment is aimed specifically at denoting in a very straightforward way a suggestion to streamline this section that a judge must make these inquiries when a victim exists. I believe the language is such that it is made very clear.

Sadly we have seen time and time again legislation being drafted in a cumbersome and onerous way and being left open to all sorts of judicial and legislative interpretation that what is intended in the legislation is often misdirected and often misinterpreted. This does not serve the purpose the legislative drafters would hope to accomplish. It certainly would not serve the purpose that members of parliament who are involved in this process want to accomplish. We need streamlined, tight legislation, particularly in criminal law where there is a tremendous amount of problems and a tremendous backlog in courts throughout the land.

That is what lawyers do. Lawyers look for an interpretation that would be advantageous to their clients. That is part of the process. It will always be implicit in our legal system. However, common sense is something that should prevail. I believe it should begin at the very first instance, in the drafting process.

I am suggesting that through this amendment we can accomplish more because we can remove some of the delay that will flow from this current section of Bill C-79.

To speak to the larger issue of the impact of the bill, we have seen some very positive legislative initiatives which will touch upon some of the shortcomings that have existed prior to this time and will exist for some time until the actual implementation of Bill C-79 takes place.

One of those initiatives has been mentioned. It involves the use of victim fine surcharges. I have some reservations as to the actual practical application. I hope the revenue that will be generated by the application of victim fine surcharges will find its way into the hands of victims who are feeling aggrieved.

We all know it will not be possible to put victims back into the situation which existed prior to their victimization. We will not be able to remove the bruises, to unviolate a sexual assault victim. We will not be able to erase from their memories or remove the injurious effects which flow from an assault.

At least with some monetary compensation there is an attempt and a recognition. Oftentimes I would suggest strongly that it is recognition victims are looking for, a respect from not only the system but to some small degree perhaps from the accused, from the offender. Monetary compensation for personal damage to property or personal damage to clothing in some small way is a recognition.

I hope the victim fine surcharge will be administered properly. I hope it will not be used for administrative purposes as opposed to the intent, which is to put money or compensation into the pocket of the victim.

I am very pleased to have been a part of the process that brings us to this stage, the deliberations that took place in the justice committee. I was very pleased to see the positive and non-partisan approach taken by all members of the committee. That is very apparent in the House today and we will see it again when it comes time to vote on this legislative initiative.

I congratulate members of the committee. I have no reservation in acknowledging the Minister of Justice and her commitment to this issue. I must recognize as well the late Shaughnessy Cohen as having played an integral part in getting this piece of legislation to the point where we see it today. It is a very fitting tribute to her memory that these implementations will be coming about, to use the minister's words, in a timely fashion.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-79, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 14 with the following:

“offence, where a victim exists, whether the victim or victims have”

[Points Of Order, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate your ruling. If I might, given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not availed himself of Standing Order 81(4), and as a result, all opposition members, and I would suggest even members of the government, cannot avail themselves of this extended period of time for examination of the main estimates, I seek unanimous consent, as House leader of the fifth party in the House, to avail ourselves of that motion.

[Points Of Order, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My colleagues and I consider this to be an important matter regarding adjudication by the Chair.

This morning's notice paper contains a notice which I gave yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) to extend consideration of the estimates of the Department of Human Resources Development beyond the normal date of expiration.

Normally the Leader of the Opposition would give such a notice and tomorrow it would be deemed adopted by the House. However, the Leader of the Opposition has neglected his obligation to use all means to hold the government to account by giving to all members of the House an opportunity to pose questions of the government with respect to billions of dollars of expenditures for authorization.

In the instance of the employment insurance program there are significant issues which I know all members of my party, and I suspect all members of the House, would like to be given the opportunity to address. I know there is no direct precedence in this matter to guide you, Mr. Speaker.

I readily acknowledge that the standing order specifically names the Leader of the Opposition as the member who is entitled to give this notice. However, the closest analogous situation may be found in the the citation 924 at page 257 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. In the case of a conflict among the opposition leaders over the use of an allotted day the Speaker has intervened where there is a breakdown of the informal House leadership machinery.

I believe some analogous precedent can be drawn here. In this instance the failure of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition places every member of the House at a disadvantage. All of us on both sides of the House have operated under the assumption that this debate of the estimates would continue, at least for this one department, past the May 31 deadline because of the expectation that the Leader of the Opposition would move his motion under Standing Order 81(4).

There are urgent questions which all members want answered with respect to the granting of supply in the Department of Human Resources Development. I humbly submit we should not be denied this opportunity, simply because the Leader of the Opposition has failed in his duty to have the entire House given this opportunity.

The Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to let the House of Commons do its work in this important area. This party is prepared and we are asking, Mr. Speaker, that you grant this discretion. Given the abrogation of the responsibility to the whole House by the Leader of the Opposition, I ask that you permit this party and myself as House leader of this party to give this notice which would be considered under Standing Order 84(4) of the standing orders.

I submit that it is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to transfer that power which is normally reserved solely for the Leader of the Opposition to another opposition party which has gone through the normal procedures that would be followed in this matter. We have made the effort to do that and to follow the precedent and procedure that are set. I would ask that the Chair to adjudicate on this matter and I thank the Chair for its indulgence.

[Points Of Order, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I saw on television two ministers of the crown who referred to each other throughout the announcement as Sheila and Sergio. They indicated that the government had decided to significantly change the content and the operation of Bill C-55.

They said that the Senate would be sending the bill back to the House of Commons next week for alteration. It appears that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade are part of the Senate public relations team.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you have received notification of the intention of the government to make ministerial statements either today or tomorrow concerning Bill C-55? I know the Chair will agree that any—

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take from that response that when negotiations fail we bring in the big guns.

Canadians expect the government to obey its own laws but we have seen the government breach contracts, ignore constitutional conventions and now commence an unprecedented expropriation. Pearson airport, helicopter contracts and APEC come to mind.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When did native rights and provincial jurisdiction become so insignificant that the government is willing to ignore them in pursuit of its own negotiation? What options did it consider before it brought in these harsh measures?